Readers Support Greater Supreme Court Transparency

by Ryan Prior Mar 28, 2012 4:45 PM EDT

141228875CS030_SUPREME_COUR — WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 28: Paul Clement, the attorney representing the 26 states challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, talks to the news media outside the U.S. Supreme Court on the third day of oral arguements over the constitutionality of the act March 28, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Today we asked, "Should The Supreme Court Allow Live Broadcasts of its Hearings?" The results were as follows:

Yes: 64%
No: 21%
And video: 14%
Ambivalent: 1%

With many citing the desire for greater transparency, a majority wanted to allow live broadcasts of Supreme Court hearings. Many believed that greater transparency in the Court would be a boon for the democratic process:

Paul S. Can't believe in this day and age that we can still ask this question. No democratic institution should be anything but free, open and accessible all the time, especially the one created to protect our freedoms and constitution.

However the question didn't specifically address what kind of broadcasts these would be. For those on the fence, there could be room for consensus on broadcasts that didn't overly dramatize the proceedings:

rob654: I don't think it should be aired - as I don't want people acting for the TV and for their next career on TV.

But, maybe a live radio broadcast?

However, transparency and good government are not always synonymous. The Supreme Court exists to interpret with a greater degree of circumspection the laws the legislature passes. A greater "transparency" could easily backfire, doing greater harm than help to democracy:

Murray A. No and no.

The main reason everything is now done behind closed doors in Congress rather than debating on the floor is ... the C-Span cameras.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.