Abstract
Abstract
Examining oral argument in the Australian High Court and comparing to the U.S. Supreme Court, this article shows that institutional design drives judicial interruptive behavior. Many of the same individual- and case-level factors predict oral argument behavior. Notably, despite orthodoxy of the High Court as “apolitical,” ideology strongly predicts interruptions, just as in the United States. Yet, important divergent institutional design features between the two apex courts translate into meaningful behavioral differences, with the greater power of the Chief Justice resulting in differences in interruptions. Finally, gender effects are lower and only identifiable with new methodological techniques we develop and apply.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Sociology and Political Science,Political Science and International Relations
Reference61 articles.
1. The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court
2. “Female Judges, Interrupted: Study of Interruption Behaviour during Oral Argument in the High Court of Australia;Loughland;Melbourne University Law Review,2019
3. A Court of Specialists
4. Interrupting the discourse on interruptions