Why Supreme Court proceedings shouldn’t be televised

James Hohmann has this piece in the Washington Post making the argument against televising the high court’s arguments.

I disagree with Hohmann on one point. He concedes away the argument that some attorneys presenting argument might play to the cameras.

The core arguments against the move have changed little since the first bill to allow cameras in the court was introduced in 1937. The justices mainly express fear that practitioners would play to the television audience instead of to the justices themselves. But these advocates can easily preen for gaggles of journalists on the steps outside after they address the court — they would be foolish to spend their time before the justices doing anything but trying to win votes.

First, since when is the fact that it would be foolish to do X a guarantee that no one will do X? People do foolish things all the time.

Second, preening for journalists on the steps is less newsworthy and less likely to make the national newscasts than grandstanding during argument itself. For those attorneys determined to make a splash in what may be their only appearance before the high court, the temptation may well be too much.

That would, of course, be unethical, placing the attorney’s own interest ahead of the client’s. And is our profession 100% ethical? Not even close.