Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court: An Empirical ApproachOf all the steps in the Supreme Court's decision-making process, only one is visible to the public: the oral arguments. By carefully analyzing transcripts of all the oral arguments available to the public, Professor Wrightsman provides empirical answers to a number of questions about the operation of oral arguments. This book provides a model for understanding the dynamics of judicial decision making from an empirical perspective. |
Contents
Are They no Longer Essential? | 3 |
2 Justices Views on the Significance of Oral Arguments | 25 |
3 The Behavior of Advocates before the Supreme Court | 43 |
4 Justices Questions and Statements | 67 |
5 The Idiosyncratic Nature of Justices Behavior during Oral Arguments | 85 |
6 Oral Arguments in a Landmark Case | 105 |
Other editions - View all
Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach Lawrence Wrightsman Limited preview - 2008 |
Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach Lawrence Wrightsman Limited preview - 2008 |
Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach Lawrence Wrightsman Limited preview - 2008 |
Common terms and phrases
advocates Alito Amendment Anna Nicole Smith answer appeals appellate advocacy attorney Austin Bair bench Biskupic Board of Education brief Brown C-SPAN cameras cert Chief Justice Rehnquist Chief Justice Roberts claim Congress constitutional courtroom criminal Davis decide decision defendant dissent example federal Frederick Goldstein Greenhouse Hamdan ideological interrupted issue judge jury Justice Blackmun Justice Breyer Justice Frankfurter Justice Ginsburg Justice Kennedy Justice O'Connor Justice Scalia Justice Souter Justice Stevens Justice Thomas justice’s justices asked Kansas Kluger later law clerks law school lawyers Linda Greenhouse losing side Marshall Mauro McGuire ment MercExchange nonideological number of questions October 2005 term opinion oral argu oral arguments outcome petition petitioner Pinkney Plessy police position predict present President prisoners procedure Randolph reflected respondent S.Ct segregation Senate Shullman solicitor South Carolina statement Supreme Court bar television tion Topeka transcript of oral trial unanimously United vote Warren Webster words Wrightsman wrote