The only legitimate reason I can think of for prohibition of cameras is to prevent lawyers from playing to them ... but it’s easy to think of reasons why video would be helpful.
Most Americans have no idea what goes on at the Supreme Court – none – except that somehow the court decides really important questions, like whether everyone in the country will be allowed to commit sodomy. Most Americans don’t have time to read the court’s often-lengthy opinions, and downloading and listening to audio recordings is more than a little cumbersome.
there are audio tapes.
it is just the media whores who get the legal reporting wrong who are screaming for cameras.
They don’t want to educate the public, they want to inflame the public via out of context soundbites
Or sausage factories.
Or the judges. Remember Lance Ito?
They don't have the time? Or, is it that they don't have the intellectual curiosity or acuity to read the briefs and the decisions? They do, however, find the time to watch Ellen, Oprah, Jerry Springer and whatever else comprises their almost 40-hours-a-week of television viewing.
Not to get on a soap box, but I think cameras would be the worst thing to happen to the court in decades. People play to the camera - the solicitors and probably the justices as well. It's not like what goes on in the court is some type of esoteric ritual. It's public record and is open to the public if you have the gumption to show up and wait in line.