Comment by js2
3 years ago
The paper linked from the HBR article has examples where the justices get interrupted literally in the middle of their questions:
> Antonin Scalia: No. He reached the conclusion because--
> Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.: And that’s completely supported by the proffer.
> Antonin Scalia:--He reached the conclusion because he--
> William H. Rehnquist:--No two voices at the same time. Justice Scalia is asking you a question.
> Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.: Excuse me.
Scalia talking right over the top of Sotomayor:
> Bert W. Rein: His estimate was that a very small number, and it--it’s in his opinion. It’s--it’s not only by percentage, but it’s by number, and that number is insignificant relative--
> Sonia Sotomayor: Do you think--do you think that change has to happen overnight? And do you think it’s--
> Antonin Scalia: Excuse me. Can I--can I hear what you were about to say? What are those numbers? I was really curious to hear those numbers.
> Bert W. Rein: He assumed, at the outside, that any of the admits that were actually African-American or Hispanic outside the Top Ten, he said let me take that assumption and see what it would add
So I don't think it's the case that the justices are getting interrupted in the middle of long-winded questions. In any case the paper examines interruptions with respect to gender, seniority, and ideology and has a lot more detail than what's in the article.
> Scalia talking right over the top of Sotomayor
This example you provided is actually Scalia stopping Sotomayor from interrupting the first speaker and asking them to continue.
Perhaps there are better examples, however your framing and the framing of the article is not held up by the evidence provided (here, and there).
I omitted a key bit of context:
> Given that Justices are permitted to, and frequently do, interrupt advocates, Scalia’s interruption was a breach of that norm, prioritizing both the advocate’s response and his own interest above that of Sotomayor’s inquiry. The effect of this breach was that Sotomayor’s question went unaddressed, as Rein instead responded to Scalia’s demands. One may look at the significant discrepancies in seniority and ideology between Scalia and Sotomayor, however, and surmise that the interruption could be the effect of such differences.
The paper is 108 pages containing dozens of examples and two empirical analysis. The datasets are publicly available if you find fault with its methods. I wouldn't judge it based on my apparently poor job of providing a couple examples.