[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.