US lawmakers Tuesday called for cameras to be allowed into the Supreme Court, aiming to unveil the mysteries of the nation's top bench and televise upcoming hearings on Obama's health care bill.

Live radio and television broadcasts are not currently allowed from the Supreme Court, unlike many other American courts where trials such as the recent manslaughter case brought against the doctor of late pop star Michael Jackson are avidly followed by audiences around the country.

"As the final arbiter of constitutionality, the Supreme Court decides the most pressing and often most controversial issues of our time," Democratic Senator Dick Durbin told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yet "except for the privileged few... the most powerful court in our country is inaccessible and mysterious," added Durbin who has sponsored a bill with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.

Grassley agreed saying: "According to a poll released last year, 62 percent of Americans believe that they hear too little about the workings of the Supreme Court."

He said he had written to Chief Justice John Roberts urging him to allow cameras to cover hearings about the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's landmark health care reforms.

"This upcoming case is the perfect example for why the Supreme Court should televise its proceedings. It is a case which will address the role and reach of the federal government," said Grassley.

Republican Senator Mike Lee said he believed that the nine justices should get the final say on the issue.

"There is absolutely nothing that I would love more than to watch supreme court arguments on television. That would be the greatest Christmas gift that I can imagine receiving," he said.

"At the same time, I feel that as a coordinate branch of government, the Supreme Court is entitled to a very significant degree to determine how it operates... the Supreme Court gets the last word."

A top lawyer told the hearing that she thought any such legislation would be unconstitutional.

"It would after all be an effort to strip the court of its historic authority," argued Maureen Mahoney.

"Any benefit to televised proceedings is not great... enough to warrant a constitutional confrontation."

There was also some reticence from a federal appeals court judge, Anthony Scirica, who said the justices were "quite concerned whether it might affect the way they conduct oral arguments, the kinds of questions they ask, a death penalty case for example."

"I think it's not quite right to say that there will be no impact on the conduct of the argument before the Supreme Court," he argued.

Former senator Arlen Specter, who worked for 25 years to get cameras allowed inside the Supreme Court, highlighted "the public's right to know" and the need for transparency.