“Obviously yes it is tampering. The lawyers who do speak in front of SCOTUS work for their client. The client needs to be there.”
————-
You are not correct. The Supreme Court is not a finder of fact and, as such, there is no particular reason why a person involved in a case that the Court is deciding needs to be there. The Supreme Court determines whether the law, or the Constitution (the ultimate law in our country), is or is not being followed in any given case.They are not going to ask any questions of the defendant or proponent in a case. In a Supreme Court case, the attorneys for each side give an opening statement, they are asked questions by the justices, and then they give a closing statement. That is all that happens. Most often, cases are decided based upon the briefs submitted weeks or months earlier, not based upon the oral arguments. The person charged with a crime in a case in which the Supreme Court is deciding what the law is, does not need to be there. It Is often the case that the people who are involved with a case in front of the Supreme Court do not attend. It is most certainly NOT a requirement.
I never said that the Supreme Court is a finder of fact nor did I give that as a reason why the litigant has the right to be there. And the rest of your post also doesn't address my point.