The letter is here. I’ve personally always found the arguments against allowing television cameras in the Supreme Court to be unconvincing. Perhaps for trial courts (although even then I’m not so sure) but for appeals courts, and especially the Supreme Court, allowing cameras seems compelling to me. I remember hearing Scalia say that the problem is that it might be edited to take clips out of context. Well yes, but newspaper reporters can do the same thing. In fact, being able to actually watch oral arguments might help the public to understand law better by disintermediating the Supreme Court reporters who run their coverage through their own biases and hobby-horses. Five hours though? I think I’d have to Tivo that thing.