Supreme Court Oral Argument MP3s.
February 7, 2006 11:38 AM   Subscribe

The Oyez Project has placed online mp3s for all of the arguments from the 2004 term of the United States Supreme Court. The 2004 terms spans all cases argued between October 4, 2004, and April 27, 2005, including United States v. Booker and United States v. FanFan, Roper v. Simmons , Raich v. Gonzales, Kelo v. City of New London, McCreary County v. ACLU, and Van Orden v. Perry. [slightly more inside]
posted by monju_bosatsu (25 comments total)
 
The mp3s--click on "Resources" from the page on each case--are released under a Creative Commons license. The Oyez Project also has a podcast highlighting some of the recent cases and arguments from Chief Justice Robert's days as an advocate, and lists the most popular oral argument audio here. The Project has also added a tour of the Supreme Court Building, including images of some of the Justices' chambers and of Justice Stevens' baseball memorabilia. [previously]
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:39 AM on February 7, 2006


Awesome link, monju_bosatsu.

Since we don't get TV in there, these recordings are the best we got for these awesome experiences in civic education.

Only thing, they need to turn on Thomas' mic. I never hear him.
posted by dios at 11:43 AM on February 7, 2006


This is such a cool site! A fresh look at what I think most people think of as a stodgy subject.

Now I can be a SCOTUS groupie from the "friendly confines" of my own home. heh

Thanks, monju_bosatsu
posted by jaronson at 11:51 AM on February 7, 2006


Only thing, they need to turn on Thomas' mic. I never hear him.

He's in Scalia's pocket.
posted by eddydamascene at 11:51 AM on February 7, 2006


He's in Scalia's pocket.

Except that he's not at all. Have you read their opinions?
posted by JekPorkins at 11:54 AM on February 7, 2006


Only thing, they need to turn on Thomas' mic. I never hear him.

If you listen closely you can hear him say, "Who has pubic hair on my microphone?"
posted by three blind mice at 12:04 PM on February 7, 2006


Wonderful link, thank you.
posted by Pontius Pilate at 12:09 PM on February 7, 2006


I started to search by advocate. I didn't realize you could do that. Unfortunately, they don't have any William Pinkney arguments.
posted by dios at 12:15 PM on February 7, 2006


(by the way: lest someone get upset about the "seen it" shirt. That was a joke based on something I remember monju saying at somet point either here or MetaChat. It was meant as an innocent and playful joke with him. Please don't think I was trying to comment on this awesome, awesome post. Would that were more interesting posts like this. I just wanted to clarify that.)
posted by dios at 12:19 PM on February 7, 2006


Excellent post! Thanks so much.
posted by OmieWise at 12:38 PM on February 7, 2006


I'm glad they're doing this. It's shameful that SCOTUS doesn't post all their own oral arguments however (though they've put up a few key cases in the past, like Bush v. Gore). It shouldn't take a year+ before we can hear these arguments. And we shouldn't have to rely on the graces of a third party to do so. Thanks for the link, monju_bosatsu.
posted by longdaysjourney at 12:50 PM on February 7, 2006


IIRC, Thomas doesn't speak, ever, during oral arguments. He puts it all down in his written opinions.

As an aside, I think it's perfect, really, that the SCOTUS is taped orally and not by video--forces one to pay attention to the verbiage above all else.

Neat post.
posted by bardic at 12:55 PM on February 7, 2006


eh. It's very interesting to read and listen to recordings of supreme court arguments, and this post is a great one. I don't think it's shameful, though, that the Court isn't quicker about it or that they don't post all their own oral arguments.

The Circuits don't post any of their oral arguments, and getting them is extremely difficult. West Publishing is a third party, and I don't think there's anything shameful in that.

The bottom line is that there's no reasonable expectation of speedy public access to transcripts or recordings of a court proceeding. In lower courts, it can take months for a trial court record to become available even for an appeal. It's nothing new, and it's nothing to get up in arms about.

That said: Great link, monju_bosatsu. Interesting, informative and, dare I say it, entertaining.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:58 PM on February 7, 2006


A student of mine does the podcast. I sent him a link to this thread. His response:

VERY cool :). Funny thing is, I've been playing with the podcast all day, tweaking this that and the next ;). Perhaps more people look at it than I thought.
posted by rbs at 1:38 PM on February 7, 2006


(Thomas rarely ever asks questions. My comment about his mic was a lame joke.
posted by dios at 1:40 PM on February 7, 2006


[this is good]
posted by youarenothere at 1:56 PM on February 7, 2006


Except that he's not at all. Have you read their opinions?

Not recently (it was a joke!). Downloading Kelo v. City of New London now.
posted by eddydamascene at 2:00 PM on February 7, 2006


A nice piece on Kelo and Raich: An Excess of Power
posted by homunculus at 2:05 PM on February 7, 2006


my favorite thing on Oyez is this photo of Ginsburg and Scalia on an elephant.
posted by subtle-t at 2:17 PM on February 7, 2006


The Circuits don't post any of their oral arguments, and getting them is extremely difficult.


Most of the Circuits make the tapes available for a $26 fee (and the delay is not months-long for most of the Circuits). At least three of the Circuits post recordings of their oral arguments online:

Seventh Circuit
Eighth Circuit
Ninth Circuit

Without the OYEZ project, you'd have to go to the National Archives to get a copy of SCOTUS oral argument tapes (and only after the end of the term). But regardless, SCOTUS is the highest court in the land and its decisions impact significantly larger portions of the citizenry. I don't think asking that it make its oral arguments more easily available is asking for too much.
posted by longdaysjourney at 2:45 PM on February 7, 2006


At least three of the Circuits post recordings of their oral arguments online

Cool. Thanks for the links!
posted by JekPorkins at 2:50 PM on February 7, 2006


"Thomas rarely ever asks questions. My comment about his mic was a lame joke."

Ah, but you erred, my friend, in assuming that mefites would be aware of this fact.

Yah, Thomas never asks questions. Personally, I think it's because he's easily the least intellect on the court. But maybe he's just shy and asks Scalia to ask his questions for him.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:27 PM on February 7, 2006


I think the reason that Thomas doesn't ask questions at oral argument is that he doesn't think there's any point to having oral argument. I wonder how often the justices change their mind about a case after oral argument. I'm betting it's extremely rare.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:18 PM on February 7, 2006


You may be right. To the degree to which that's the case, it also may indicate the degree to which most of this is the work of their clerks. Or would it be the other way around?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:24 PM on February 7, 2006


The amount of work done by the clerks varies from Justice to Justice, and indeed, from opinion to opinion. Both Justice Scalia and Thomas have consistent styles that suggest that they write their own opinions. That's especially true when they write separately from the opinion of the Court. My understanding is that Supreme Court Justices tend to write more of their own opinions than many of the Circuit Court Judges, simply because of the volume of cases.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:40 PM on February 7, 2006


« Older Musical Listening Study   |   Jean-Luc Godard's 'Histoire(s) du Cinéma' Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments