|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910462413903321 |
|
|
Autore |
Roberts Matthew M.C. <1976-> |
|
|
Titolo |
Oral argument and amicus curiae [[electronic resource] /] / Matthew M.C. Roberts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
El Paso, : LFB Scholarly Pub., 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (183 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Law & society : recent scholarship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Amici curiae - United States |
Forensic orations - United States |
Political questions and judicial power - United States |
Public interest law - United States |
Electronic books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
CONTENTS; List of Tables; List of Figures; Acknowledgements; Chapter 1: Listening to Friends; A Tale of Two Cases; The Amicus Curiae; Oral Arguments; Connecting the Dots; Chapter 2: Amici: Who and When; Case Demographics; Personnel Factors; Data and Methods; Oral Amici: A Qualitative Look; Conclusion; Chapter 3: Influence on Case Outcomes; The Vote on the Merits; Oral Amici and Court Opinions; Conclusion; Chapter 4: Conclusions and Implications; A Review of the Findings; What it all Means; Oral Amici and the Swing Voter; Appendix 1; Appendix 2; References; Index |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
Members of the Supreme Court are supposed to base decisions on the law, but often their choices are better explained by political ideology and party loyalty. Roberts sheds light on this problem by looking at a part of the Court's life that has never been systematically studied. Most cases feature extra briefs written by third parties known as amici curiae. He examines the rare occasions on which the Court allows these extra groups to participate not just by filing briefs but by appearing before the Court during oral arguments. By tracing how these groups influence the justices' behavior, Rober |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|