Oral arguments at the Supreme Court are a window into the personalities, beliefs, and behavior of justices. They allow advocates to engage directly with the highest court in the land about how the law should work in practice. And over the last two decades, as country has become increasingly partisan, they've started to sound very different. We talk about how, why, and what's up with all the interrupting. 

Helping us break it down is Tonja Jacobi, professor of law and the Sam Nunn Chair of Ethics and Professionalism at Emory School of Law. We talk about several of Jacobi's studies on oral arguments, check them out: 

Justice, Interrupted: The Effect of Gender, Ideology and Seniority at Supreme Court Oral Arguments

The New Oral Argument: Justices as Advocates

Supreme Court Interruptions and Interventions: The Changing Role of the Chief Justice

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices