( CNN ) -- The Illinois Supreme Court 's recent decision to permit the televising of trials in the state 's circuit courts brings to mind another question of television in a court : the U.S. Supreme Court . The Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument -- the fascinating , highly informative back-and-forth between the justices and the lawyers before them -- in a monumental case that will determine the constitutionality of the government 's new health care plan . Everyone is interested . C-SPAN has asked the justices for permission to televise the extraordinary five-and-a-half hours of oral argument ( most cases get just one hour ) scheduled for March 26 through 28 . But the Supreme Court , despite numerous requests and even proposed congressional action extending over several decades , has never permitted television . The justices fear the presence of cameras would tarnish the court 's dignified proceedings . But bear in mind that the Supreme Court does n't try cases , so there 's no danger of uncorking sensational trials like those of O.J . Simpson , Casey Anthony or Michael Jackson 's doctor . That 's not the issue . Chief Justice John Roberts told the annual conference of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last June that he worries how cameras might affect both lawyers and judges . He was asked , `` Do you worry that judges might ask even more questions ? '' `` I do , '' he replied emphatically . He added , a bit defensively : `` We are the most transparent branch of government . '' He also questioned whether televising congressional sessions has enhanced them . In fact , there 's lots of experience to point to , and the precedents are clear : television would not impair the Supreme Court 's dignity or its proceedings . Two-thirds of the state supreme courts admit cameras to their oral arguments . Two federal appellate courts have allowed them . They 're standard in the Supreme Court of Canada . Most of these courts have welcomed cameras for years without adverse consequences , effectively dispelling the vague worries of the justices in Washington . The Illinois Supreme Court , for example , began experimenting with TV cameras as early as 1983 , according to its press secretary , Joseph R. Tybor . It now provides its own videos of oral arguments and posts them daily . It 's routine and unobtrusive . Three small , silent cameras mounted in the Springfield courtroom are operated remotely by state employees in the basement of the court building . Similarly , New York 's highest court , the Court of Appeals , first authorized TV coverage in 1987 , and since 2009 all oral arguments have been covered and posted in the court 's archive , according to Gary Spencer , the court 's public information officer . Coverage is provided by just two small cameras mounted on window sills at the sides of the court room , operated remotely from a studio in the basement . `` Our experience , '' Spencer said , `` is that it has not caused any problems . The more the public can learn about what leads to a decision , the more willing they are to accept it . '' When the Supreme Court of Arkansas was considering television coverage , one of its justices , Robert L. Brown , undertook his own survey and found that `` state supreme courts have blazed a significant technological trail . '' He wrote , in 2007 , in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process : `` The public 's response , according to those state supreme courts that provide those video broadcasts , borders on the exuberant . . . [ N ] o state that currently provides video of its oral arguments cites grandstanding as a problem . '' Justice Brown quoted the then chief justice of the California Supreme Court , Ronald M. George , as telling him that its videos provided `` the best P.R . you can imagine . '' Arkansas two years ago became the 34th state supreme court to admit cameras . Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco commented in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process about his court 's long experience on-camera that both judges and lawyers `` have acted with the civility and decorum appropriate to a federal appellate courtroom , by and large resisting the temptation to play to the television audience . . . My own experience with cameras in the courtroom has been overwhelmingly positive . '' In Canada the proceedings of the nation 's Supreme Court have been televised since the mid-1990s . Four fixed cameras , mounted high on the walls of the courtroom in Ottawa , face the bench and the counsel 's podium . When a judge asks a question , she pushes a button that both opens her microphone and focuses a camera on her . `` Our judges are proud of it , '' said Andres Garin , executive legal officer of the Supreme Court of Canada . `` There 's no downside . It has not been disruptive . There 's no playing to the camera . '' Of course , if the U.S. Supreme Court should allow television , but then finds that its presence is deleterious , the justices could always reverse their own decision . They 've done it before . Americans visiting Washington stand in line for hours to see the Supreme Court in action , but there 's limited space inside the ornate courtroom . However , it should be noted that the court has taken recent steps to better inform the public : it publishes transcripts of each oral argument later that same day , and each Friday it releases audio recordings of all oral arguments that week . Still , the justices should welcome television coverage , not only of the coming health care case , but of all their oral arguments . Even in this digital age of 24/7 access to almost everything , television news still reaches more people . A survey reported in January by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that `` television remains the most widely used source for national and international news -- 66 % of Americans say it is their main source of news . '' TV coverage would greatly enhance public understanding of the court and its work . If the justices decide soon , unobtrusive cameras can be mounted in the courtroom in time for the historic health care oral argument in March . Then they 'll be available for future cases as well . Good for the court , good for the country . Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter . Join the conversation on Facebook . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Joe Mathewson .
Joe Mathewson : Supreme Court should follow other courts , televise its arguments . Comment: Mathewson : Cameras have n't disrupted the proceedings of other courts . Televising court sessions would be good for the country and for the court , he says .