David Harsanyi does a nice job attacking the idea that cameras belong in the Supreme Court (“Oyez Only,” November 16), but he omits what is perhaps the most important reason for a camera-free Court: The oral arguments generally don’t matter much, and it would be a mistake to make people think otherwise. The arguments might be great theater, and most of the justices love the back-and-forth. But if lawyers haven’t put together their positions in the strongest, most coherent way in the briefs, it’s unlikely they’ll be able to salvage the situation in the courtroom. (Though often ridiculed, Justice
Something to Consider
If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it?
If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS.