This article examines how the justices compete for influence at oral argument by interrupting
each other, and how advocates interrupt the justices, contrary to the rules of the Court. We
find that interruptions are highly gendered, with women being interrupted at disproportionate
rates by their male colleagues, as well as by male advocates. Oral argument interruptions are
also highly ideological, both because interruptions occur primarily across ideological lines, and
conservatives dominate liberals. Seniority also has some influence, but primarily through the
female justices learning over time how to behave more like male justices, avoiding traditionally
female linguistic framing. We use two separate databases: a publicly available database of
Roberts Court oral arguments, and another that we created, providing in-depth analysis of the
2015, 2002, and 1990 Terms, which shows that the effects of gender, ideology, and seniority are
consistent over time.
- Tags
-
