[SilasX]

That doesn't sound like a good reason. Linear, polished presentations of arguments are for briefs. Oral arguments are for probing the cracks in the rhetorical armor. One should not be using the limited time to help a lawyer recite what's on a page.

[chimeracoder]

> Oral arguments are for probing the cracks in the rhetorical armor.

They're not, and as pointed out below, even Rehnquist stated as much.

For SCOTUS, oral arguments are a formality. That doesn't mean they're not valuable, but their value comes from formalizing the arguments for thr record, because by that point, most of the interrogation (both literal and figurative) of the arguments has already been done.

[wahern]

The OP misrepresents Rehnquist's opinion. See my reply with quote and citation.