Modern transparency

The members of the Supreme Court of the United States long have made a virtue of obstinacy cloaked as tradition. It is an increasingly unconvincing act.

This week, the court heard the case challenging the constitutionality of the national health care overhaul of 2009. Although it is the most important case in recent memory and was heard over an unprecedented three days of oral arguments, the court stubbornly clung to its policy of opacity in an age of increasing transparency.

You could have heard the arguments of the highest court in this democracy if you were one of 250 people daily to score a ticket, many by sleeping overnight on the court’s steps in the cold and damp.

Or by waiting until the court released audio tapes later in the day.

You could have seen see the arguments of the highest court in this democracy if you were one of the 250.

Or … never. Because no video record is made of the court’s proceedings.

The justices not only have banned cameras and live audio, but also have forbidden live blogging or tweeting from the courtroom.

The prohibition of text-based blogging and tweeting is a headscratcher that leaves us to speculate. Perhaps the justices believe the court would run the risk of being overrun by a flash mob of D.C. tourists whipped to a frenzy by digital incitement.

Sarcasm aside, the justices forbid modern transparency for the same reason that autocracies everywhere do – because they can. The justices hold office for life and, therefore, pretty much don’t have to answer to anyone.

Well, that’s not exactly true. Congress has broad rule-making powers over the judiciary and could end the court’s stubborn arrogance by simply passing a law that opens proceedings to live coverage – video, audio, tweeting and live blogging.

Congress should do so and pending legislation – the Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2011 – would do the trick, at least for television.

The judiciary is part of our government; we should be able to watch it work.