Audio from oral arguments provides a nice summary of some of the concerns that drove this decision: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-777
I remember reading the transcript for a recent politicized ruling regarding voting rights and finding out from the judgement that the issue was far different from what the media portrayed. For example, it was a lengthy debate the role of state vs federal law, the legal justifications for government interference, and the quality of the data supporting each side.
It really gave me hope in the 'system' - that at least the judicial body is a source of rationality while the political body is ideologically capricious and often fails to use data to support decision making.
I should note this is a non partisan criticism.
To answer your question, yes, the Supreme Court's oral argument audio is always posted online.
scotusblog.com also blogs about every case.
That being said, I also disagree with a blanket indictment of "the media". Yes, court cases often turn on details that the public debate doesn't focus on, such as federal vs. states' powers in regards to the voting rights act. But that's because they focus more on the motivation, and the impact, of these cases. The southern challenge of the voting rights act wasn't motivated by concerns of federal overreach, or a drive to introduce evidence-based decision-making into politics.
“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
> or a drive to introduce evidence-based decision-making into politics
“If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present coverage formula. It would have been irrational for Congress to distinguish between states in such a fundamental way based on 40-year-old data, when today’s statistics tell an entirely different story,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
Beyond singling out southern states, and deciding whether individual court cases could be sufficient rather than having special federal oversight, the core arguments made against the act was that the current data doesn't support the need for such an act in 2016.
The justices who dissented even agreed that racial discrimination was still an issue in the country. But they found this law and the arguments supporting the continuation of special federal powers over specific states to be a poor and outdated means to confront this issue.
I'm reasonably confident that is why Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare, among other decisions. The justices know that if they strike something down the odds of Congress fixing it are virtually nil, so they try to craft compromise decisions.
If that kind of thing appeals to you, you may have a future in civil procedure and litigation!