The phrase "argument audio" is not correct and does not convey a clear meaning in written English.
It may be intended to refer to audio related to an argument or discussion, but as it stands, it lacks clarity and context.
Example: "The argument audio from the debate was recorded for analysis."
Alternatives: "discussion audio" or "debate audio".
Among them are ideas for adding oral argument audio, case briefs, and data from PACER.
Be sure to visit the Oyez Project, an archive of oral argument audio files, and the SCOTUSblog, which tracks Supreme Court news.
If the Supreme Court turns down the groups' request, it will follow its normal procedure of posting weekly oral argument audio on Fridays -- which is too late for it to be of use to news organizations or anyone else interested in hearing history being made.
If you want to access United States Supreme Court records, which includes published opinions and oral argument audio files, visit the United States Supreme Court website.
Before opening arguments, an audio clip was played of Erdely promoting her story on a podcast.
Again the evaluators felt better about people whose political positions they disagreed with, so long as they received arguments in audio or video format.
It also generates a heated argument between them, the audio and video of which is automatically recorded by Paul's NeverCrash and transmitted to Omniscience.
But the court currently releases transcripts of oral arguments soon after they are finished and audio recordings of arguments the week they occur — all without causing grandstanding or self-censorship.
QUESTION FROM JEFF PARSONS: If you had the power to change one thing about the Court or how it operates, what it would be? (examples: grant more cases each term; permit longer arguments; release same-day audio; require Justice Thomas to ask at least one question per year; improve its website; …?) JEFFREY TOOBIN: I think it's a good website, www.supremecourtus.gov.supremecourtus.gov
Fig. 1 Bayesian network capturing the trial arguments related to the audio evidence.
The court cited both pieces of prior art in today's ruling, "We have considered all of Personal Audio's arguments," the decision reads, "and affirm the PTAB's conclusion that the challenged claims are anticipated by the Patrick/CBC reference, and alternatively that the claims are invalid as obvious in view of the Compton/CNN reference".
