Why not let public hear ACA ruling?

Opinion: June 22, 2012 at 12:00a.m.

It’s bad enough that all most people know about Supreme Court rulings is what TV talking heads say the justices did, regardless of what the members of the highest court in the land actually said.

But if TV cameras recorded the court’s opinion announcements, and news reports aired sound bites, just imagine the distortions and misinformation that could spread. Justice Antonin Scalia might go viral saying the Affordable Care Act “is a wise law” when he actually said something more like, “our task was not to decide whether the act is a wise law.”

Is that possibility reason enough not to let the public hear the court’s decision announcements for themselves in timely fashion?

Sure, Rush Limbaugh might bash the justices over the head with clips of their pronouncements in open court. Stephen Colbert almost surely would poke wicked satirical fun at them. And most of the public still wouldn’t bother to actually read the opinions. What else is new?

Of course, getting to see or hear the justices in action might give average Americans a better understanding of how this business of deciding exceedingly complicated legal disputes isn’t as simple as a sound bite. That’s of great public value.

Cameras in both state and federal courtrooms across the country have provided more enlightenment than voyeuristic opportunity. But the Supreme Court continues to refuse to consider broadcasts of arguments or even taping for later airing.

Narrower request

The leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee and several dozen media groups recently tried a narrower request, asking the justices to allow audio/video when they announce their ruling in three cases involving the federal healthcare law’s validity.

The court’s press office gives a heads-up on which days opinions will be announced but never reveals beforehand which rulings will be released. On decision days, the justices enter the courtroom and the chief justice tells those assembled something along the lines of, “Justice So-and-so will announce the decision in case number thus-and-such.”

Last term the court moved into the 20th century by posting audio of oral arguments on its website, www.supremecourt.gov, though not until the Friday of argument weeks. The court’s recordings of opinion announcements are held until the end of each term and then given to the National Archives (which also receives the argument audio).

Most ordinary folks can’t be there when decision days turn dramatic, and no one knows when one of the justices will speak extemporaneously.

I’ll never forget June 21, 1989, when the court ruled 5-4 that Texas couldn’t punish flag-burning done as political protest. Justice William Brennan, for the majority, and Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, each read stirring, eloquent, spellbinding opinions.

On March 26, 1991, Justice Byron White, who never read his opinions, surprised everyone by breaking with form to dissent because he so vehemently disagreed with the majority holding that a coerced confession doesn’t necessarily undermine a criminal conviction.

Justice Clarence Thomas rarely speaks in the courtroom, so it was momentous that he read from his dissent when the court on June 29, 2006, ruled against the Bush administration on its military commissions for handling terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Oyez Project (oyez.org), an invaluable resource at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, makes announcement recordings accessible online, including through iTunes, but only well after the fact. A trio of political scientists relied on Oyez for a recent Minnesota Law Review article on why justices read their dissents from the bench.

Announcement recording

Media groups, including Fort Worth Star-Telegram parent The McClatchy Co., last week asked the court to at least release its own announcement recording right after the health-care decision comes out, though the preference was for live video/audio of the proceedings.

Supreme Court press corps veteran Lyle Denniston wrote on scotusblog.com that “live audio access” would be a historic change. But immediate release of the court’s recording wouldn’t be so radical. The public could benefit from hearing the justices’ voices, not just reading their words.

Linda P. Campbell is a columnist and editorial writer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Distributed by MCT Information Services.