( CNN ) -- With two important cases on gay rights and marriage equality slated for oral arguments in the Supreme Court next week , Americans of all stripes are participating in a national debate over this emotionally charged issue -- on the Internet , on television , in our leading newspapers and around countless dinner tables . Despite this interest , only a handful of people will get to see these historic arguments -- those who show up to the courtroom next Tuesday and Wednesday . This is the result of the Supreme Court 's longstanding policy prohibiting cameras inside the courtroom . The court 's main reason for banning cameras -- as Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy reminded us recently at a congressional hearing -- is there would be an increased risk the justices ' questions and comments would be taken out of context and then played ( and replayed ) on the news or , worse yet , lampooned on `` The Colbert Report . '' This would be a completely valid concern if it were n't for the fact that it 's happening already . As the justices well know , reporters , columnists , cartoonists and late-night comedians already extract the juiciest sound bites from oral arguments , sometimes taking them out of context and blowing them up into big stories . Indeed , such sound bites often dominate the media 's coverage of the Supreme Court . For evidence of this , look no further than Justice Antonin Scalia 's remark from the court 's oral argument in the case of Shelby County v. Holder . Scalia suggested the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had survived only because of the self-perpetuating power of `` racial entitlements '' -- a comment that generated countless news stories , editorials , op-eds and political cartoons , to say nothing of parodies on satirical shows such as `` Saturday Night Live '' and `` The Daily Show . '' Or , better yet , consider Justice Clarence Thomas ' decision in January to tell a joke during oral argument -- breaking his seven-year streak of silence and , in the process , becoming front-page news . Does anyone , other than the closest court-watcher , even remember the name of that case or the issues it presented ? Or , take the constant plight of Kennedy , who commentators tend to assume is the decisive vote in each of the court 's most important cases . His every question , word , sigh and hiccup becomes a key part of how cases are covered in the media , as everyone scrambles for possible clues for how Kennedy might vote . Needless to say -- and as Kennedy well knows -- such predictions are often inaccurate . Sometimes , the focus on sound bites is entirely appropriate . Scalia 's characterization of the Voting Rights Act was offensive , and it deserved to be national news . Furthermore , it 's important to report potentially revealing comments from the court 's swing justice . But more often than not , the media coverage of the court is already focused on sound bites , which sometimes get taken out of context . Therefore , the Supreme Court might as well open up and let all Americans experience the majesty of its hearings -- an experience that can be captured only by attending an argument in person or by watching an argument unfold live in one 's living room or on one 's laptop . As lawyers who have been to dozens of Supreme Court hearings , we can confidently say that there 's nothing that the federal government does that 's more impressive than the high-quality debates that occur on a daily basis before the Supreme Court . The American public would be astonished at the skill of the advocates , the force of the questions and the overall level at which legal issues are debated before our high court . If only they could see these arguments in real time , in their entirety . Since media coverage of the high court already focuses on the trite at the expense of the court 's majesty , it makes sense to remove the media filter . Exposing the American public to the fullness of Supreme Court arguments by permitting cameras in the courtroom would be a service rather than hindrance to the judiciary . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Doug Kendall and Tom Donnelly .
The Supreme Court will hear two important cases on gay rights next week . One is a challenge to California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. They say court coverage tends to be focused on sound bites from justices already . Kendall , Donnelly : Court has nothing to lose by permitting all Americans to see it in action .