This book compares the volume and nature of online print and broadcast television coverage from major media outlets from all U.S. Supreme Court oral argument sessions during the October 2019, 2020, and 2021 Terms. The authors demonstrate that the move to livestreaming the Court’s oral argument sessions increased the frequency and depth of online print news media’s coverage in the short term but not in the long term. For both online print and broadcast outlets, their findings suggest that the benefits of increased transparency offered by livestreaming oral argument audio did not come with significant disadvantages for the Court in terms of long-term changes in its news media coverage. The authors analysis provides timely evidence that speaks to the current, and ongoing, debate about public access to the Supreme Court. It also speaks to the likely consequences of permanently continuing the practice of livestreaming oral argument audio and sheds light on the ramifications of other potential expansions in transparency at the Supreme Court, such as livestreaming opinion announcement audio or providing live video coverage of the Court’s proceedings. This work speaks to the impact of increased access to oral arguments and the inner workings of government institutions more broadly. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court was not the only institution to grapple with the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic and opportunities for unprecedented, and instantaneous, access to anyone, anywhere. Better understanding the implications of the Court’s decision to livestream audio from its proceedings provides leverage on the consequences of greater government transparency for news media coverage and, by extension, individuals’ exposure to, and interaction with, government more generally.

Gilbert et al. examine the impact of churches and church membership patterns on third parties and independent candidates in 20th-century U.S. politics. Candidates who choose not to run for office under the rubric of a major party face a well-known set of obstacles, yet the absence of discussion about the interconnections between religious institutions and minor parties is striking. The book presents a theoretical framework for understanding how religious institutions create, support, and sustain the political culture of local communities; by playing this role religious institutions support major parties and impede the electoral chances of political outsiders.

The book's central finding is that third candidates are not privy to the ties that bind Democratic and Republican voters to their parties; one of the factors that creates and strengthens such ties is religion. Therefore, third candidates do best where church and party loyalties are weakest, or where third candidates have existing bases of support. The rare third candidate or minor party that possesses a base of support centered around a denomination or religious group can overcome such barriers. These conclusions are supported by analysis of census data, election returns, and voter surveys spanning the 20th century. Special attention is given to the 1992 and 1996 presidential candidacies of H. Ross Perot. This is an important analysis for scholars and other researchers dealing with American third parties and independent candidates and the impact of religion on politics.

Courtroom proceedings offer the thrill of a sporting event and the drama of a stage production as lawyers match wits, grill witnesses, and introduce eleventh-hour elements that may upend the course of a trial. The most decisive contests play out in the U.S. Supreme Court, where lawyers debate the meaning of the highest law--the Constitution--before the highest legal authorities--the nine justices. In "A Good Quarrel," the nation's best court reporters discuss the most memorable cases of the past fifty years. These journalists not only recreate the key moments of the oral arguments, they analyze the attorneys' and justices' strategic use of rhetoric, logic, and emotional displays.

In addition to a ringside account of each case, this volume provides web links to complete audio recordings of each oral argument and individual clips so that the reader can listen in on the debates that resolved a disputed presidential election, reconsidered women's rights, reassessed affirmative action, and decided many other pressing issues in the United States.

Contributors:

Charles Bierbauer
Lyle Denniston
Fred Graham
Brent Kendall
Steve Lash
Richard Lazarus
Dahlia Lithwick
Tony Mauro
Tim O'Brien
David Savage
Greg Stohr
Nina Totenberg

Timothy R. Johnson teaches in the political science department and the law school at the University of Minnesota.

Jerry Goldman teaches political science at Northwestern University and directs the OYEZ Project, a multimedia archive devoted to the Supreme Court.

This book compares the volume and nature of online print and broadcast television coverage from major media outlets from all U.S. Supreme Court oral argument sessions during the October 2019, 2020, and 2021 Terms. The authors demonstrate that the move to livestreaming the Court’s oral argument sessions increased the frequency and depth of online print news media’s coverage in the short term but not in the long term. For both online print and broadcast outlets, their findings suggest that the benefits of increased transparency offered by livestreaming oral argument audio did not come with significant disadvantages for the Court in terms of long-term changes in its news media coverage. The authors analysis provides timely evidence that speaks to the current, and ongoing, debate about public access to the Supreme Court. It also speaks to the likely consequences of permanently continuing the practice of livestreaming oral argument audio and sheds light on the ramifications of other potential expansions in transparency at the Supreme Court, such as livestreaming opinion announcement audio or providing live video coverage of the Court’s proceedings. This work speaks to the impact of increased access to oral arguments and the inner workings of government institutions more broadly. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court was not the only institution to grapple with the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic and opportunities for unprecedented, and instantaneous, access to anyone, anywhere. Better understanding the implications of the Court’s decision to livestream audio from its proceedings provides leverage on the consequences of greater government transparency for news media coverage and, by extension, individuals’ exposure to, and interaction with, government more generally.