V. Conclusion
The findings of this study of gender and judicial behavior during oral argument are
twofold. First, gender does matter, but not the gender of the Justice. Justice Ginsburg behaved no
differently than her male colleagues who shared her liberal ideology. However, the gender of the
attorney did matter, and interestingly its effects can be parsed based along a fairly consistent
partisan divide. In general, with a few exceptions, conservative Justices tend to engage in less
information seeking (or more verbal control) with female attorneys overall, after controlling for
ideology, and female attorneys representing a liberal position. Likewise, with a few exceptions,
liberal Justices tend to engage in more information seeking (or less verbal control) with female
attorneys overall, including after controlling for ideology, as well as female attorneys
representing a conservative position.
For word counts, another partisan picture materializes, though it is more complicated than
the one presented by information-seeking scores. Conservative Justices tend to speak more to
female attorneys overall and female attorneys after controlling for ideology, and liberal Justices
tend to speak more to female attorneys overall and female attorneys after controlling for
ideology. But when looking just at female attorneys representing a position in opposition to a
Justice’s ideology, the findings reverse with liberal Justices speaking more to female attorneys
arguing a conservative position, and conservative Justices speaking less to female attorneys
representing a liberal perspective.
The second main finding is that looking at the individual Justices reveals varying patterns
and nuances such that a one-size-fits-all model of judicial behavior is likely inaccurate.
Expanding the view beyond just gender, the factors that influenced one Justice’s oral argument
behavior were different enough than other Justices, even those of his or her own ideological bent,
that scholars of the Court should be wary of neglecting individual differences when attempting to
study and predict judicial behavior.
(paragraph discussing limitations and recommendations for further study)
The above criticisms being noted, this study is still the first to explore the potential
influence of gender on judicial behavior during oral argument. As such it adds to current
knowledge of judicial behavior and gender and society, and points the way for future exploration
of these topics. It also provides insights of a potentially practical nature for female attorneys who
actually argue before the Supreme Court as to what they might realistically expect from the
Justices they will face because gender does matter during Supreme Court oral argument—just
not for every Justice and in the same way.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
