Dem suggests sneaking camera into Supreme Court would be ‘very easy’

Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.) on Thursday gave a near endorsement for the public to ignore Supreme Court rules and sneak cameras into its open proceedings. 

Connolly, who has long supported legislation to force cameras into the court, made the remarks while unveiling new legislation with his colleagues to force all U.S. appeals courts to open their oral arguments to cameras and live streams. 

{mosads}”We have a long tradition of civil disobedience in America,” he said. “And when the court is as obstinate as it is on this subject, it invites civil disobedience — especially given the technology that now exists. It is very easy to go into a building like this undiscovered and use technology to do what the court itself will not do — make itself accountable and transparent to the public.”

Connolly made similar remarks in April after the advocacy group 99Rise surreptitiously recorded their interruption of the court. The group has recorded their protests in court on numerous occasions. 

Four lawmakers introduced the Eyes on the Courts Act on Thursday just as the new Supreme Court session begins. Reps. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Ted Poe (R-Texas) sponsored the legislation, along with Connolly. 

Apart from Connolly, the sponsors were wary of surreptitious recording. 

“Look, I believe that we should follow the rules, I just want to change the rules,” Quigley said. 

“You can’t justify violation of the law,” Nadler added. “I certainly wouldn’t. But we ought to change the law to make it sensible to people.”

While bringing a camera into the courtroom violates the court’s rules, it does not appear that there is a law associated with that rule in which an individual could be charged. Protesters are usually charged for their outbursts. 

Thursday’s legislation would require the Supreme Court and appeals courts to allow video recording and live streams of their proceedings. It would also task the Judicial Conference with developing guidelines to manage the “photographing, recording, broadcasting, televising, or streaming” in the courts. 

Similar proposals focused solely on the high court, and they have received little movement in past years. Supreme Court justices have also been resistant to making the change on their own. 

“I have hope Congress will act,” Quigley said. “I’m sure you think I am overly optimistic, because I don’t know, I’m a Cubs fan.”

Nadler said the best arguments to keep cameras out of the courts deals with trial courts, involving witnesses. He asserted those arguments do not apply to appeals courts.  

— Updated 1 p.m.