The benefits of increased access and transparency are many. Democracy’s first principles strongly support the people’s right to know how their government works. This would seem to be underscored by this court’s stubborn insistence on freedom of communication in a democratic society. Recall that earlier this year, the court held that the First Amendment protected the right of protesters to hector a military family during a funeral service for their son, who was killed in Iraq. And the court decided that the same societal interest in free speech outweighed California’s interest in protecting minors from extremely violent video games. These are but two of many examples in which the current court has made plain its view that, in extreme cases, the force of First Amendment rights shall outweigh all else.

Year after year, the court issues decisions that profoundly affect the nation. Think of civics classes. The retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is one of many who have lately lamented the apparent collapse of civic literacy in public schools. Think of older Americans affected by President Obama’s health care program. Think of women or other groups affected by important class-action cases, like the Wal-Mart discrimination case last term. These citizens should have a chance to hear what the justices think about important questions that touch their lives.

The issue of cameras in the courtroom is one of precious few on which conservative Republicans, like Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and liberal Democrats, like Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, agree. The views cherished by the court’s old guard are nicely dramatized by the retired justice David H. Souter, who, by his own account, preferred death to the quiet illumination of cameras in the courtroom.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s fear is that televising the oral arguments would introduce “the insidious temptation to think that one of my colleagues is trying to get a sound bite for the television.” But this fear seems groundless in light of the already available sound recordings from these sessions. Newspapers, radio and television were all once condemned for their demagogic potential, but we have long since accepted these media as vitally important pieces of our national dialogue. The idea that cameras would transform the court into “Judge Judy” is ludicrous.

Happily, the old guard’s views are now in decline. Justice Elena Kagan, the newest and youngest member of the court, has spoken fervently for openness and transparency. At an Aspen Institute event in August, she said, “If everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it’s operating.”