Via Howard, I learn that Oyez has now posted the audio from all the oral arguments the U.S. Supreme Court held from the Fall of 2008 to the Spring of 2009 (in Supreme Court parlance, October Term 2008). I’ve written before that I favor same-day release of the audio of Supreme Court arguments, and I still adhere to that. But at least it’s helpful to have the audio eventually.
John Thacker says:
Wait, Orin, you want the actual audio? Can’t we just trust experienced clerks and law reporters to listen to it and then provide a summary that explains the key points? ;)
October 9, 2009, 11:34 amBryan Gividen says:
Does anyone have any suggestions for 1) particularly interesting oral arguments (not necessarily the case, but either entertaining inquiries or arguments) or 2) recommendations on cases to hear effective advocates? I am an undergrad who will be attending law school and hope to participate in moot court; I enjoy hearing the cases and figure I could focus my entertainment on hearing proficient advocacy skills.
October 9, 2009, 11:47 amDave N says:
Bryan Gividen,
From my experience, if you want to hear good oral advocacy, look for cases where the Solicitor General or someone who formerly worked for the Solicitor General is arguing.
This includes most cases where the United States is a party but also includes cases where the Solicitor General has requested divided argument and the United States is merely an amici.
October 9, 2009, 12:05 pmKent Scheidegger says:
I favor same-week release. Keep the sound-bites off the evening news to reduce grandstanding, but release them when they are still fresh.
October 9, 2009, 12:55 pmGilbert says:
Thanks for this, really. I have tried to follow Oyez releases, but they don’t make it easy.
October 9, 2009, 2:22 pmN.M. says:
Someone asked Roberts why the Court doesn’t release audio from every case immediately in this video at about 49 minutes in: http://cgi2.www.law.umich.edu/flashmedia/public/Default.aspx?mediaid=164
October 9, 2009, 3:33 pmJoe says:
Above there was a concern of same day “soundbites.”
Why? Transcripts are released same day, so the soundbites can be cited in articles as they are anyway by reporters at the scene (see, e.g., Dahlia Lithwick’s at times slanted accounts). The lawyers also are available after the orals for comments.
Why would actually having audio from the orals be so much different on the grandstanding front? And, it would add to the reporting as well.
Anyway, Oyez provides a great service. And, there is no reason why the SCOTUS website should not have the same material — even if they wait a year to do it.
October 10, 2009, 11:29 amJeff Walden says:
Huh, I guess I should feel privileged to have started following the Court since Roberts joined it; having to wait an entire term for even transcripts of arguments would be horrible. I didn’t realize the process had been different in the past.
I still don’t quite get the soundbite argument, tho. If the argument against same-day audio release is that it engenders soundbite-style arguments rather than productive ones, why is oral argument released immediately for those cases that are precisely most likely to be mined for soundbites? If the rationale isn’t just a pretense, why would this pattern of releasing occur? Indeed, wouldn’t the exact opposite be more likely — to release early except when soundbites might be feared?
October 16, 2009, 5:57 pm