Televising Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court

Televising Oral Arguments of the United States Supreme Court In recent years the American public has become fascinated with televising court cases. Some courts have agreed to televise courtroom proceedings. Their decision to do so has led a vast number of citizens to believe that they understand how the judicial system works. I believe popular daytime shows such as Judge Judy, Judge Mathis, and Judge Joe Brown, have poisoned the legal understanding of many Americans. Televising oral arguments from the United States Supreme Court would create more disadvantages then benefits. The United States Supreme Court has difficulty working through their caseload. I believe televising oral arguments will increase the difficulty of productivity. Bringing cameras into the courtroom may alter the legal, personal, and environmental perspectives of court process in a negative manner.
The Supreme Court is the nation’s highest court. Another reason their oral arguments should not be televised is because of its policy making. Though it would be nice to televise the arguments it may make it challenging for justices to create policies that are not influenced by the environment around them. Media coverage may pull justices towards certain ideologies they believe are most important instead of what actually is.
There is also a chance that televising oral argument for the United States Supreme Court will only result in even less unanimity than we see today. Currently, Chief Justice John Roberts is trying to bring the justices of the Supreme Court into harmony. Televising oral argument may make his attempt more difficult and possibly even unsuccessful. The number of concurring and dissenting opinions may just increase.
The media often lacks a full understanding of the judicial system however; their opinion seems to hold much weight with the public. Because the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have a great impact on the lives of the American citizens I think it is crucial