Televison V SCOTUS

Under discussion in the Senate is the discussion of whether or not to allow or require Televison during U.S. Supreme Court Proceedings. Should the Supreme Court proceedings be televised?: The House jsut passed the measure and sent it up to the Senate on Dec 10, 2007 At the outset, the promotion of open discussion appears to be the single best argument for doing so. As it stands, the process is not undocumented, and those parties having an interest are usually able to attend. Heisenberg proved that the mere act of observing something DOES change it. (Law of Physics.) Does this hold true of the Supreme Court's decision making process? Since observing the process may change it, televising the proceedings might be good for you, if you didn't like the way the proceedings were going. Sometimes I am not that happy about the way the proceedings go, only to be presented with a perceived judicial 'fait acomplis.' However, changing a process does not garauntee an outcome. Note: The Justices are already televised on CSPAN on a regular schedule, so the public is already familiar with their appearance, mannerisms and judicial philosophy. However, the Court of Public Opinion is seldom fair. The Court is in the business of deciding justice, and may be forced to attempt to address public opinion if the proceedings are televised. The matter of addressing the court of public opinion would account for Justice Kennedy's attitude that Justices might be tempted to mug for the camera. I guess at this point I am coming down squarely in the "don't televise" camp, but perhaps the factor that an AMICUS brief may be submitted by interested parties who have given forethought to the issue should be better publicized, or more widely known. It leaves me wondering who decided to introduce the bill in Congress, and what their driving motivation was. As a rhetorical vehicle, I might suggest the poetic comment, "Even lady liberty needs her privacy."