Roll the cameras at Supreme Court

C-Span junkies sit through hours of insufferable blabber during congressional floor proceedings to catch the occasional moment of insightful debate.

In contrast, citizens who witness oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court are often treated to an intense, one-hour lesson on some of the most compelling constitutional issues of the day.

Unfortunately, only a few hundred people queue up at the nation's highest courthouse on days when the court is in session, and that's the only way to view the nine justices in action. C-SPAN has taken the lead in pressing for camera access to the high court's proceedings, and the nonprofit cable company's executives are hoping the latest vacancy on the court will be filled with a judge who is sympathetic to their cause.

This is not about providing more thought-provoking programming for insomniacs and midnight snackers, although that's a nice side benefit. Improved public access would heighten understanding and confidence in our third and most mysterious branch of government.

The main argument against the proposal, put forth primarily by a few camera-shy justices, is that televised hearings will turn the court into a media circus like the one already spinning in 24-hour video loops from Capitol Hill. That's an extreme scenario that ignores deep differences between the two institutions that cannot be erased by a few television cameras.

The nine justices are not politicians. Most are capping long, established legal careers with bench appointments that are theirs for life. There's little motivation to preen or pontificate.

Whereas the 111th Congress has spent a combined 1,208 hours in session thus far, the Supreme Court hears roughly 75 oral arguments each year, strictly limited to one hour apiece. The format, in which justices grill opposing attorneys on the soundness of their legal reasoning, doesn't lend itself to showboating. There is no jury to be swayed by media coverage and no traumatized victims testifying on the stand.

Justice David Souter famously resolved in 1996 that cameras would come into the court chamber "over my dead body." Here's hoping his replacement will be less prone to melodrama.

Several other members, including Chief Justice John Roberts, have expressed more openness to the idea. Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whose confirmation hearings begin later this month, is already accustomed to presiding in New York's Second Circuit, where cameras are permitted.

The Supreme Court has made concessions to transparency by releasing transcripts of its proceedings and the occasional audio recording for major cases. That leaves the justices just one small step away from embracing the 21st century and a modern citizenry's expectations for access to its government institutions.

As a new justice prepares to take the bench, it's time to crank up the cameras.