Terry is claiming that the Commonwealth interpretation of the law is wrong. Therefore, they only thing the judges need is an understanding of the law. Since as judges it is their job to interpret the law, there is no need to hear oral arguments.
Further, they are not dismissing his argument. They are just saying you already asked us to review your argument in your original filing. No need to ask again.
It would have been nice to hear oral arguments but in this case they are not necessary. That is why they denied the request.
Terry’s case is going to be based on their interpretation of the law. As judges, that is what they do. They interpret law and decided whether that interpretation is constitutional.