I disagree, Rightward Ho.
The inclusion of cameras in Congress, while helpful, has also created an atmosphere where grandstanding takes place all too often.
Fortunately, this is also mitigated by the fact that Congress has multiple hearings and is in session for a long time—at least compared to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court only hears a handful of cases—and so the temptation to grandstand, instead of engaging in measured and intelligent presentation of cases would be exceedingly high. Too high, I think, for the inclusion of cameras to be justified.
Audio is available, I believe, for some cases. And transcripts are there, too, for all cases, if I recall correctly.
Anyway, the Court’s reasoning to keep cameras out makes sense to me.
Q: Why did that Justice rudely interrupt the lawyer for the appellant/appellee? [wail]
A: Because that's how it works.
Q: But he showed no respect! [whine]
A: He (or she) doesn't have to.
I second that motion.
You make some good points. Balance between government transparency and peace and order in their valid and constitutional proceedings.