Flicking through television channels, you will eventually stumble upon a courtroom drama of some form. The scene is an alarmingly familiar one: two caricature-like members of the public thrash out a legal dispute before the eyes of an animated judge. The courtroom and the stage are strangely similar. Both carry weight of expectations, but the audience can never truly predict what drama will unfold before their eyes. Both hold potential for temper tantrums and emotional pleas directed at bystanders; both verdicts lie firmly in these strangers’ hands. Shifting away from the entertainment value of the law, the Supreme Court is definitely considered the grandest stage for legal dispute. According to an article in The New York Times, the latest case set to pass through those hallowed halls is a constitutional challenge to the hotly-contested health care law, a case which will feature more than five hours of speeches. With legislature that could change the face of American health care, one would assume proceedings would be available to the public, but the Supreme Court has denied a request to televise the case.
While prolonged footage of judicial proceedings may not be everyone’s television of choice, the disappointing decision deals a serious blow to citizens’ rights to such information. Officials argue they are wary of how the case may be oversimplified or epitomized by a few select sound bites. Given the monumentality of the case and its overarching effects, it seems irresponsible to deny wider access to how it develops. If the public was able to witness debate about the bill, perhaps everyone would acquire a better understanding of how the legislation affects this society, as well as be able to sift through superfluous material to access what it actually entails. In a more optimistic vein, Americans may even gain a renewed respect for participants as they directly witness educated, passionate debate. From its conception, the health care law has been shrouded in ambiguity. Here lies an opportunity for clarity.
Furthermore, this is an opportunity to eradicate a middleman that often skews the judicial process for the majority. Here is a chance for Americans to seize an occasion to form their own opinions on a process which should promote awareness and transparency, as opposed to inhibit the democratic process which this nation claims to have at its core.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
