scotustext(R))oyez_transcript_searchAn automated tool for retrieving oral argument transcripts from the
Oyez Project for cases argued by the United States Supreme Court. The
routine pipes Python code through R using
reticulate::() without needing to adjust the global
environment.
The oyez_transcript_search function replaces
oa_search and oa_parser to directly retrieve,
clean, and parse transcripts from the Oyez Project, rather than rely on
the uploading and cleaning of transcript PDFs. The function requires the
entry of two parameters:
docket: A character object indicating the docket number
assigned by the Supreme Courtterm: A character object indicating the term associated
with the orally argued case.## [1] "case_name" "docket" "text_start" "text_stop" "speaker"
## [6] "role" "text" "word_count" "row_id" "object_title"case_name: Case titledocket: Docket Numbertext_start: Oyez timestamp indicating start of
utterancetext_stop: Oyez timestamp indicating end of
utterancespeaker: Speaker (name) associated with utterancerole: Role of Speaker (Justice or Attorney)text: Transcriptionword_count: Number of words spoken during
utterancerow_id: Utterance order identification numberobject_title: Oyez API transcription identification
title (Note: Given that some cases were orally argued
several times – or across several sittings, this variable will provide
which the transcription belongs.)dobbs_example <- oyez_transcript_search(docket = '19-1392', term = '2021')## virtualenv: ~/.virtualenvs/r-reticulate## Virtual Environment Created & Activated## Completed Transcript Compilation for:## THOMAS E. DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL., Petitioners, v. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, ET AL., Respondents Oral Argument - December 01, 2021head(dobbs_example$text)## [1] "We will hear argument this morning in Case 19-1392, Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization. General Stewart."
## [2] "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey haunt our country. They have no basis in the Constitution. They have no home in our history or traditions. They've damaged the democratic process. They've poisoned the law. They've choked off compromise. For 50 years, they've kept this Court at the center of a political battle that it can never resolve. And 50 years on, they stand alone. Nowhere else does this Court recognize a right to end a human life. Consider this case: The Mississippi law here prohibits abortions after 15 weeks. The law includes robust exceptions for a woman's life and health. It leaves months to obtain an abortion. Yet, the courts below struck the law down. It didn't matter that the law apply -- that the law applies when an unborn child is undeniably human, when risks to women surge, and when the common abortion procedure is brutal. The lower courts held that because the law prohibits abortions before viability, it is unconstitutional no matter what. Roe and Casey's core holding, according to those courts, is that the people can protect an unborn girl's life when she just barely can survive outside the womb but not any earlier when she needs a little more help. That is the world under Roe and Casey. That is not the world the Constitution promises. The Constitution places its trust in the people. On hard issue after hard issue, the people make this country work. Abortion is a hard issue. It demands the best from all of us, not a judgment by just a few of us. When an issue affects everyone and when the Constitution does not take sides on it, it belongs to the people. Roe and Casey have failed, but the people, if given the chance, will succeed. This Court should overrule Roe and Casey and uphold the state's law. I welcome the Court's questions."
## [3] "General Stewart, you focus on the right to abortion, but our jurisprudence seems to -- seem to focus on, in Casey, autonomy; in Roe, privacy. Does it make a difference that we focus on privacy or autonomy or more specifically on abortion?"
## [4] "I think whichever one of those you're focusing on, Your Honor, particularly if you're focusing on -- on the right to abortion, each of those starts to become a step removed for what's provided in the Constitution. Yes, the Constitution does provide certain -- protect certain aspects of privacy, of autonomy, and the like. But, as this Court said in Glucksberg, going directly from general concepts of autonomy, of privacy, of bodily integrity, to -- to a right is not how we traditionally, this Court traditionally, does due process analysis. So I think it just confirms, whichever one of those you look at, Your Honor, a right to abortion is -- is not grounded in the text, and it's grounded on abstract concepts that this Court has rejected in -- in other contexts as supplying a substantive right."
## [5] "You say that this is the only constitutional right that involves the taking of a life. What difference does that make in your analysis?"
## [6] "Sure, Your Honor. I -- I -- I think it -- it makes a -- a number of differences. One, I -- I'd mention two in particular. One is it -- it really does mark out the unbelievably profound ramifications of this area, which, in many other areas, assisted suicide, a whole host of important areas that are important to dignity, autonomy, freedom, and important to matters of conscience, it -- it marks it out as one of the unique areas where this Court has taken that important issue to the people, and it's -- it's something that implicates life, and it just, I think, marks off, Justice Thomas, how problematic and unusual and how much of a break the Court's abortion jurisprudence is from those other cases."head(dobbs_example$speaker)## [1] "John G. Roberts, Jr." "Scott G. Stewart" "Clarence Thomas"
## [4] "Scott G. Stewart" "Clarence Thomas" "Scott G. Stewart"head(dobbs_example$role)## [1] "Justice" "Attorney" "Justice" "Attorney" "Justice" "Attorney"