WASHINGTON — Rivals of spotlight-loving Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, joke that he never met a TV camera he did not like. He has now: those proposed for federal courts.
Hatch is waging an increasingly tough battle to continue to ban TV cameras there, arguing they could turn federal courts into circuses akin to the O.J. Simpson trial. (Of course, local courts in almost all states have allowed cameras for years to mixed reviews.)
Hatch managed for years to block cameras in federal courts — but lost a round last month in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs.
It approved on a lopsided 14-4 vote a bill to allow individual federal judges to decide whether to allow cameras in their courtrooms on a case-by-case basis.
Hatch argued unsuccessfully that "cameras can intimidate civil defendants who, regardless of the merits of their case, might prefer to settle rather than risk damaging accusations in a televised trial."
He worries that too many lawyers and witnesses will posture for cameras and turn it into a circus (an argument many made about Congress itself before it allowed its debates to be televised). He worries about added security risks for judges, marshals and attorneys that would arise from extra publicity.
But Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chief sponsor of the bill, says the best way to maintain confidence in the judicial system "is to let the sun shine in by opening up the courtroom to public scrutiny through broadcasting."
Some Republicans say Hatch still may be able to prevent consideration of the bill by the full Senate, or kill it (even though its sponsors added to it a provision that Hatch has long sought to raise pay for federal judges). Others say the strong bipartisan vote in Hatch's committee shows the time for cameras in federal courts has come.
Even if Congress passes the bill, I bet most federal courts would not allow cameras — especially in the U.S. Supreme Court. Why? Justices would lose the privacy and anonymity they now enjoy. I have three examples.
First, years ago I covered a case at the Supreme Court on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortion on demand. Because of the anniversary, the court was surrounded by protesters on both sides of the abortion issue. They yelled at each other, and police removed some amid pushing and shoving.
Many also crowded into the Supreme Court's cafeteria for a snack. I saw then-Justice Harry Blackmun eating there with his clerks. He wrote the Roe v. Wade decision. But protesters who hated it walked by him oblivious to whom he was. Had he been on TV more, things may have been different — and dangerous.
I saw another example when I had an office near the rear of the Supreme Court. I remember watching the street one day when Dick Thornburgh, attorney general for George H.W. Bush, was personally arguing a case there — a big deal at the time.
The road was closed as Thornburgh's motorcade pulled into a parking garage with sirens blaring. Secret Service officers walked nearby talking into microphones on their wrists to protect him.
Just as the motorcade disappeared, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist happened to walk out the back door of his court for a stroll. He had no security — even though he was arguably much more important than Thornburgh. Few people he passed had any idea who he was.
Finally, Tony Mauro, a reporter for American Lawyer, tells how he once saw Justice Anthony Kennedy walk across the Supreme Court plaza. A family of tourists asked Kennedy to take their picture — oblivious to who he was, and that maybe they would want a picture of him instead.
Judges would lose that anonymity with TV — which could make them celebrities, with all the problems that brings. Few seem to want that.
So even if Hatch loses battles in the Senate to block cameras in federal courts, his side will likely win the way anyway. It is a good bet judges will keep finding reasons to exclude cameras (as the Judicial Conference has continued to oppose them). Judges would rather have the cameras aimed at Hatch. He probably would, too.
Deseret News Washington correspondent Lee Davidson can be reached by e-mail at lee@desnews.com