I understand that a lot of people, especially a lot of Congresspeople, believe that the Supreme Court needs to have cameras in it. Ostensibly, this is to allow the rest of America to see what goes on in those hallowed halls, and to ensure that the American Way is protected.
But, The Court hasn't been televised at any point in America's history, and we've done rather well without it being televised, except possibly with Erie, Pennoyer v. Neff, Hamdi, Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson (and a few others).
The point is, there's really no need to televise the Supreme Court, other than to give Congress a chance to keep tabs on who they believe are "activists" and to fuel the notion that there should be term limits for Justices (once they start issuing a few too many "activist" opinions).
Fortunately, the Chief Justice doesn't think there is a need for cameras, and neither do any of the other justices on the Court, according to this article. That's a fine thing, if you ask me. There's not really any excitement going on in the Court, it's not like there are rainmakers and serious oral arguments, or anything. It would probably be more boring than watching the House on C-Span. In other words, we're not missing Judge Judy or Mathis, or anything. If we were, then they definitely should put The Court on TV, right after Springer.