Maybe it's because they want any TV reporters doing stories on the cases actually to have to listen to the arguments.

I don't see any practical reason to not allow it, when the public can go and watch any day that they want. It just keeps me from having to go to the actual court. I would think it would open up awareness and make for a more informed public. It is easier to get the layman to listen to the argument while it is hot and fresh in the news as opposed to so many weeks/months later when it may be reduced to a blurb.

NC Litigator -

Its not really the dumb quote taken out of context that I think is the fear, but rather the probing hypothetical question that may not be reality based but is used to draw an argument out to its logical conclusion. I can just imagine something like that - especially in a case like RvW - being butchered and taken out of context and used to make a mockery of the system (by both sides) and create a false sense of what the court actually believes for purely partisan political gain with little public benefit.

Its a real threat in the evening news and the cable talking head shows - but less of a threat for most day to day cases when the audio is generally released months later and interest has died down.

so why not release the audio on the day of the argument when the public is most interested?

I think this question answers itself: the Court prefers, as a general and historic matter, to limit public scrutiny of everything but its final output. Releasing oral arguments after the public has become less interested ensures relatively less such scrutiny.

I wonder, though, if this isn't more a matter of inertia/tradition than any currently salient concerns, hence the occasional rapid release of argument tapes in very high-profile cases. Time to normalize the practice and get them all out same day if not real time.

I'd like to see live, public domain feeds during the argument itself. However, I will offer this weak defense of the current policy. I think that journalists and academics sometimes misunderstand the legal system's stubborn, conservative instinct for keeping litigation low key. It doesn't stem from mere self-protection or arrogance, in my view. It stems from the underlying need to resolve disputes and put them to bed rather than spawn new disputes. I'd never say that you have to be a litigator or judge to understand that need, but it sure helps.

In this case, that conservative instinct is suppressing useful information that wouldn't serve to politicize the court, inflame diputes, or lead to collateral litigation and chaos.

As "they" say when gutting our Fourth Amendment and privacy rights:

What are they afraid of, if they aren't doing anything wrong?

I remember when people were arguing over cameras in our legislative branch.

Oh, and that worked out great, didn't it? Enjoying our government by soundbite, are we? The fact that legislators spend more time grandstanding for TV cameras than they do hammering out unpleasant but workable compromises? That we now turn to our Imperial Presidency (or the Governator, in California) to solve all the knotty problems that should have been solved by some necessary if nasty horse-trading in a smoke-filled room? Ye gods.

Geez, if the questions before the Supreme Court could and should be readily judged by random joes and janes watching from home, then why have a Court of learned men at all? Why not just turn it into the SCOTUS Reality Show, where you, the viewers, decide from home by phoning in your vote which contestant goes to jail and which gets to set a new Constitutional precedent?

Just because the Court is ultimately answerable to the people does not mean it's a good idea that it be immediately answerable. The Founders were thinking clearly when they put in all kinds of delays and hurdles to the full exercise of popular sovereignty. They knew this was a recipe for instability. And if anyone needs convincing, California's initiative process should provide sobering evidence of the proposition.

Does this sound a touch hysterical? Let me adduce Eugene's slippery-slope argument about gun control. Sure, all we're interested in is just seeing how the justices argue. We wouldn't dream of suggesting that they, well, just take into account while deciding cases the storm of public reaction to what's being shown on Supreme Court TV. No, no, that's just paranoid thinking.

I thought I remember the Court saying at some point that it didn't want people to be confused and think that the orgal arguments were important, so immediate release of the oral arguments created a misleading impression of how the court made its decisions. I don't remember where I saw that.

What I want to know is why the court won't at the very least release the audio of the justices reading their opinions and dissents aloud. It's silly that court nerds have to sit around hitting "reload" on the AP website rather than being able to hear the justices announce their opinions in real time.