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.
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.