Convention All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: Southern Political Science Association URL: http://www.spsa.net
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p212460_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Black, Ryan. and Johnson, Timothy. "Political Case Salience, U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, and the Search for the Holy Grail" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Hotel Intercontinental, New Orleans, LA, Jan 09, 2008 <Not Available>. 2008-12-11 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p212460_index.html>

Black, R. and Johnson, T. R. , 2008-01-09 "Political Case Salience, U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, and the Search for the Holy Grail" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Hotel Intercontinental, New Orleans, LA Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2008-12-11 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p212460_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: For nearly fifty years judicial politics scholars have labored to define a measure of political salience for U.S. Supreme Court cases. By our conservative count, no fewer than eight distinct measures have been offered as solutions. And yet, none of these measures is able to capture what scholars truly seek: a strictly contemporary measure of political salience. In this paper we introduce the aggregate number of questions asked at oral arguments as a novel way of assessing contemporary case salience. Using data gathered from nearly 3000 oral argument transcripts that span from 1979-2005, we provide empirical diagnostics of our measure and extensive comparisons with previous measures. We also provide several applications to relevant research questions such as self-assignment by the Chief Justice, fragmented opinion coalitions, and unanimous decisions. Our theoretical arguments and empirical results demonstrate the validity of the measure. We conclude by providing initial results of a related project, which creates a question-based measure of salience defined by the number of questions asked by each individual justice at oral arguments.

Media Coverage and Support for the Supreme Court in a Time of Confirmation

The Effect of Media Coverage on Public Opinion of the Supreme Court and Congress

Public Opinion Change Following Supreme Court Decisions: An Analysis of Issue Salience and Media Coverage