Overview
While legal scholars, psychologists, and political scientists commonly voice their skepticism over the influence oral arguments have on the Court’s voting pattern, this book offers a contrarian position focused on close scrutiny of the justices’ communication within oral arguments. Malphurs examines the rhetoric, discourse, and subsequent decision-making within the oral arguments for significant Supreme Court cases, visiting their potential power and danger and revealing the rich dynamic nature of the justices’ interactions among themselves and the advocates. In addition to offering advancements in scholars’ understanding of oral arguments, this study introduces Sensemaking as an alternative to rational decision-making in Supreme Court arguments, suggesting a new model of judicial decision-making to account for the communication within oral arguments that underscores a glaring irony surrounding the bulk of related research—the willingness of scholars to criticize oral arguments but their unwillingness to study this communication. With the growing accessibility of the Court’s oral arguments and the inevitable introduction of television cameras in the courtroom, this book offers new theoretical and methodological perspectives at a time when scholars across the fields of communication, law, psychology, and political science will direct even greater attention and scrutiny toward the Supreme Court.
Full Product Details
Author: Ryan Malphurs (Courtroom Sciences, Inc., USA)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd
Imprint: Routledge
Dimensions:
Width: 15.20cm
, Height: 1.60cm
, Length: 22.90cm
Weight: 0.620kg
ISBN: 9780415640046
ISBN 10: 0415640040
Pages: 224
Publication Date: 19 December 2012
Audience:
College/higher education
,
Tertiary & Higher Education
,
Undergraduate
Format: Hardback
Publisher's Status: Active
Availability: In Print
This item will be ordered in for you from one of our suppliers. Upon receipt, we will promptly dispatch it out to you. For in store availability, please contact us.
Reviews
"'Malphurs's framing device - presenting his book as a letter to the Chief Justice - may seem like a gimmick. It's not. Rather, the ""audience of one"" evinces Malphurs's uncommon mission...Malphurs wants to improve oral arguments, to make oral argument a more effective tool for reaching better decisions. Chief Justice Roberts is the one person with the most control over how the Supreme Court conducts oral arguments, so Chief Justice Roberts is the natural audience for Malphurs's book....as a scholar of communications, Malphurs focuses on oral argument as the most visible and most communicative of the Court's decisional inputs. By improving that input, Malphurs believes we can improve the quality of the Court's decisions without debating decisional accuracy (or personal agreement) in individual cases. It is a simple and sensible project - the same sort of ingredient-focused approach that would lead a chef to recommend confidently that your lasagna would taste better with fresh instead of frozen spinach, even without trying a bite.'David Ziff, Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD"
'Malphurs's framing device - presenting his book as a letter to the Chief Justice - may seem like a gimmick. It's not. Rather, the audience of one evinces Malphurs's uncommon mission...Malphurs wants to improve oral arguments, to make oral argument a more effective tool for reaching better decisions. Chief Justice Roberts is the one person with the most control over how the Supreme Court conducts oral arguments, so Chief Justice Roberts is the natural audience for Malphurs's book....as a scholar of communications, Malphurs focuses on oral argument as the most visible and most communicative of the Court's decisional inputs. By improving that input, Malphurs believes we can improve the quality of the Court's decisions without debating decisional accuracy (or personal agreement) in individual cases. It is a simple and sensible project - the same sort of ingredient-focused approach that would lead a chef to recommend confidently that your lasagna would taste better with fresh instead of frozen spinach, even without trying a bite.' David Ziff, Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD
'Malphurs's framing device - presenting his book as a letter to the Chief Justice - may seem like a gimmick. It's not. Rather, the audience of one evinces Malphurs's uncommon mission...Malphur wants to improve oral arguments, to make oral argument a more effective tool for reaching better decisions. Chief Justice Roberts is the one person with the most control over how the Supreme Court conducts oral arguments, so Chief Justice Roberts is the natural audience for Malphurs's book...as a scholar of communications, Malphur focuses on oral argument as the most visible and most communicative of the Court's decisional inputs. By improving that input, Malphurs believes we can improve the quality of the Court's decisions without debating decisional accuracy (or personal agreement) in individual cases. It is a simple and sensible project - the same sort of ingredient-focused approach that would lead a chef to recommend confidently that your lasagne would taste better with fresh instead of frozen spinach, even without trying a bite.' David Ziff, Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD
Author Information
Ryan Malphurs earned a PhD in Communication from Texas A&M University, USA, and is a Senior Litigation Consultant for Courtroom Sciences, Inc.
