No issues actually get hashed out in the oral argument.

They are limited to 1 hour. You have 2 or more parties giving opening questions. And the 9 justices questioning each on what are often thousands of pages of documents.

It is really more of an opportunity to publicly critique each side with a few pointed questions.

I duno. I think things happen sometimes. Sometimes not.

There have been cases where it really sounded like there was a traditional split along the court and then some questions pop up and the answers are so bad / arguments clearly absurd / the lawyers have no good answers that suddenly the case is clearly going one way.

Usually this revolves around the sort of second order effects of a potential ruling and where ideology isn't entirely clear / has some conflicts with those second order effects.

I don't think any new or surprise questions pop up in oral argument. Everything has been mapped out in the briefing documents, and hashed out sever times in lower courts.

In fact, I think it would be a bad thing if the court swung on oral arguments. These are very complex topics prepared by an army of lawyers on each side. They should not hinge on if a single presenter doesn't have a clear an concise answer within two seconds of being asked it.

I don't doubt everyone prepares. However, there are arguments if you listen to where the attorneys don't have a prepared answer / don't have good answers and the judges genuinely sound surprised.

As for the rulings there's A LOT more than ruling one way or another, the ruling itself can range in all sorts of directions.

Until you get a performance review where they say that you should be more engaged in meetings. AKA a signal it might be time to update the resume.

My favorite solution for that, or when I feel I need to show some involvement for others.

I ask a specific enough question from someone I don't typically talk to, that I know has a non controversial answer. They answer it and it shows I'm thinking of nuts and bolts and how things work and everyone moves on.

You'd be surprised how many folks think "oh this guy knows all about / is really thinking about that thing to ask that kind of specific question".

Just a quick one like that works well. You do have to know the room and the situation to avoid falling into some messes but it works.

Yes, in most meetings I try to say as little as possible, especially when the conversation has diverged from the agenda (i.e. almost every meeting).

At my company, that will get you a bad rating (I know from experience).

Sounds like a company that overvalues debate for its own sake. I've worked in places like that. "Intellectual sparring" was considered important, even if you basically agreed with the discussion or it was uncontroversial, you were expected to find something to contest in almost every meeting. It was tedious but you could game it by having some stock objections ready to throw out. I moved on from there after a couple of years.

I'm not saying never say anything if something important and relevant is being missed, but in my experience that rarely happens.