Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court: An Empirical ApproachOxford University Press, 16/04/2008 - 208 páginas Of 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. |
Índice
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 |
7 Predicting Votes from Oral Arguments | 127 |
8 Contentious Issues | 147 |
References | 167 |
179 | |
Outras edições - Ver tudo
Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach Lawrence Wrightsman Pré-visualização limitada - 2008 |
Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach Lawrence Wrightsman Pré-visualização limitada - 2008 |
Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach Lawrence Wrightsman Pré-visualização limitada - 2008 |
Palavras e frases frequentes
Alito Amendment Anna Nicole Smith answer appeals attorney Austin Bair behavior bench brief Brown cameras cert challenged Chief Justice Rehnquist Chief Justice Roberts claim clients concluded Congress constitutional courtroom criminal Davis decide decision defendant dissent example federal Frederick Goldstein Hamdan hearing 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 Marshall’s Mauro McGuire ment nonideological number of questions October 2005 term opinion oral arguments outcome permitted petition petitioner petitioner’s Pierce Marshall Pinkney Plessy police predict present President prisoners procedure Randolph reflected respondent S.Ct segregation Senate Shullman solicitor solicitor general’s office South Carolina state’s statement Supreme Court bar television tion told transcript of oral trial unanimously United vote Warren Webster words Wrightsman wrote