Televising Supreme Court Oral Argument?

Abstract

This article analyzes the cogency of claims about the purported benefits and risks associated with televising oral argument. It considers two purported benefits of broadcasts (civic education for the sake of greater public understanding of the Court as an institution and for the sake of holding the Court responsible for its policies) and three purported risks (distorted public perceptions of the Court's work, interfering with the Court's work, and undermining the Court's cultural status). The central thesis is that the cogency of claims about these benefits and risks is so beset by uncertainties and ambiguities that justifying claims is thoroughly problematic.