Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Pushes for Televised Supreme Court Arguments In December, Senator Dick Durbin introduced legislation that would authorize the televising of oral arguments before the Supreme Court. It went nowhere. Yesterday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand called on lawmakers to approve the bill, saying that "accountability doesn't end with Congress or the President." I agree with that statement, and agree that Supreme Court oral arguments should be televised. The public has a right to see and hear them, and the court's refusal to allow stationary cameras in the chamber seems retrograde. Next week, for example, it's holding three days of arguments on health care reform. It's one of the biggest constitutional fights of our time, and a huge issue in the 2012 elections. They will not be televised. Senators Durbin, Gillibrand and the bill's co-sponsors are right on the merits. And I believe they are within their rights, legally speaking. Justice Anthony Kennedy has argued that a law requiring the Supreme Court to televise oral arguments would intrude on the court's internal deliberations and violate constitutional separations of power. That would be a compelling argument if it were, say, about Congress imposing on the Supreme Court the code of conduct that it will not impose on itself (another inexcusable lapse on the part of the justices). But Congress has the constitutional authority to make "regulations" affecting the court's jurisdiction. Federal law determines the number of justices on the Supreme Court, the court's budget, and other matters. This suggests - to constitutional scholars who know a lot more about this than I do - that Congress has the authority to require televised oral arguments. Nevertheless, the Senate is in a bad position, at the moment, to make demands of any federal court, because it shows a shockingly low level of respect for the judiciary. One example of this disrespect is the confirmation process for judicial nominees, which is ever more drawn-out and politicized. But that's only the most public, blatant example. Congress denied cost-of-living (COLA) salary increases for federal judges in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007 and 2010. Since 1992, compensation for most federal workers has increased 91 percent (with total inflation in that period 36 percent) while judicial pay increased only 39 percent. Federal judges now make less than many civil servants. Junior associates in leading law firms do better than federal judges. Federal judges are also under regular ideological assault from the right wing. Newt Gingrich, for instance, tried to score points with the base earlier in the campaign by vowing to haul "activists" before congress and compelling them to justify their decisions. Once Congress starts treating the judiciary like the co-equal branch of government that it is, it will be in a better position to demand televised oral arguments.