The Supreme Court's oral arguments have long been a spectacle, but recently, the justices themselves are complaining about the length and style of these proceedings. This is a surprising turn of events, as oral arguments were once seen as only marginally important to the outcome of cases. However, the justices' grumbling has now become public, and it's clear that they are frustrated with the current format. The issue at hand is the length of these arguments, which have been steadily increasing over the years. The average length of arguments in the current term is just under 90 minutes, up nearly 10 minutes from the term that began in 2020. This is a significant change from the days when former Chief Justice William Rehnquist would keep a rigid approach to time, sometimes cutting advocates off midsentence. The justices are also unhappy with the format of the arguments, which includes a combination of free-form and 'seriatim' questioning. This compromise, which was struck during the pandemic, has made it harder to keep advocates and justices on the clock. The impact of shortening the sessions could fall heaviest on the court's liberal wing, as the three liberal justices tend to speak the most on average. This is particularly interesting, as it suggests that the liberal justices are feeling the pressure to keep the arguments concise and to the point. However, the longer format may also have downsides for transparency, as it can lead to less discipline and accessibility. The justices' complaints about the length and format of oral arguments are not without merit. However, it's also worth considering the broader implications of these changes. For example, the longer arguments may be giving the justices more time to consider their options and to test one another's theories. This could potentially lead to more thoughtful and considered decisions, rather than rushed and impulsive rulings. In my opinion, the Supreme Court's oral arguments are an important part of the judicial process, and the justices' complaints should not be taken lightly. However, it's also important to consider the broader implications of these changes and to think about how they might impact the court's decision-making process. Personally, I think that the justices' complaints about the length and format of oral arguments are a sign that the court is taking its responsibilities seriously and is committed to ensuring that the arguments are as effective and efficient as possible. This is a positive development, and I look forward to seeing how the court addresses these issues in the future.
