Doctoral Dissertation Research: Oral Advocacy and Supreme Court Decision Making

博士论文研究：口头辩护与最高法院决策

• 批准号: 9709927
• 负责人: Lee Epstein
• 金额: $ 0.49万
• 依托单位: Washington University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 1997
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 1997-07-01 至 1998-06-30
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=9709927&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; Oral; Advocacy

This doctoral dissertation research award is based on the idea that Supreme Court justices seek as much information as possible about cases heard on the merits. The problem, for the justices, is that almost all the information they receive is what other actors want them to consider. In other words, the Court has little control over the majority of information it is given. As a result, unless justices ask that the parties brief a specific issue, there is only one time when they may gather information they themselves want: the time set aside for oral arguments. As such, these proceedings may play a unique and important role in the Court's decision making process. In particular, this research addresses two main questions: 1) What types of information do Supreme Court justices seek to obtain during oral arguments; and, 2) Are oral arguments important to their decisions on the merits. In answering these questions, the project adopts a strategic approach to judicial decision making. This approach suggest that Supreme Court justices seek to gather as much information as possible about a case, because if they are to create efficacious policies, they must formulate beliefs about how other actors will react to their decisions. Further, if this information is important for the justices then it should be addressed, both in their private deliberations, and in the Court's final opinions on the merits. To assess these two predictions, the research examines the specific types of information the justices gather during oral arguments, and then compares the issues raised during these proceeding with the conference notes, private papers, and final opinions of the Court to discern whether these issues are addressed by the justices in their deliberative process.

这个博士论文研究奖是基于这样一个想法，即最高法院法官寻求尽可能多的信息，有关案件审理的是非曲直。 对大法官来说，问题在于他们收到的几乎所有信息都是其他行为者希望他们考虑的。 换句话说，法院对它所得到的大部分信息几乎没有控制权。 因此，除非大法官要求当事人简要介绍一个具体问题，否则他们只有一个时间可以收集他们自己想要的信息：留出时间进行口头辩论。 因此，这些程序在法院的决策过程中可能发挥独特而重要的作用。 特别是，这项研究解决了两个主要问题：1）最高法院法官在口头辩论中寻求获得哪些类型的信息;以及，2）口头辩论对他们关于案情的决定很重要。 在回答这些问题时，该项目对司法决策采取了战略性办法。 这种方法表明，最高法院的大法官会尽可能多地收集案件的信息，因为如果他们要制定有效的政策，他们必须对其他行为者将如何对他们的决定做出反应形成信念。 此外，如果这些信息对大法官很重要，那么就应该在他们的私下审议和最高法院对案情的最终意见中加以解决。 为了评估这两种预测，研究考察了大法官在口头辩论中收集的具体类型的信息，然后将这些诉讼中提出的问题与会议记录、私人文件和最高法院的最终意见进行比较，以辨别大法官在审议过程中是否解决了这些问题。