Honestly, I don’t see how audio is such a threat to judicial intregity or anything. And, heck, we still won’t know what Souter looks like or see Thomas not asking anything or some older justice dozing off. All will be happy.

She says that “the Justices’ true thinking often does not come out at oral argument.” Nevertheless, the news media routinely quotes the Justices after oral argument. The entire transcript is available on the Internet in any event, and for some cases the Justices have authorized the release of audio recordings. So the contents of oral argument are already widely available anyway — just not on televison.

She says the Court is “more open than the other two branches of government.” That is laughable. The only times the Court is publicly accessible is when it hears oral argument and when it announces its decisions. Neither is televised. The actual decision-making process is, of course, is more secretive at the Court than it is for either of the other two branches. (I am not saying the Justices’ decision-making process ever could be opened to full public scrutiny, merely illustrating the absurdity of Whitman’s comment.)

Bottom line is somethings just don’t need to be televised, and this is one of them..I question what is next, a proposal to put cameras in jury deliberation rooms across the country or perhaps the Justices private conferences?..