U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments provide a unique window into decision-making at the highest level. In fact, the ways justices argue may tell us more about potential outcomes than even the arguments themselves. Tonja Jacobi, Stanford Clinton Sr. and Zylpha Kilbride Clinton Research Professor of Law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, has conducted years of empirical research in this space. On this episode, she illustrates how patterns of interruptions, speaking time — and more than a little "mansplaining" — among justices and attorneys inform predictions for the court's most consequential decisions.

Ver todos los episodios