Note to Students: Read the "Background" below before answering the questions.

1.  a) How many justices are currently on the Supreme Court?
b) Name each justice and the president who appointed him/her.
c) Between which months is the court in session?

2. What information does the public have access to on all cases heard during each term of the U.S. Supreme Court?

3. Who is pushing the justices to open the courtroom to television cameras?

4. What is the implied reason for this request?

5. Define transparent and secretive.

6. Those pushing for court proceedings to be televised say it is the only way to have real transparency; they imply that the Court is secretive.
a) Is the Court secretive? Explain your answer.
b) Are court proceedings transparent? Explain your answer.

CHALLENGE QUESTION:
Read the following pros and cons, excerpted from "Cameras in the Courtroom"? (from sfbar.org/forms/sfam/q22012/scw-cameras-in-the-courtroom.pdf - published Summer 2012)

PRO - reasons for allowing cameras:

• by advancing transparency, televising the arguments would help strengthen our democracy. Only an informed citizenry can hold accountable both the Court and the politicians who appoint the justices. 
• televising Supreme Court arguments would help educate the public about the workings of our government and the Court itself. Short news clips will not substitute for reading the Court's opinions, but the television coverage will bring conversations about the Court into more homes and classrooms.
• although Supreme Court proceedings already are open in many ways, they are not equally open to all.  Few people can afford to leave work and travel to Washington, D.C., to wait in the public line to view an argument. The prospect of getting a seat becomes even dimmer with the advent of professional line standers, like those from LineStanding.com, who are paid up to $50 an hour to secure spots in the long line, and then are relieved at the last minute by their “customers.”
• The Court’s written opinions are sometimes hard for nonlawyers to understand and do not substitute for observing the arguments. The online audio recordings are less convenient than television and harder to navigate.

CON - reasons for not allowing cameras:

• Cameras would change—and detract from—how Court proceedings are conducted. Some justices have expressed concerns that lawyers and even the justices would engage in “grandstanding” for the camera or otherwise would tailor their behavior to the public eye. Perhaps more troubling, the justices might censor their questions or remarks for fear they may be misunderstood or quoted out of context.
• Cameras would provide little added benefit. The Court’s work already is transparent in the most crucial way: its decisions are described and defended in writing and made part of the public record, with concurring and dissenting views aired simultaneously. Justices have emphasized that this is the principal way in which the Court’s work can and should be judged. The Court proceedings themselves also are open to the public (although seating can be very limited). In recent years, the Court has used technology to make its work more accessible: published decisions are available online upon release; a full transcript of each argument is available on the Court’s website hours after argument; and audio recordings are available online each week. Opponents of cameras question what added benefit the public would receive from being able to see the justices’ faces — other than to make the cases more readily clipped for news sound bytes and quips from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
• Some justices have raised separation of powers concerns over the prospect of Congress telling a coordinate branch of government how to conduct its proceedings, and have strongly urged Congress not to force the cameras issue.

a)  How legitimate are each of these positions on cameras in the Courtroom?  Explain your answer for both the pro and con.
b)  Can you think of any additional reasons for supporting or opposing televising court proceedings?