U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter is on the side of reason in trying to open the Supreme Court to television cameras. This may be the 21st century, but the justices in the most exclusive club in America behave as if they were living fossils from the 19th century.

The justices actually want to have it both ways, keeping the public business from entering the public domain through the immediacy of television but at the same time indulging the celebrity status that comes with their prestigious positions on the bench.

As Sen. Specter noted in reintroducing a revived bill to open up the court to cameras, the justices have been everywhere on TV lately -- ABC, CBS, PBS, Fox News Sunday, even a televised debate with two justices.

This "very extensive participation by court members," the Philadelphia Republican pointed out, undercuts the argument that televised attention "would imperil the security of Supreme Court justices." Of course, that isn't the only argument -- for example, there are spurious fears that lawyers will start performing once the cameras are turned on.

The truth is that any camera could be made unobtrusive and would be no more an invitation for counsel to show off than the present existence of the press gallery. In any event, the decorum of the court will always be what the justices and the chief justice want it to be. In his Senate confirmation hearing last year (televised, of course), Chief Justice Roberts said he had an open mind about cameras in the court but would need to consult with his colleagues.

Apparently their traditional stuffiness and aversion to change continues to rule, which is why Mr. Specter's legislation -- Senate Bill 344 -- is needed. Its core requirement is simple: "The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more of the parties before the Court."

The Supreme Court impacts the lives of ordinary Americans in multiple ways. If this policy had been in force when the justices were ruling on contentious issues like the 2000 election, eminent domain and the Pledge of Allegiance, public understanding of them might be better. It won't hurt the cloistered environment of the Supreme Court to be televised, but it will help the democratic process to bring the cloister to people's living rooms.