USA Today calls Supremes 'petulant,' 'imperious' for not allowing cameras in court

The closest the public can get to knowing what goes on inside a Supreme Court hearing without actually being inside is a shoddy audio tape of the proceedings. It's not like C-SPAN where cameras installed in the House and Senate catch every homely representative picking his or her nose.

So anyone who wasn't actually at the Supreme Court for this week's hearings on two separate same-sex marriage cases didn't see anything. Editors at USA Today are upset about it...

They write in an editorial Thursday:

On the high-interest cases — such as gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action and the contested presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore — the justices' reasons for excluding cameras sound petulant and even paternalistic.

During their confirmation hearings, Sotomayor and Elana Kagan, the court's two newest members, favored opening the court to cameras. Kagan said it would be "a great thing for the institution and ... a great thing for the American people." She was right. But it took just a few years behind the court's isolating marble walls for both to flip-flop. Sotomayor recently observed that most viewers wouldn't understand the process, that justices are often playing devil's advocates. That sounds imperious. And even if it's true, it's all the more reason to let people learn by watching.

@eScarry