[rotskoff]

I follow SCOTUS news pretty closely; the discussions below are a bit misguided. Audio transcripts of oral arguments are already widely available---you can even subscribe to the Oyez podcast feed and find them in your podcast queue a few days after the court hears the case. The new thing here is "live", so as a practical matter, it probably doesn't constitute a huge change. If there were an incentive for the justices to produce "sound bites", it would already exist. C-SPAN coverage will probably increase the visibility a little, but, having listened to many of the arguments this term, I'd say that most cases are too technical to be of much general interest.

A second point: oral arguments are performative. The cases are argued via written briefs and oral arguments provide a venue for the justices to question the petitioners about their arguments and air their responses to what the believe the other justices are thinking. Streaming the arguments, as opposed to making available courtroom audio after the fact, doesn't seem to change the dynamic much.

Many court watchers have taken this as an optimistic sign that perhaps the court will allow video. However, this is one thing that the court has strongly resisted. Some of the justices are known to prize their relatively low public profile and there's been speculation that maintaining that pseudo-anonymity is perhaps a reason for the hesitance.

[JumpCrisscross]

> as a practical matter, it probably doesn't constitute a huge change

This is a reasonable point on which to disagree. (I disagree with it.)

The difference between a live performance and recorded one are huge. Playing soundbites on cable TV is, I believe, much more likely with live arguments than with recorded ones.

I hope you're correct.

[LyndsySimon]

I agree with you. I follow SCOTUS cases within a couple of narrow interests, and there is always much discussion about what was really meant by questions that were asked. Much of that is due to lack of tone.

Hearing oral arguments is going to be interesting. I don't know that it's ever been available to the general public.

[marnett]

> Hearing oral arguments is going to be interesting. I don't know that it's ever been available to the general public.

You're in luck. The audio has been recorded since 1955 and can be viewed along with transcript on Oyez [1]! Oral arguments are complex and fascinating. SCOTUS is my favorite higher-branch of government; the justices are humble, intelligent, and for the most part bipartisan. They are institutionalists above all else. More often than not SCOTUS makes me proud.

[1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019

[tpmoney]

A live stream may not have been available before but I distinctly remember listening to oral arguments back when Heller was being argued so at the very least after the fact recordings have been available to the general public. I think more people would benefit to listen to an oral argument once or twice, the experience of hearing them dig into one sides argument leaves you feeling like you know where the case is going to go right up until they start on the other side. It gives you a new appreciation for just how hard I think the SCOTUS does try to be apolitical even in highly political cases.

[SkyBelow]

>If there were an incentive for the justices to produce "sound bites", it would already exist.

I think it already does exist, as there have been plenty of quote mining of judges at all levels that gets fed into news reports, many designed to stir outrage. To the extent that quote mining it a threat to the fair and just application of law should be an issue I think the legal system (among other groups impacted) should be more targeted at resolving.

[leemailll]

I read and listen to Oyez a lot. From my persona experience, laymen might not get the things they are talking when they cite previous cases, some legal words might not easy to catch, and the judges most likely is questioning the briefs which won’t be available. Live audio might open interests to public when working from home, but nothing beats oyez’s synced transcript with audio. It will be interesting to listen to whether judges will change their way to question cases. Or more interestingly, when Thomas will say something

[slapshot]

He asked questions on the first audio call, linked above.

[brlewis]

I support resisting video, especially if the justices are shown while arguments are being presented. They should focus on listening, not thinking about how their facial expressions will be dissected on the Internet tomorrow.