judges should be heard

[T]he public's access to gavel-to-gavel Supreme Court proceedings should not be limited to one big case every few years at the justices' discretion. I pretty much agree with this Times opinion- oral arguments in the supreme court should be available for the public's ear either immediately, or, as yesterday, shortly after the arguments are presented. I have heard 2 major arguments against this (and i reply in turn): 1) public scrutiny of the arguments will hamper justice; or in other words- the public is not fit to hear these arguments. While the justices are ruling on fine points of law (remember, this is the highest level of appeal), the general public will favor the argument that seems compelling on its facts or politics. Thus, the court will become a political outlet based on sound-bites as opposed to sound law. This argument is true, in a sense. As this is appelate advocacy- the cases turn on minute points of law, as opposed to compelling stories (or stories, at all- as the place for fact finding is in the trial court). Still, are we really worried that the public's perception of the oral arguments will cause the justices to rule differently; thus making the supreme court a more politically body. i don't share that fear. 2) the justices will grandstand. ok...i buy this argument when i think of Scalia. But i do not think grandstanding will have a damaging impact on the case itself. i say this with the assumption that the oral argument is not, by and large, where a case is decided. if the briefs are the meat that the justices chew on in deciding these cases, i don't see a problem with some rhetoric during the arguments.