Author

Jesse Miller

Date of Award

11-2016

Document Type

Capstone-Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Arts (MA)

Program Name

Political Science

Capstone Instructor

Dr. Angela Parham

Abstract

In considerations of judicial behavior, studies of the Supreme Court have long been reliant on the votes cast by justices as a source of quantifiable information. This work seeks to establish oral arguments as an alternative source of useful quantifiable data that can be used to further academic understandings of models of judicial behavior. Through an analysis of the arguments presented by legal professionals in three oral proceedings contextualized in relation to an earlier ruling of the Court in which the ideological predispositions of the majority of the justices was made known, this paper attempts to discern if legal professionals more commonly think of individual justice as driven by policy preferences or legal factors.

Share

COinS
 

*Please note that the Recommended Citation provides general information for citation.
This citation may not be appropriate for your discipline. To locate the correct citation style for APUS programs and receive citation help, visit http://apus.libguides.com/programstyleguides .