the witness table, he admonished me public for not moving this bill more quickly, mr. chairman, supreme court justices are appointed for a lifetime. they make decision in the elys of americans, yet the so-called public hearings of the supreme court are open only to 250 americans on a real-time basis. just how important is it in a democracy to bring the proceedings of an important american institution like the supreme court into full view of the american people. people in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it's difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.

those are the words of chief justice berger in 1986 in the supreme court's press enterprise company versus superior court. for too long the american people have been effectively prohibited from observing the open sessions of the supreme court. think about our extra effort to make certain the nominations process are available to every american on a real-time basis. we believe that is a valuable part of our decision-making process. our bill would require televising all -- a majority of the justices of the supreme court can determine that the public televising of these proceedings would violate the due process rightses of one more

or of the justices of the supreme court and could literally close the cameras. there's just no justification about such a powerful element of government to argue such a view outside the american people. the supreme court considers many important things and soon they will consider affordable health care act, a measure which literally touches the lives of every single american, every family, every business. i think it's important that as our hearings and deliberations on that measure were open to the

public, the actual arguments before the supreme court should be open as well. it is in bipartisan agreement of that particular piece of legislation. democrats and republicans of both chambers have urged the court to air live video broadcasts. some argue that the supreme court is already sufficiently open and accessible because the court releases audio recordenings at the end of the week, makes written -- on the website and offers 250 seats to the 350 million people who live in america, with the preference of those who have been admitted to the supreme court to practice. despite this accessibility is the glaring omissions that are the video and audio broadcast.

there are some who say we should not allow cameras in the supreme court because only bits and pieces of the recordings will be televised and they may where taken out of context that. reminds me of an editorial comment a few years ago saying keeping cameras out to prevent people from getting the wrong idea is a little like removing paintings from the art history museum fearing that the people will not appreciate the art -- for two decades the legislative sessions have been broadcast live and the legislative branch is better for it. the majority of states permit live video coverage in some or all of their courts, it's time the united states supreme court did the same. >> i would like to put a statement put into record by senator lee. i will stay here for all the --

let me call the role right now on the bill. >> i'm going to be very brief. >> well, if we lose the quorum, we will put it on the agenda -- certainly anybody can talk as long as they like, and i know --. >> chairman, when you finish the vote. >> of course, i'll stay here. >> thank you. >> i'll call the role. [ inaudible ] >> no. >> mr. derbin. >> aye. [ inaudible ] >> aye. [ inaudible ] >> aye. [ inaudible ] >> mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. graham.

i have no proxy. >> no proxy. [ inaudible ] . >> by proxy. [ inaudible ] >> mr. chairman. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, the votes are 11 yea, 7 nay. >> thanks for holding back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have opposed this in the past, i see no reason to change my point of view. and let me give you my opinion. the court does not want this, they may not want to speak out as a whole, but justice scalia, rehnquist, kennedy and have opposed it. so five justices have opposed it. i don't believe we should tell the supreme court what to do. we are separate branches of government. and i do not believe the justice is better because it's televised. and i have seen actual

situations where in my view it is worse where it is televised. i understand that there is a move to do this, this bill does have a narrow exception, except that exception is so narrow, that it is rarely used. i believe it has opened the door to television and in my observations, when this reaches the trial court, you see prosecutors perform, you see defense attorneys perform and i'm sorry to say, you see judges perform. and the simpson case was a big case in point, in my view. so i have come to the conclusion that because something is televised justice is not necessarily better, justice depends on the law and the interpretation and application

of that law. i recognize that i'm in the minority, but i did cast my no vote, so thank you very much. >> and i appreciate this, and i note that the senator has mentioned this to me previously. i would also put in the record senator grassley's statement which would fall in tradition that would fall immediately after mine in the record. >> thank you, i appreciate your work on this bill, mr. chairman, and particularly senator derbin and senator grassley, we had a very good hearing on this. my good colleague, senator feinstein, we have had a spirited debate about this at the hearing, many good witnesses and a few things that i used from that hearing that i think helps to respond to what the senator said. first of all, the iowa chief justice testified that the concerns that some people have had with televised court

proceedings have just not materialized in iowa, they have had cameras in the courtroom, all of their hearings are televised. they have been able to move forward as a court and they have seen it as a positive thing. and this is true of other courts in the land. the other piece about this, and i do have simply for the -- being a former prosecutor for eight years on the trial level, that you would not want to televise every trial, that there have been issues with that, that a judge should be able to make that kind of decision, but i think crew'you're in a whole different land when you're talking about the supreme court of our land, and that is the supreme court, you don't have the issue of witnesses somehow being affected by having a camera on or those types of concerns that you would have or that they would somehow act differently because the camera is on. and i would note that while some of the justs have taken a position against this, i think it was former just suitor that it was over his dead body that

it would be televised, that other of the newer justices, particularly justice kagan at her confirmation hearing took the position that she thought that the court proceedings should be televised and under the bill that senator derbin has drafted, the fact that five justices are against it, that any other hearing they would actually actually volt to not have it televised so it would immediately not be televised if that's what they chose to do. on the other hand times will change and i think as you see newer justices come on, that they are going to start having views that you are going to see by justice kagan's testimony and we also have the fact that this is what i really don't get, we release now the proceedings on audio a few days later. you don't get it the same day, a few days later, sometimes they do it in the same day. and this is what justice robinson mentioned is that what

used to happen, they sporadically issued an audiotape. the audiotape and the videotape is not a major step to me, it's simply making it more available to people so they can see their court in action, this is the supreme court of the land, you do not have the -- and i'm hopeful that eventually we will be able to watch our court on tv and that it will not simply be few people who are able to get int into that courtroom with a public proceedings that people will have the wherewithal to get in the door and get a seat, not just those people that want to watch it can watch it, not just the ones that can afford plane fare to go to washington, d.c. >> i want to add my voice first of all on the judgeship confi confirmation issue, i went to

the floor as a chairman the other day to speak about the need to hasten the confirmation process, not avoid careful scrutiny, but simply to fill the judgeships that are open and to ease the vacancy crisis that we have right now and my hope is that we can do so better than we have already. second, on the measure before us, if this bill is successful, i want to state my own view that the supreme court could argument by argument, case by case, exercise it's judgment as to whether or not the balance of public interest should be struck in favor of closing the courtroom in an exceptional case, but it should be only in an exceptional case where the dangers of theatrics or h

histrionics make it available and accessible. and that's really the goal here, to educate and inform and to meet the present -- but also to inform the public about what the supreme court is doing. i am not your -- sure that everyone in the company would agree that the level of interest in every session of the supreme court is as mornimportant as th super bowl. but there's some cases where it should be on par and there should be accessibility. you know the danger is real and it's real in every case and i can say as one who has tried cases in state and federal court and as one who has argued several cases in the united

states supreme court. the advocate always has to make a judgment about whether the judge will react and the jury will react in one way or another and the control of the courtroom ultimately is in the hands of the judge and as i said, when we heard from justices scalia and briar, that any one of those justices implying an advocate that is before the court will cause great caution and ultimately will result in the kind of self-discipline that i think will avoid the kinds of dangers that we have been discussing and if i can just take senator derbin's annal si, i want to associate myself with its remarks as well as the chairman and the ranking members and all the very important and powerful remarks. it's not just that we are

closing the art galleries or the museums because the public may not understand the ark, it's that we fear some danger to the ark itself. and the whole purpose of ark is to make it accessible and available to the public. why else do people do paintings or sculptures, and the same is true in many respects of our democracy. the fear that public access will somehow harm the process runs exactly count tore the purpose of the process itself. so thank you for giving us this opportunity to vote on the bill. >> well, thank you. and of course, senator, you are attorney general of your state and like many others, you have had a chance to vote and argue trial cases and appellate cases and i think senator feinstein is still in the committee room, she

made empreference to the simpso trial, i totally agree became a immedia media circus. i was highly critical of a judge that did not maintain the courtroom the way they should, but i know there's a huge difference between a trial and an appellate argument, should have every limitation of time, should have a very struck schured thing, i think that appellate litigants, it would be hard to find one that wants to grandstand an appellate argument. i have argued an awful lot of cases in fellow courts, it just does not work and one you have a very limited period of time

unlike the open ended aspects of a trial and i think we're dealing with different things. but i think that there is, as senator derbin noted, prior to this bill, which allows a vote to close on a specific thing and i imagine it may be such cases -- it would be very rare, but it would be such cases. i have wrestled with this idea during my years here in the senate, but i'm afraid when you have so much distortion of what goes on in our government by some of the media, some of the blogs and so on, where you're helped the most is to have as much openness as possible to as many people as possible.

i am constantly surprised at people who come up to me and talk about some hearing they saw on cspan. i mean a very, very routine hearing. at a time when people feel more and more alienated from their government, i agree with senator derbin, senator grassley and others, open the court up more, open it up more, let people see what is going on. and i was here when the debate was made first to a radio broadcast of the senate, i believe that may have been the panama canal debate.

if senator derbin suggests it was telecast, not only paging the seed, but arranging for the equipment. i would say something else but we are in an open session. the senate didn't collapse and then we were meant to television, and there was many who didn't like the idea. and there was some grandstanding that went on. and there always will be. but the country is better for it. and when we have had serious and major debates on arms treaties, whether to go to war or not, people are moved, you ought to know what the people who are representing you, whether it's in courts or anywhere else are doing and saying. more openness, the better off we are in democracy. we will stand in recess and i thank you all.

the committee approved the measure with an 11-7 vote which moves the bill forward. it would put television cameras inside the supreme court, but still allow the justices to ban cameras in certain instances. we want your opinion on this. should supreme court proceedings be televised? go to facebook daup/c-span to

let us know. two supreme court justices testified before the senate judiciary committee about the impact of televising procedures. they answer questions from senator blumenthal. >> i was impressed why you think it is important for the public to appreciate what judging is and what role it plays in our system. not only is there the need, but there is the lack of a that understanding. but as one as argued and also a former law clerk who sat through a year of arguments and learned so much about the system in that process, why not open to video recording.

why not give the public the benefit of seeing it firsthand in your court and other federal courts and so appreciate really the quality as well as the diversity and extraordinarily often difficulty of what you do. >> i'll start. >> when i first came on the court, i was in favor of -- you were just talking about televising the arguments, right, not the conference. the brazilian supreme court, they televise hatheir conferenc. >> you would never presume or think of that. >> nor would i. >> i was initially in favor of televising. but the longer i've been there, the less good of an idea i think it is. the justification usually put forwis educate the american people about what the court is and what it's not. if i really thought the american people would get educated, i'd be all for it.

and if they sat that you a day's of our proceedings gavel to gavel, boy, would it teach them a lot. tell learn that we're not most of the time looking up at the sky and saying should there be a right to this or that. that we're doing real law. the bankruptcy code, the internal revenue code. people would never again come up to me and ask as they assigns do, justice scalia, why do you have to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court some the constitution doesn't say so. no, of course it doesn't. but 99% of what we do is law. it's stuff that only lawyers can do. and if the people would learn that, it would be a great piece of education. but for every ten people who sat through our proceedings, gavel to gavel, there would be 10,000 who would see nothing but a 30 second take out from one of the proceeding proceedings would not be

representative of what we do. i'm very sure that that would be the consequence and therefore, i'm not in favor of it being televised. >> but it would for high school students, or even middle school students and for the general public who were interested in an important and pertinent case provide a means for them to see what -- right now only a very limited audience can view because of the size of the court. >> but for those who are interested in it for those intellectual reason, surely the tapes are good enough. >> the tapes with all due respect, and i understand your argument, don't convey in the same way with as much interest the kind of debate back and forth, the visual sense of the action in court and i know and you know really how dramatic can

be. >> would they just sit this hlie sticks on chairs? there's a whole not of visual motion. it's intellectual motion. >> i can tell you it's certainly gripping if you're answering questions. justice breyer, do you have a different view? >> no, but i think we're more conservative and you would be too, if you were will. the court has served the country well over a long period of time. we're trustees.twill. the court has served the country well over a long period of time. we're trustees.hewill. the court has served the country well over a long period of time. we're trustees.rewill. the court has served the country well over a long period of time. we're trustees.ill. the court has served the country well over a long period of time. we're trustees.ll. the court has served the country well over a long period of time. we're trustees.. the court has served the country well over a long period of time. we're trustees.. the court has served the country well over a long period of time. we're trustees. we don't want to make a decision that would be -- when we think we had the term limit case out of arkansas, i wish people could have seen that. it was such a good case. i mean, you had jefferson and madison on the other side.

and it was the term limit. and what you saw is everything evenly balanced with the precedence and -- >> i won't go into the case, but if they could have seen that across the country, people would have been able to see in that oral argument nine individuals struggling with a really difficult and important constitutional question. >> so what's the problem? >> well, one problem is that we're a symbol and if it were us in our court, it would probably be in every criminal case of the country and you would get rid of what? what do we do with jurors? what about the criminal witnesses? you don't know what happens with them. or would people come up with a misimpression, namely the oral argument 5% of the case, 3% of the case, they don't see that and people relate to people. you relate to people.

i do. when you see them, they're your friends or not your friends or whatever. but we're making decisions that are there to affect 309 million people that aren't there and in our mind, we have to take those 309 million into account. and will that come across. and then there's the problem that justice scalia mentioned which is you can make people look good or you can make them look bad depending on what 30 seconds you take and let's not make it worse. we wear black reasons because we're speaking for the law, not for ourselves as individuals. so add those up and you say i don't know. i would like to know more. i really would. there are places that have it and don't have it. there are courts that have it and don't have it. california in some situations. you have 100 different situations in respect to that. why can't we get some real information not pegged by

anybody who has an interest. and see what happens to tjudicil attitudes to others. and maybe eventually it will be there is no other way to see things but visually and everybody's doing that and then won't even -- it will just seem weird what we do now and it will all change. but before that time, i think when -- a little boring, but i think information is something that would make me easier. and until i become easy about it, up we become reasonably convinced that won't hurt the sfugs, you're going to get a conservative reaction. that's what i think is -- >> senator, it's maybe unfair to put this this question to you since you're such a youngster here, but do you really -- >> best thing that's been said about me in a long time. >> do you really think the process in the senate has been improved since the proceedings have been televised?

>> well, just as you took a pact earlier -- i think there are mixed view, but i think in general openness and trafrns parns city improves institutions. and for all the reasons that you have so elegantly talked about your role in educating the american public, i think that an audio and visual recording of supreme court hearings would potentially do the same. and i think that whatever the result of televising senate proceedings, and i was only i a facetious when i would you would take a pass. i think it has been a step in the right direction of providing transparency and understanding on the part of the public. i'll let you and the public be the judge of how it views ,