[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 189 (Tuesday, December 11, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H15276-H15277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        EYE ON THE SUPREME COURT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, last week hundreds of citizens stood in the 
first snow of winter in Washington, D.C. for 2 hours, hoping to get a 
coveted seat in the United States Supreme Court building to see the 
oral arguments on the case of the detainees in Guantanamo prisoner of 
war camp and what rights, if any, they have under our Constitution; 
however, the Supreme Court gallery has a mere 50 seats for spectators.
  One of those would-be viewers was a lawyer on my staff, Gina 
Santucci. I wanted her there to find out more about the case and take 
notes. But she, like most of the people in line, never got in to see 
the arguments. There was no room in the room. Those that were allowed 
into the proceedings were only permitted to stay 5 minutes before they 
had to leave and make room for other people in the room.
  Public interest in what takes place in the Supreme Court is a good 
thing. It is important that Americans are concerned about what occurs 
in the Supreme Court, and citizens want to observe the most powerful 
court in action anywhere in the world. But most Americans will never 
have this opportunity to see the questions asked by the Justices of the 
Supreme Court or to hear the arguments over the meaning of our 
Constitution or hear constitutional cases that will go down in history.
  Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 1299 to allow television cameras 
to televise Supreme Court proceedings. Since then, both the House and 
the Senate Judiciary Committees have heard arguments as to why cameras 
should be allowed inside the Supreme Court.
  Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up Senator Specter's 
bill to allow cameras in the Supreme Court. Some Senators were 
concerned that the Department of Justice opposed this bill. Justice 
Department opposed this bill because they say they want to protect the 
``collegial environment'' of the Court. I don't mean to intrude on what 
a ``collegial environment'' is, but what is it?
  I thought the business before the Supreme Court is a matter the 
American people have an interest in, not just the college of lawyers 
that appear before the court.
  We have cameras in these House Chambers, and I never thought about 
whether the camera here on the House floor affects the collegiality 
between the fellow representatives that we work with. Most of us hardly 
notice the camera at all. And today's cameras are so small and 
unobtrusive, they are not noticed. They don't affect our daily routine 
here in the House, but they allow Americans across the vastness of the 
fruited plain to tune in to see what their government is up to every 
day.
  Now, I doubt if the Supreme Court TV channel will win the fall 
sweeps, but it will allow Americans who live in the 50 States to 
observe the oral arguments that take place. Some say they are against 
cameras in the courtroom because attorneys play to the camera and try 
to impress the viewing audience.
  Madam Speaker, attorneys don't play to the camera, they play to the 
jury. I know because I played to the jury for 8 years as a prosecutor 
in Texas. However, there isn't even a jury to impress in the Supreme 
Court. In fact, there really isn't a time to grandstand in the Supreme 
Court. Oral arguments in the Supreme Court involve the best appellate 
attorneys in the country, facing a spew of questions from nine Justices 
who are asking a barrage of legal questions to these lawyers making 
them justify their legal positions on their case.
  I only explain how the oral arguments work in the Supreme Court 
because most Americans are unaware of the proceedings and the 
procedures since they don't have the opportunity to view Supreme Court 
oral arguments personally. Unless there are cameras, Americans will 
never have the chance to see what takes place in a courtroom, the most 
powerful courtroom in the whole world, the Supreme Court courtroom.
  I know cameras can be placed in a courtroom without disruption or 
distraction because I did it. For 22 years,

[[Page H15277]]

I served as a felony court judge in Houston, Texas. I heard over 25,000 
criminal cases and a thousand jury trials. Some of those were filmed by 
the TV media. I even televised a capital murder trial. My rules were 
simple and always obeyed by the media: No filming of rape victims, 
children, the jury, or certain other witnesses. The camera filmed what 
the jury saw and heard. And, Madam Speaker, I had no problem with the 
media at all. We need to let the public see a real trial in progress, 
and cameras have made that possible.
  Americans have the right to watch Supreme Court proceedings in 
person. We have the best judicial system ever created in the history of 
the world. Why not prove it by filming these proceedings? Americans 
should not be deprived of the right to observe just because they cannot 
physically sit in the Supreme Court courtroom. It is time to remove the 
veil of secrecy from the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court and allow 
cameras to film these important proceedings.
  Justice would be better served if we open the doors to the Supreme 
Court to cameras because justice is the one thing we should always 
find.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________