We live in an age in which we can turn on the television and see presidential speeches and White House press briefings. We can turn on the television and watch the floor debates of both the House and the Senate, as well as committe hearings from both bodies. Yet we cannot watch some of the most important events in government -- oral arguments before the Supreme Court -- because the justices steadfastly refuse to agree to let cameras into the courtroom. Frankly, this needs to change.

With Supreme Court justices becoming increasingly comfortable in the spotlight, Sen. Arlen Specter says it might finally be time for their close-ups.

Spector (Pa.), joined by two other Republican and three Democratic senators, has refiled his legislation to require the court to televise its proceedings. Although getting the rest of Congress to agree still seems very much a long shot, Specter said there is a big difference between now and last year, when the bill did not reach the Senate floor.

"I think the frequency with which the justices are appearing on television can be a very significant factor" in changing minds in Congress, Specter said in an interview.

There is no doubt that the once-cloistered justices are making themselves more available to the media, giving on-the-record interviews with newspapers and magazines and popping up on television. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. starred in PBS's recent look at the history of the court.

Specter, former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and sometimes a sharp critic of the court, said the individual justices have been "extensively televised."

Now honestly, I think Specter's argument here is hogwash -- the fact that justices appear on television outside of the courtroom does not argue for cameras in the courtroom. However there is a better reason -- increasing the familiarity of the American public with the activities of the most secretive of our three branches of government.

Supreme Court proceedings generally consist of oral arguments by attorneys and announcements of decisions by the justices. There are no witnesses to be intimidated. Lawyers would play to the camera at their peril, as their audience would be the nine individuals seated before them.

On the other hand, this development would provide us with a historical record of the great cases of American history, as well as a deeper understanding of the court. And the confidentiality of the deliberative aspects of the high court's activities -- the conferences in which cases are discussed and the circulation of draft opinions - would be maintained under Specter's proposal.

Frankly, I see nothing to lose and everything to gain if cameras are installed in at the Supreme Court.