Video conferencing can have a significant effect on how those viewing the subject see the person on camera. I spent a bunch of years with PictureTel in the 90s, and there is a real art to it. Heck PictureTel had their own recommended wall color, PictureTel Purple, to help get the best images possible. These kind of talking-head kluged conferences are terrible.
Look how the judges were framed, too close and off center, too far away, and from the side. Everyone is looking at a monitor but they don't seem to get it that the far end is looking through the camera. Relative camera/monitor position is crucial.
And the audio was terrible. PictureTel did studies to determine what were the most important aspects of a video conference and found that audio quality was the single most important item.
As for the chief justice, I don't think she was inattentively looking away, rather she was looking at reference material and making notes. In chambers her computer screen and any notes would be directly in front of her, below her line of sight to those testifying. In this hearing her computer/notes were off to the side, making it look like she was looking away.
The center judge was too close to the camera, and the guy on the right was too far away when he was leaning back (cheap camera, small lens).
So you have to get past all the terrible video and audio. PictureTel put some serious effort into understanding how video/audio is perceived by the viewer and found that viewers made subconscious decisions about the content and people dependant on the quality and presentation of the video/audio
As for the adversarial tone, that's the nature of the hearing and if it's not there they aren't doing their job. I think it's hard to tell but I think sometimes the adversarial judge is asking questions to get answers that support their position, looking for information that they feel will help convince the other judges.
And if a judge isn't asking questions, and just sits back and listens, that judge has already made a decision and just wants the hearing to end.
I just watched the video and I have a few comments. First and foremost is that is an hour of my time that I'll nev have back.
I was surprised at how the only judge that seemed to pay attention was the guy in the top right panel. He seemed engaged and listened to all of the testimony. Asked appropriate questions (although not that many).
The chief justice (I assume) in the top left, was not very attentive during the states testimony always looking away unless she had a question. Was she letting him speak because she agreed with him or needed him to get his testimony into the record?
The middle judge seemed to have some relevant questions.
When the sides changed, the judges seemed to change as well. Both of the female judges took on a more adversarial tone. Where the states attorney got a hall pass, she was challenged on a lot of things. While the attorney had a lot of good and salient points, there is a LOT of room for confirmation bias for the judges.
It was very interesting to watch, though I'll never do it again. I can't wait for the ruling against the 2A and how they twist the "facts" and arguments to meet their views. This is afterall the ninth circus. We all know how this is going to go.