Skip to main content
Log in

The judicial dialogue

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A variety of theoretical positions are emerging to explain the judicial process from such perspectives as hermeneutics, semiotics, critical theory and argumentation/rhetoric. They ask such questions as these: What is the source of judicial authority? How do judges arrive at their decisions? By what logic are decisions to be tested? In this essay I argue that a focus on decisions and their justifications alone masks the broader process in which judges, along with all the other relevant groups, engage in a continuing and evolving dialogue to structure their normative universe through the complementary processes of dialectic and rhetoric. Contemporary concepts of argumentation can serve to analyze this process critically.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bennett, W.L. and M.S. Feldman: 1981, Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, E.: 1958, ‘Plato's View of Rhetoric’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 44, 361–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Richmond v.J.A. Croson Company: 1989, ‘109 S. Ct. 706’.

  • Cover, Robert M.: 1983, ‘The Supreme Court 1982 Term Foreword: Nomos and Narrative’, Harvard Law Review 97 (4), 4–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, Reed: 1986, ‘Symposium Semiotics, Dialectic, and the Law Toward a Legal Dialectic’, Indiana Law Journal 61 (3), 315–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fein, Bruce: 1989, ‘Court Rulings Tell Minorities They Must Accept Adulthood’, The Salt : Lake Tribune, Sunday July 19, A17.

  • Fisher, W. R.: 1987, Human Communications as Narration, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, Jerome: 1930, Law and the Modern Mind, Doubleday and Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich, Peter: 1986, ‘Historical Aspects of Legal Interpretation’, Indiana Law Journal 61(315), 331–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., S. Penrod and N. Pennington: 1983, Inside the Jury, Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, Oliver W.: 1897, ‘The Path of the Law’, Harvard Law Review 10, 457–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Bernard S.: 1985, Semiotics and Legal Theory, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, Erich: 1975, Design for Evolution, George Braziller, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin: 1988, The Abuse of Casuistry, University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, C.: 1979, ‘Enactment as Argument in the Gorgias’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 12, 114–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kevelson, Roberta: 1988, The Law as a System of Signs, Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, Charles E.: 1951, The Institutio Oratoria of Marcus Fabius Quintilianus with an English Summary and Concordance, George Peabody College for Teaches, Nashville, Tenn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, Karl: 1931/1964, Jurisprudence: Realism in Theory and Practice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, Karl N.: 1960, The Common Law Tradition, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukarovsky, Jan: 1976, Structure, Sign and Function, trans. P. Steiner and J. Burbank, Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, S. and R. Rieke: 1986, ‘A Practical Reasoning Approach to Legal Doctrine’, Journal of the American Forensic Association XXII(4), 212–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Connor, Sandra Day: 1985, ‘Address at the Annual University of Utah Law School Alumni Banquet’, Res Gestai 7, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N. and R. Hastie: 1986, ‘Evidence Evaluation in Complex Decision Making’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 242–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Chaïm: 1980, Justice, Law and Argument, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Chaïm and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric a Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S.: 1981, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups: Vol. I: A Comparison of Two Models’, Communication Monographs 48, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S.: 1983, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups: Vol. II: A Study of Multiple Sequences in Decision Making’, Communication Monographs 50, 106–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S.: 1983b, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups: Vol. III: A Multiple Sequence Model of Group Decision D Development’, Communication Monographs 50, 321–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S. and J. A. Doelger: 1986, ‘Developmental Processes in Group Decision Making’, R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision Making, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 35–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S. and J. Roth: 1989a, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups: Vol IV: A Typology of Decision Paths’, Human Communication Research 15, 323–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S. and J. Roth: 1989b, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups: Vol V: Test of a Contingency Model’, Human Communication Research 15, 549–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieke, R. D.: 1986, ‘The Evolution of Judicial Justification: Perelmans Concept of the Rational and the Reasonable’, in J. L. Golden and J. J. Pilotta (eds.), Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieke, R. D.: 1987, ‘Evolution of Judicial Argument in Free Expression Cases’, in F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Argumentation, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 356–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieke, R. D. and R. Stutman: 1990, Communication in Legal Advocacy, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, W. Rhys: 1946, ‘Rhetorica’, in W. D. Ross (ed.), The Works of Aristotle at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 1353–1419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R.: 1980, Plato's Sorlier Dialectic, Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, S.: 1983, Plato's Sophist: The Drama of Origin and Image, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheidel, T. and L. Crowell: 1964, ‘Idea Development in Small Discussion Groups’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 140–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, Nelson: 1989, ‘Nominee Loses Support for Justice Post’, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 21, Al.

  • Scott, Dred v Sandford: 1856, 19 Howard 393.

  • Slaughter House Cases: 1873, 16 Wallace 36.

  • Taxas v. Johnson: 1989, 1989 U.S. Lexis 3115, #88-155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomsson, C. A.: 1969, ‘Rhetorical Madness: An Ideal in the Phaedrus’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 55 358–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, Stephen E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E., R. D. Rieke and A. S. Janik: 1984, An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd ed. Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of California v. Bakke: 1978, 438 U.S. 265.

  • Wald, Patricia M.: 1989, ‘Commencement Address to the Law Graduates at American U University’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 5, B3.

  • Warner, James H.: 1989, ‘Flag-Burning Amendment? U.S. Says Former POW, Finds Strength in Freedom’, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 16, A13.

  • Werling, D. and R. Rieke: 1985, ‘The Path of Legal Reasoning in Sex Discrimination Cases’, in J. Cox, M. Sillars and G. Walker (eds), Argument and Social Practice, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 445–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeless, Lawrence, R. Barraclough and R. Stewart: 1983, ‘Compliance-Gaining and Power in Persuasion’, in R. Bostrom (ed.), Communication Yearbook 7, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 105–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, Bob and Scott, Armstrong: 1979, The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, Simon and Schuster, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rieke, R.D. The judicial dialogue. Argumentation 5, 39–55 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00058417

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00058417

Key words

Navigation