Oral Arguments Research Articles

Ready for Their Close-Up? Ideological Cues and Strategic Televising in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Federal judges offer several stated purposes for pursuing greater publicity in the judicial process, including improving the quality of reporting and educating the public. They are less candid about other goals that influence steps they take as they shape how they are perceived, including strategically using publicity to secure others’ compliance, neutralize policy disagreement, or build legitimacy. Despite these judicial goals, scholars of American politics know little about how federal judges shape the public’s perceptions. We leverage a notable exception to federal judges’ aversion to publicizing their proceedings by analyzing how Ninth Circuit appellate judges respond to media requests to televise oral arguments. We find that the televised representation these judges present to the public is a selective one: decisions to televise appear to be motivated by portraying unanimity, while at the same time avoiding the spread of perceived politicization among the public. These results shed much-needed light on how federal judges navigate a publicity-politicization tradeoff through their strategic use of televising.

Promote Scientific Discourse, Not Lawsuits

Pacira Biosciences initiated a lawsuit asserting trade libel over articles and related materials produced by Anesthesiology. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. After hearing oral argument and considering briefs, the presiding court dismissed the case with prejudice. The court focused on the preference for scientific disputes to be addressed through scientific discourse and under peer review. The court recognized that courts are not an appropriate venue absent specific circumstances. The decision will optimistically encourage dialogue and not chill future questions from being raised.

SCIENTIFIC LITERACY IN THE FINAL YEARS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: FERMENTATION AS A MEANS OF TEACHINGSCIENCE

The following pages contain a qualitative case study designed and carried out to understand what the assumptions are. These are data from the voice recording research of classes in full and the written works and/or activities produced by the students, in addition to all the didactic material provided to them during the classes. We started our research by reviewing the theme “Scientific Literacy through fermentation in artisanal yogurt production” in the national and international literature on Science Didactics, through which we found information that allowed us to propose the structuring axes of Scientific Literacy. These axes are considered in our research for the analysis of the activities that make up a didactic sequence involving discussions in which the same theme is discussed considering scientific knowledge and technologies through local knowledge. The indicators are vital for the analysis that we carry out as they can provide evidence that Scientific Literacy is in process among the students at Elementary School Final Years observed in our research. After analyzing the didactic sequence, the oral arguments, and the written works and/or experimental activities carried out by the students, we found quite substantial evidence that Scientific Literacy is in process for most of the students in the studied class

Humor in Supreme Court oral arguments

Abstract Humor in political communication can risk trivializing important issues or otherwise backfire. Still, comedy’s potential rhetorical power ensures its frequent use as a communication and persuasion strategy. This is true even in the Supreme Court of the United States, where oral-argument humor offers a window on thinking and communication strategies as justices deliberate and weigh contending arguments. Judicial humor at the Court may be likelier when participants are cognitively fresh, or when the case at issue focuses less on a specific person’s life or liberty. Reviewing outbursts of laughter in the Court’s oral arguments between the seating of Justice Kagan and the death of Justice Scalia confirms that cases argued later in the day and relating to individuals’ civil rights see less humor. Within cases, humor arises less frequently during the argument that prevails in the Court’s eventual judgment.

Integrating Reading as Evidence to Enhance Argumentation in Scientific Reading-based Inquiry: A Design-based Research in Biology Classroom

This study aims to design a Scientific Reading-based Inquiry (SRbI) model that supports argumentation skills development. The assessment of these skills refers to the Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP), and the participants were Biology Education students in a state university. Furthermore, the Design-based Research (DBR) approach was adopted by combining exploratory studies, trials, and case studies as part of an iterative process. The intervention was formed based on design principles derived from literature review and findings from exploratory studies. Also, observations were made during the trial and intervention process. Data in assessments and observations of written and oral arguments were collected and descriptively analyzed. The study, in three iterations, produced a framework as the basis for the SRbI learning model, with five phases: Reading Orientation, Recapturing, Processing, Communicating, and Reviewing. Therefore, the application of this learning model had a significant impact on the development of students’ argumentation skills.

You Think; Therefore I Am: Gender Schemas and Context in Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court, 1979–2016

Attorneys’ ability to secure justice-votes is shaped by gender schemas, subconscious expectations which hold women should use more emotion than men. This poses few problems for male attorneys since men and attorneys are both expected to avoid emotion. But, women are placed in a double-bind with competing professional and personal expectations. We argue gender schemas are not static rather they change with the context of the Court. Introducing a new dataset inclusive of all oral arguments from 1979 to 2016, we utilize quantitative textual analysis and find gender schemas predict securing justice-votes as the Bar becomes more diverse and justices become more conservative. Our results raise normative concerns about female attorneys’ ability to substantively contribute to the Court’s case law.

Working with Waiver: Supreme Court to Review Law on When an Employer Drops and then Reinstates Arbitration

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument in Morgan v. Sundance Inc., No. 21‐328 (the Court's docket page is available at https://bit.ly/3ERZkUL).

Lower Primary School Students’ Scientific Arguments


 
 
 
 The present study investigates the structure and the content of oral scientific arguments constructed by the 6-year-old students in Greece when they answered questions about light propagation through objects, the dissolution of substances in water, and the flow of electric current through objects. The research was conducted with the participation of 64 primary school students (6 years old), while the interview served as the data collection tool. Research data included students’ answers (arguments) to the questions of the interview. Students’ scientific arguments were analyzed through rubrics evaluating the sufficiency and the appropriateness of the components of the arguments. The analysis of the data allowed the categories of students’ arguments to be determined. It was found that students’ arguments included sufficient and appropriate claims, some of them included sufficient and appropriate evidence, but they included no reasonings or rebuttals at all.
 
 
 
 

Review: Justice, Justice Thou Shalt Pursue: A Life’s Work Fighting for a More Perfect Union, by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Amanda L. Tyler

Review: <i>Justice, Justice Thou Shalt Pursue: A Life’s Work Fighting for a More Perfect Union</i>, by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Amanda L. Tyler

Policing Potential Violence

A series of Supreme Court decisions in the past 40 years transformed the legal standard for police use of force, centering officers’ assessments of a suspect’s potential for violence. Using the oral arguments from three landmark SCOTUS cases, I trace the development of a legal discourse of potential violence. Using Judith Butler and Robert Gooding-Williams’ frame of a “racial field of vision,” this paper juxtaposes the colorblind legal narrative of potential violence with cultural narratives of race that mark Black masculinity with the signifiers of threat and criminality. I argue that the intersection of legal and cultural narratives of potential violence is an important site for understanding the disproportionate use of police violence against Black men and boys.

Examining pre-service science teachers’ development and utilization of written and oral argument and representation resources in an argument-based inquiry environment

This study investigated the development and utilization of argument and representation resources in pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs’) written and oral arguments over two semesters in an argument-based inquiry environment of General Chemistry Laboratory I and II courses. The study employed a form of mixed methods research that is known as ‘data-transformation variant of convergent design’ which allows quantification of qualitative data. Data sources included PSTs’ 180 laboratory reports and 20 video recordings. A Friedman test and a Spearman-Brown correlation were conducted for statistical analysis. The results revealed that the quality of argument and representation were intertwined in both written and oral argumentation. While the PSTs’ quality of written argument and representation significantly increased from the first-time phase to the following time phases, in oral argumentation the quality remained stable after the second time phase. There was also a positive correlation amongst the PSTs’ quality of written and oral argument and representation. The PSTs’ representational competency increased over time and they connected more representations in written arguments. The results suggest that students should be provided with opportunities to engage in sustained talking, writing, and reading practices both publicly and privately in order to critique and construct arguments, develop representational competency, and integrate ideas.

SCOTUS in the Time of COVID: The Evolution of Justice Dynamics during Oral Arguments

SCOTUS in the Time of COVID: The Evolution of Justice Dynamics during Oral Arguments

On the Linguistic Argument for the Adoption of the Library Subject Heading Noncitizen

This linguistic study contributes to the decades-long discussion on the inappropriateness of the Library of Congress Subject Heading illegal aliens by examining its absence in a corpus of US Supreme Court oral arguments and by evaluating automatic translation tool results related to keywords as well as a corpus extract. This linguistic study confirms the ideological bias of the illegal aliens subject heading compared to a plethora of other expressions that legal scholars may use to describe the situations implied under the more neutral umbrella term noncitizen. The automatic translation results for alien and illegal alien also support the notion that the term illegal alien is confined to a United States historical context, which hinders its international comprehension as a subject heading.

“I haven't come a long way, and I'm not a baby”: Task assignment and diversity of the Supreme Court bar

AbstractObjectiveGender disparities in litigation task assignment are not limited to the trial court context; they are present in even the highest of courts in the United States. We explore and seek to explain the gendered patterns of participation by lawyers arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court.MethodsAfter quantitatively describing participation by female attorneys in Supreme Court litigation, we use logistic regression and fractional logit, respectively, to identify factors that influence the degree to which women deliver oral arguments and participate in writing litigant briefs.ResultsDescriptively, we find that male attorneys present more oral arguments than female attorneys, and most litigant briefs are written by male‐dominated teams. In fact, more than a third of the briefs are only signed by men. In multivariate analyses of Supreme Court oral arguments and briefs, we find that women are more likely to argue and sign briefs on issues in which they are stereotypically perceived as more competent (women's issues) and less likely to participate in issue areas where they are perceived to be less competent, like economic issues. Similarly, women are less likely to orally argue in complex cases.ConclusionWhile occupational segregation and other factors may play a role, the participation of female attorneys in this forum is likely driven, in part, by stereotyped assessments of their competency.

North Dakota, which once lost its fight to regulate PBM practices, gets a rematch

North Dakota, which once lost its fight to regulate PBM practices, gets a rematch

A History of Modern Press Access to the Supreme Court of the United States

Throughout its history, the Supreme Court of the United States has allowed members of the press access to oral arguments and decision releases in its courtroom. However, it took nearly eighty years to formally codify a process by which members of the press were officially credentialed to cover the Court, a pass giving them access to the courtroom beyond the bar, access to walk the halls freely, to work in dedicated space in the building, and access to the justices themselves. This article traces the history of the press credentialing from the day the justices moved into the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., in 1935 to the unprecedented public access granted to oral arguments due to the social distancing required by the COVID19 virus in the spring of 2020. It is meant to fortify the historical record to ensure that the Court remains as open and accessible as possible to reporters because they act as emissaries of the public. The Court’s decisions affect all aspects of life for citizens, and therefore public knowledge of the Court’s work is essential to a strong democracy. Press access is key to that understanding.

23.2 LGBTQ FAMILIES AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

This session aims to review the literature on how the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions have impacted the mental health of LGBTQ families and the upcoming cases that may impact LGBTQ families, and to provide practical clinical recommendations on how to support families with the impact of these decisions. The peer-reviewed literature on the impact of recent SCOTUS decisions on LGBTQ mental health will be reviewed and discussed. Transcripts from oral arguments from recent cases were reviewed (Fulton v The City of Philadelphia, Obergefell v Hodges, Employment Division v Smith, Bostock v Clayton County), along with published commentary by constitutional scholars. In 2015, SCOTUS established marriage equality with its decision in Obergefell v Hodges. Marriage equality for sexual minority people has resulted in decreased mental healthcare visits and lower suicide attempt rates. These outcomes are thought to be secondary to broad cultural impacts on society’s views of homosexuality. Conversely, policies that limit LGBTQ civil rights, including those that permit the denial of services to LGBTQ people, have been linked to adverse mental health outcomes. SCOTUS recently heard oral arguments in Fulton v The City of Philadelphia, a case examining an organization’s right to refuse adoption screening services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religious beliefs. A case permitting such denial of services, based on extant literature, would be expected to result in worsening mental health outcomes for LGBTQ people. Past court precedent relevant to the case, including Employment Division v Smith, will be discussed. Recent changes in the court’s composition and their implications for this case and potential future cases will be discussed. The mental health impact of these cases will be discussed through the minority stress framework, and practical recommendations for supporting LGBTQ families in this regard will be reviewed. Public policies and related SCOTUS decisions have profound public health impacts in the realm of sexual minority mental health. These decisions have important implications for LGBTQ families, and clinicians should be aware of these implications and strategies to mitigate adverse impacts on mental health.

Tournament Battle: Gamifying Bibliographic Research and Oral Argumentation Applied to Chemical Engineering Topics

The purpose of this study is to present a learning activity that gamifies an argumentation exercise by combining both a bibliographic research activity and an oral argument. The exercise is organized as a competitive battle to engage and motivate students after training in bibliographic research. Students are divided into four teams of 4–7 students and are involved in a 2-round tournament starting with the semifinal round: the two winners of each semifinal meet in the final and the two losers in a playoff for third place. Each match is divided in two halves of 10 min: one to prepare their work, and the second to present it and interact with the opposite team. At the end, the two spectator teams vote for the winning team, and educators referee having the final decision. A symbolic prize (university goodies) is offered to the final winning team, and each team is graded by the educators on the basis of their two matches. The feedback received from students that participated in this exercise during the 2016–2020 period has been evaluated and corroborates the increase of motivation and teamwork through such activities. At the end, the advantages and limitations of such an activity are discussed.

Exploring the color-evasive hustle 2.0 and Asian Americans within U.S. higher education race-conscious admissions oral arguments

ABSTRACT Ongoing sociolegal conflicts over affirmative action in race-conscious admissions in U.S. higher education have significant modern-day relevance. This article, informed mainly by Asian American women’s scholarship, explores discourse in U.S. Supreme Court rulings and oral arguments and how litigation actors continue to recycle this discourse in more recent legal strategies that maintain and normalize inequitable access to selective, historically White institutions. The author revisited and extended critical race feminist Kimberlé Crenshaw’s metaphor, the Colorblind Hustle, which describes the anti-affirmative action strategy of deploying Black spokespersons as advocates for eradicating policies that promote racial equity. The author proposes a new metaphor, the Color-Evasive Hustle 2.0, to describe current anti-affirmative action strategies with Asian Americans as plaintiffs in a 2018 lawsuit against Harvard University. Finally, this article elevates interdisciplinary scholarship and legal strategies with potential to expose the Color-Evasive Hustle 2.0 and affirm and sustain educational equity.

Protecting and Expanding Medicaid Access: Confronting Health Disparities Compounded by COVID-19.

Protecting and Expanding Medicaid Access: Confronting Health Disparities Compounded by COVID-19.