https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200504/09430444427/supreme-court-streams-oral-arguments-live-first-time-thanks-to-pandemic.shtml > For over a decade now, we've been saying that the Supreme Court should absolutely stream its oral arguments live via the internet -- and for all that time the Supreme Court has rejected the idea. All of the Justices have always seems to be aligned in this view, though with very bad justifications. The two most frequently cited reasons are that (1) the public wouldn't understand what was going on, and (2) that it might make the oral arguments more "performative" as the Justices (and perhaps some lawyers) would act differently for the cameras. Neither of these arguments makes much sense. > If people just wouldn't understand -- well, it seems like that would be a very educational opportunity. Having the video of the arguments would allow for more people to learn about our justice system and how it works, and for experts to step in and teach people. As for the "performative" concern, that also seems silly. Are the Justices really arguing that after working their way up through the ranks as judges for decades, that they'll suddenly toss away all of their solemn and careful approach to justice because the cameras are on? If so, they don't belong on the Supreme Court. And, of course, many other courts, including the Appeals Courts that these judges came from, will stream oral arguments live on the internet, and there's been little to no evidence that it suddenly caused the judges to start tap dancing for the cameras.