The whole consideration should be aired live.

and every word explained to the Americans that the right-wing justices are wrong for America today.

The rationale, or lack thereof, will be in the written decision. I suspect that regardless of the final decision in this case, there will be multiple concurring and dissenting opinions.

That is what is so interesting about the Supreme Court. You can have justices participating in multiple opinions and I suspect we will see this here.

The law clerks have been very busy writing and re-writing.

both sides issue written opinions to explain why they ruled on a given issue.

so they could look in the faces to get an idea what their words mean

Because most Americans have no idea what it provides.
They only hear the Republican screaming that's so much louder than anything else.

The Democratic promotional machine really fell down on the job with this one.
As it does on most issues.

Even on this website, last week, someone had to be talked out of fearing Sarah Palin's imaginary death panels.
It's insane that idiots like Sarah Palin and her ilk control most public conversations about policy but they do.

if they overturn it, it will be televised. Which will give all the mouth breathing right wing morons reason to cheer (even though it goes against their own self interest)

If they don't overturn it, it will NOT be televised and we won't hear a peep about it.

It is exceedingly rare for an entire opinion to be read aloud. Usually, all that happens is that the outcome (affirmed, reversed, etc.) is announced. It is entirely possible, if not certain, that the decision on the ACA will encompass multiple opinions, some concurring, some dissenting, some concurring in part and dissenting in part, some concurring in the outcome but not necessarily the same reasoning. Reading it aloud would take a ridiculous amount of time. More importantly, it would be unintelligible. For example, would the Justices be expected to read aloud all of the footnotes in the case? The footnotes can be textual as well as citations, and leaving them out would very likely distort the position taken in an opinion.

So, thanks for the silly idea, Senators Leahy and Grassley. I have little or no interest in seeing a decision read -- seeing the argument as it happens...that's a different matter, although I have some sympathy for the court's concern that soundbites of their questions etc. could be used misleadingly by partisans.