That was the unmistakable message that two Supreme Court justices gave Congress at a hearing on Tuesday on the court's budget.
Several members of the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation, treasury, judiciary, and housing and urban development, which handles the judicial branch's annual appropriation, raised the issue of television after Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas had finished discussing the court's $76.4 million budget request.
Last year, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill to require the Supreme Court to permit its arguments to be televised unless a majority of the justices voted to bar television on a case-by-case basis. Other proposals include mandating television access, or simply permitting and encouraging it.
Asked for his views on the subject, Justice Kennedy said it raised a "sensitive point" about the constitutional separation of powers.
"It's not for the court to tell Congress how to conduct its proceedings," and the reverse was also true, he said. He added, "We feel very strongly that we have intimate knowledge of the dynamics and the mood of the court, and we think that proposals mandating and directing television in our court are inconsistent with the deference and etiquette that should apply between the branches."
Justice Thomas was equally firm, warning that television in the courtroom would have a negative impact on the argument sessions.
"It runs the risk of undermining the manner in which we consider cases," he said. He added that some members of the court "feel more strongly than others," but that all agreed that the court should decide the issue for itself. "The general consensus is not one of glee," he said.
Justice Thomas also said that televising the court would raise security concerns, "as members of the court who now have some degree of anonymity would lose their anonymity."
The justices, who have been the court's representatives to Congress on budget matters for several years, appeared to relish the chance to elaborate on the television question. Justice Kennedy described the absence of cameras as a positive.
"We teach that our branch has a different dynamic," he said. "We teach that we are judged by what we write."
One member of the subcommittee, Representative John W. Olver, Democrat of Massachusetts, appeared taken aback by Justice Kennedy's fervor. "You've made it clear that you are part of the cerebral branch," Mr. Olver said.