Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. By Timothy R. Johnson. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004. 180p. $35.00.

This book makes a persuasive thesis that the oral arguments presented in cases before the United States Supreme Court are used by the justices to help them arrive at substantive legal and policy decisions that closely parallel their preferred outcomes. Although that would seem to be logical, the author documents that many scholars who write about the Court do not share this thesis. Those scholars, such as the so-called attitudinalists, posit that oral arguments have no effect on justices' votes. In order to reinforce his thesis, Timothy Johnson uses the strategic model of decision making, namely, that justices are goal oriented, they are strategic, and they account for institutional rules. He then goes on to explain that because the briefs presented to the Court from both the litigants and from amici curiae are understandably biased in behalf of their particular points of view, the oral arguments serve to solve this problem.