Whose Court Is It?

Agree or disagree, usually on some grounds of immediate pragmatism or personal prejudice, for decades Nat Hentoff is our conscience. Indeed, I would suggest he is the most core “originalist” among commentators, reserving all individual liberties to the individual not explicitly granted to government.

Hentoff holds that mirror to the Supreme Court in today’s column.

Hentoff discusses whether Supreme Court oral arguments should be televised. Justice Scalia is opposed. "We don't want to become entertainment." Scalia said, "I think there's something sick about making entertainment out of real people's legal problems. I don't like it in the lower courts, and I don't particularly like it in the Supreme Court."

In contrary view, Hentoff emphasizes “how important is it for Americans to understand the workings of the Supreme Court”, and that “a lot of times this can seem very abstract, but how do these cases and judgments filter into our everyday lives?" It’s not about “making entertainment”, but allowing unfiltered public access to the deliberations of our government that affect us.

Anyone who has read the oral arguments before the Supreme Court is struck by how relatively little is focused on the specific law, but moreso the practical impacts and interactions. The Justices seek to elicit from the contending sides these fine lines.

If more Americans were witness to these oral arguments, more Americans would have greater appreciation for how decisions come to be made and, maybe, less upset with the outcomes. It’s, simply, not usually as clear as many political partisans or partisan lawyers paint it.

As Hentoff ends his brief, “After all, it's not their court, it's our court.”