I sort of agree with Judge Thomas's example of the surgeons discussing the case. Unfortunately for the Justice, he has apparently not been in a modern teaching hospital for the last quarter century. "Bedside rounds" are deliberately done in exactly the way Judge Thomas describes. Well, maybe not in the OR, but absolutely at the bedside. By the time you reach the OR, everything has been pre-decided, unless something goes amiss while in the surgery. The reason teaching hospitals work in this way is because we (doctors) believe that showing the process of arriving at a medical diagnosis and decision helps everyone - the patients and the doctors. Doctors to learn how to handle future cases and patients to see that there is a thought process behind the decisions. It is for exactly this reason that hearing the justices on the supreme court ask questions is so vital.

Here is a hypothetical example of this in action: imagine you have had your finger cut off in some accident. You go to the hospital, and they don't say anything, just put you out. When you wake up, there is your finger, and on the tip - a leech! you might initially be horrified, and convinced that the doctors are poorly educated (are they trying to "blood let" and re-balanbce your humours?). Now imagine before they put you out, they discuss how to restore the blood flow and keep the finger alive while your body is healing. And they discuss the merits of using leeches to do so (this is true). Now when you wake up, you might feel a little grossed out, but you understand the reasoning.

The bottom line is that transparency is good in medicine, it is good in our legislators and executive branches, and it is good in the judiciary.

I agree, Doctor, with your point. A good friend of my is currently in her residency, and she expressed the same explanation, but that aside, CT has a point. At some point, we have to ask ourselves if a "right to know" trump the moral obligations of our judges to do their jobs fairly and professionally? I would answer is does not. Most often, the justices are just performing for the sake of performing, asking silly questions that only thinly relate to their case. I will never forget during the Texas sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Scalia asked if the law would be any fairer if it was anti-poll-sitting. What? That, of course, was a professorial question that only a former law professor would have asked, but it did not persuade him one way or another since Scalia--surprise!--dissented (for the Court, Kennedy struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional).

Frankly, if you're not persuaded by the oral arguments, why bother asking questions and interrupting a lawyer's only chance at persuading you the merits of her case? That's the same reason why I oppose cameras in the Court: it only creates greater pressure on our lawyers to perform for the cameras and for ego-centric justices to make bigger 'holes of themselves than they already do. In an age of reality-based everything, and the democratization of our Republic, it's refreshing we have one last institution not so inclined to subject themselves to the whining habits of lawyer-journalists like Lathwick, Totenberg, Tobbin, and Greenhouse but to the view held by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that judges--much like the law--ought to be "behind the times."

So, like "ABC" (read Thomas' memoir for the reference), I too, think the Justices ought to "shut up!" and listen.

persuasive it is doing the advocate a favor to explain why and give him a real chance at persuading you otherwise.

It's true that the justices will grandstand for their egos (much like attending doctors to residents and students). But I am pretty sure that the lawyers arguing before them also have pretty strong egos. Realistically, if the issue is just presentation of information, then there is no reason at all to go with oral arguments. Everything could be written down and presented in this fashion. But - if I can tell what direction the argument is proceeding (and I know this happens when I ask residents or students to describe their reasoning about a case), I will freely interupt in order to save time, or to let them know that I have already considered and rejected their ideas. This allows them to bring in other issues that they should be prepared with.

I would be quite certain that a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court has been challenged before, and has a variety of arguments to back up their reasoning. I assume the Justices are at least passingly familiar with the cases before them, and so have some ideas about what the argument is going to be. Asking questions lets the attorney know that this or that line of reasoning is being seen favorably or not, and to adjust their thinking "on the fly". Thus the merits of an oral argument are preserved, and unique to the oral (vs written) case. Once the argument is written out, there is really no room to adjust it, or tailor it.