Senator Gillibrand is cosponsoring legislation that would allow Supreme Court proceedings to be televised. The bill would require the Supreme Court to allow coverage of all open sessions, unless decided by majority vote that such coverage in a particular case would violate the due process of any party involved.
Support legislation to allow U.S. Supreme Court proceedings to be televised, with coverage of open sessions unless a due-process exception applies.
Occurrences
Evidence
unverified · Source version 63202 · locator unknown
Gillibrand said her reform agenda would include allowing U.S. Supreme Court proceedings to be televised, with coverage of open sessions unless a majority of justices found a due-process violation.
unverified · Source version 63205 · locator unknown
Gillibrand urged Senate passage of legislation authorizing televised Supreme Court proceedings unless the Court found coverage would violate a party's due-process rights.
unverified · Source version 15013 · locator unknown
The bill required the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of all open sessions unless a majority of justices found due-process harm.
unverified · Source version 63205 · locator unknown
Gillibrand urged Senate passage of legislation to open U.S. Supreme Court proceedings to television cameras, allowing coverage of open sessions unless doing so would violate a party's due-process rights.
unverified · Source version 63201 · locator unknown
Congressional Bills S. 1146 Committees Committee on the Judiciary
verified · Source version 63202 · locator 7243
Senator Gillibrand is cosponsoring legislation that would allow Supreme Court proceedings to be televised. The bill would require the Supreme Court to allow coverage of all open sessions, unless decided by majority vote that such coverage in a particular case would violate the due process of any party involved.
verified · Source version 63204 · locator 1231
Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Harkin, and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment
verified · Source version 63205 · locator 600
U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand issued the following statement today applauding efforts in the Senate to pass legislation that would authorize U.S. Supreme Court proceedings to be televised, unless decided by a majority vote that such coverage would violate the due process rights of any party involved.
verified · Source version 63207 · locator 1119
The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before the Court.
Assessments
The verified commitment was to support/cosponsor legislation allowing televised Supreme Court open sessions with a due-process exception, not to secure final enactment. Verified evidence shows Gillibrand was cosponsoring matching legislation, was named among the Senate bill backers, and urged Senate passage during the relevant 2012 Senate campaign/office context. This materially satisfies the support/cosponsor commitment in the same term.
The promise was to support legislation, not to ensure the policy became law. In her 2012 Senate context, Gillibrand publicly urged passage of legislation to televise U.S. Supreme Court open sessions unless a due-process exception applied, matching the claim's substance. That constitutes delivery of the promised support during the same term/cycle. Later bills on the same concept are consistent with the position but are not needed to credit the promise as fulfilled.
Gillibrand promised to support legislation allowing televised U.S. Supreme Court proceedings with a due-process exception. During the relevant Senate campaign/office context, she publicly backed and urged Senate passage of legislation matching that exact substance in 2012. The evidence shows she materially supported the proposed bill language, so the support promise was fulfilled even though the underlying policy was not enacted.