Televising Oral Arguments etc.

The Supreme Court over the last few years has tended to provide accelerated same day audio for one or two cases a term at best.  I have seen some people flag this. I really don't care -- the transcript is available same day, for the King v. Burwell case we had mid-argument briefings at Scotusblog / tweets and the audio is available at the end of the week.  Don't really see a big deal though I guess it is helpful.  And, it would be just on principle, particularly since it will let everyone hear at that time what only a small favored few now do.  Time delay on C-SPAN wouldn't be a big deal, but you don't have it, right?  Still. So, you have to wait a few days for audio, including as the Court makes sure it is okay. BFD.

[Update: Something does come to mind here, but don't know how much same day audio will change this. People will be influenced by media reports and not likely as a whole to read transcripts. Days will pass.  Then, the audio is available.  Same day audio might help somewhat to show how what actually went on is not quite what the press or whatever accounts imply. The audio might in some fashion help the same day accounts that as noted influence the public.  Don't know how much this really matters, but if audio or television here means something, it might.]

SCOTUS has selected the marriage cases for same day audio and has singled them out to link up to briefs on the front page of the website.  Anyway, a blog noted yesterday's orals shows why televising oral arguments wouldn't be a problem. What would it hurt? We have a lawyer not looking restrained (including given the shoddy nature of his argument), justices doing their usual schtick and little reason to think television would worsen anything. If anything, it will help show the public the excesses. 

Some don't think much of oral argument, thinking it one big meaningless ritual.  As an outsider, I disagree.  But, if it is merely a “ritual,” would this help the cause of televised oral arguments, since its ritual aspects are there for public consumption and not just to tourists there for three minutes, lawyers and the press? Over the years, open courts were there for spectators; now we live in a television age. The reduced argument time, though Roberts repeatedly allows more time, reflects the current day too. But, though sometimes more time would be useful, a half-hour often is enough time. The advocates at times try to ram in as much as possible without it adding that much.

Oral arguments (and opinion announcements) are the key “public” aspect where we see the justices as people, not just words on the page. It provides an opening to their unvarnished feelings and also provides some usefulness in that justices can hash out some things that bother them. It isn’t all theater for Scalia etc.  It is particularly dubious not to provide even audio for opinion announcements -- we have to wait for Oyez.com to release them months later -- given they are particularly in place for public consumption. They don't have to provide the at times over five minute summaries; they could just announce the results and release the opinions. Dissents from the bench also are important.  Again, no transcripts are provided here either.  

Thomas doesn’t want to actually deign to even in a small way interact with the litigants. He gets to make his at times out there positions in the cocoon of his own making w/o even letting advocates directly respond to his viewpoints.  The oral arguments also provide a useful ritualized time to have public discussion on the events. As to winning or losing, the justices themselves say oral arguments can have some effect, including HOW one wins or loses, which often is important.

But, that’s just one factor anyhow.  Since we do have audio and transcripts, television for the oral arguments at least is only a limited need. Visuals do matter here, which is why reporters just do not listen but show up.  Some people are not comfortable reading transcripts and can find audio somewhat overwhelming. Or, simply find it more helpful to have a visual. C-SPAN compensates when it airs a few oral arguments by providing little stills of the justices and advocates.  Television would provide the live animal. 

I'll beat my drum -- I want audio/transcripts of opinion announcements and other such things at the website. When they are asked about televised arguments, I want them to be asked why not even audio of that is provided. Also, television of public events in the Court like the opening ("oyez ...") and other such things can be provided too. To give a taste of the Court in action.  Meanwhile, waiting a few days is fine with me.