The functions of oral argument in the U.S. supreme court

Wasby, Stephen L.; D’Amato, Anthony; Metrailer, Rosemary

doi:10.1080/00335637609383355

Cited by 28 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Structurally, the interpersonal flow of interaction is between Justices and counsel. Rarely do the Justices directly, formally interact with one another (Wasby, D'Amato, and Metrailer, 1976). This is not to suggest that the Justices do not interact, even debate points, but that discussion and argumentation between Justices occurs through the medium of the Justice-counsel dyad.…”

Section: The Setting Ofoamentioning

confidence: 99%

Observing Supreme Court Oral Argument: A Biosocial Approach

et al. 1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Supreme Court oral argument (OA) is one of many face-to-face settings of political interaction. This article describes a methodology for the systematic observation and measurement of behavior in OA developed in a study of over 300 randomly selected cases from the 1969-1981 terms of the u.S. Supreme Court. Five sources of observation are integrated into the OA database at the speaking turn level of analysis: the actual text of verbal behavior; categorical behavior codes; aspects of language use and speech behavior events; electro-acoustical measurement of voice quality; and content analysis of subject matter. Preliminary data are presented to illustrate the methodology and its application to theoretical concerns of the research project. Peterson, who has published on a wide variety of topics in biopolitics and political behavior, is Professor of Political Science at Alfred University. Glendon Schubert, Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, is a long-time and prolific student of judicial politics, constitutional law, and biopolitics.Stephen Wasby is Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York at Albany. His career has been devoted to the study of public law and judicial politics.A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT of political behavior occurs through face-to-face interaction. The face-to-face setting is present when small groups meet, when candidates face off in debates, and when lawyers negotiate in the corridors of courthouses (Dorff and Steiner, 1981;Nardulli, Flemming and Eisenstein, 1984). The face-to-face setting cuts across levels of government from municipal councils to international summit meetings. It also cuts across time; the face-to-face setting was no doubt even more common in politics 50,000 years ago than it is today. Although a substantial proportion of face-to-face interactions is not accessible to political researchers, another substantial proportion is. Indeed, there is a rapidly expanding wealth of raw political data stored on videotape, awaiting the attention and curiosity of political scientists.' Advances in video recording and microcomputing technology have made the concept of systematic observation of face-to-face politics more physically practical and financially feasible for political researchers (J. N. Schubert, 1988). In contrast with other scientific disciplines in and out of the social sciences, political science has no tradition of direct, observational field research. A few political scientists, however, have begun to apply the theoretical and methodological approach of human ethology in observational studies of politics (Watts,

show abstract

Section: The Setting Ofoamentioning

confidence: 99%

Observing Supreme Court Oral Argument: A Biosocial Approach

et al. 1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Searches of legal and social science bibliographic databases reveal only one published behavioral study dealing in any way with oral argument in appellate court decision-making in the United States (McFeeley and Ault, 1979) and only one more in the comparative literature (G. Schubert, 1985). This omission stands in direct contrast to the well-documented perceptions of US Supreme Court Justices (Harlan, 1985) and other federal appellate court judges, as well as lawyers arguing cases in the federal courts, that oral argument plays a very important role in appellate court decision-making (Marvell, 1978;Wasby, 1981).2 The potential functions and significance of oral argument are explored by Wasby et al (1976) and Shapiro (1984). The omission of research on oral argument appears more remarkable, given that the audiotape-recordings and printed transcripts of arguments for the Supreme Court offer scholars a rich, longitudinal database on the attitudes and concerns of Justices on many important policy issues over the past quarter century.…”

mentioning

confidence: 80%

Politics under the Microscope: Observational Methods in Political Research

Schubert¹

1988

International Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral political science has not utilized observational methods and lacks the field research tradition found in other behavioral sciences. This paper explores the potential contribution of observational methods to behavioral studies in political science and illustrates their application with data developed around oral argument in the United States Supreme Court and the first Reagan-Mondale television debate in 1984.If not unique, political science is unusual in the distance it maintains from its subject matter. In the natural sciences, geologists spend a good deal of time looking at rocks, astronomers watch the stars and laboratory biologists examine tissue. In the behavioral sciences, primatologists spend time in the field observing primates, anthropologists spend time in the field observing culture, and psychologists observe behavior in clinical, laboratory and field settings. Over the course of a career, the typical political scientist spends little if any time actually observing political behavior. Judicial scholars spend little time in the courtroom, students of legislatures spend little time in committee rooms or the galleries of a legislative body, and specialists in local government are rarely found in the audience of councils, boards and commissions. At best, most scholars in this discipline may watch a few hours of &dquo;live&dquo; politics in their subject area over the course of a career. Such limited viewing time is reflected in the paucity of systematic, nonparticipant observational research in political science. Of course, some &dquo;participant&dquo; observation occurs in the discipline and, no doubt, such experience is educational for participants-possibly, even offering a rich source of hypotheses. Participant observation, however, is subjective, and limited in its perspective on events by the sensory and cognitive capabilities of the individual, and cannot possibly meet scientific standards for validity, reliability and

show abstract

“…First, research provides systematic evidence that oral arguments generally play an informational role in the Supreme Court's decision-making process (Johnson 2001(Johnson , 2004Wasby, D'Amato, and Metrailer 1976). Other scholars substantiate these findings through detailed analyses of specific cases or issue areas (see, for example, Benoit 1989;Cohen 1978;Wasby, D'Amato, and Metrailer 1976).…”

Section: Threshold Issues and Oral Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trying to Get What You Want

Black

Schutte

Johnson

2013

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Riker famously theorized that political actors faced with suboptimal outcomes might be able to garner a more desirable one by adding issues to the agenda. To date, limited support for Riker’s theory of heresthetics exists, primarily consisting of case studies and anecdotal evidence. We offer a systematic analysis of heresthetical maneuvers in the context of Supreme Court decision making. We argue justices who oppose a potential case outcome may add alternative issues to the record in an effort to restructure the terms of debate. Data from justices’ behavior during oral argument support Riker’s theory.

show abstract

The functions of oral argument in the U.S. supreme court

Cited by 28 publications

References 4 publications

Observing Supreme Court Oral Argument: A Biosocial Approach

Observing Supreme Court Oral Argument: A Biosocial Approach

Politics under the Microscope: Observational Methods in Political Research

Trying to Get What You Want

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About