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.
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.
Black, E.: 1958, ‘Plato's View of Rhetoric’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 44, 361–374.
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.
Dickerson, Reed: 1986, ‘Symposium Semiotics, Dialectic, and the Law Toward a Legal Dialectic’, Indiana Law Journal 61 (3), 315–330.
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.
Frank, Jerome: 1930, Law and the Modern Mind, Doubleday and Company, New York.
Goodrich, Peter: 1986, ‘Historical Aspects of Legal Interpretation’, Indiana Law Journal 61(315), 331–354.
Hastie, R., S. Penrod and N. Pennington: 1983, Inside the Jury, Plenum Press, New York.
Holmes, Oliver W.: 1897, ‘The Path of the Law’, Harvard Law Review 10, 457–461.
Jackson, Bernard S.: 1985, Semiotics and Legal Theory, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Jantsch, Erich: 1975, Design for Evolution, George Braziller, New York.
Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin: 1988, The Abuse of Casuistry, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Kauffman, C.: 1979, ‘Enactment as Argument in the Gorgias’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 12, 114–129.
Kevelson, Roberta: 1988, The Law as a System of Signs, Plenum Press, New York.
Little, Charles E.: 1951, The Institutio Oratoria of Marcus Fabius Quintilianus with an English Summary and Concordance, George Peabody College for Teaches, Nashville, Tenn.
Llewellyn, Karl: 1931/1964, Jurisprudence: Realism in Theory and Practice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Llewellyn, Karl N.: 1960, The Common Law Tradition, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
Mukarovsky, Jan: 1976, Structure, Sign and Function, trans. P. Steiner and J. Burbank, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Newell, S. and R. Rieke: 1986, ‘A Practical Reasoning Approach to Legal Doctrine’, Journal of the American Forensic Association XXII(4), 212–222.
O'Connor, Sandra Day: 1985, ‘Address at the Annual University of Utah Law School Alumni Banquet’, Res Gestai 7, 5.
Pennington, N. and R. Hastie: 1986, ‘Evidence Evaluation in Complex Decision Making’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 242–256.
Perelman, Chaïm: 1980, Justice, Law and Argument, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.
Perelman, Chaïm and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric a Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
Poole, M. S.: 1981, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups: Vol. I: A Comparison of Two Models’, Communication Monographs 48, 1–24.
Poole, M. S.: 1983, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups: Vol. II: A Study of Multiple Sequences in Decision Making’, Communication Monographs 50, 106–232.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rieke, R. D. and R. Stutman: 1990, Communication in Legal Advocacy, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
Roberts, W. Rhys: 1946, ‘Rhetorica’, in W. D. Ross (ed.), The Works of Aristotle at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 1353–1419.
Robinson, R.: 1980, Plato's Sorlier Dialectic, Garland, New York.
Rosen, S.: 1983, Plato's Sophist: The Drama of Origin and Image, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.
Scheidel, T. and L. Crowell: 1964, ‘Idea Development in Small Discussion Groups’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 140–145.
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.
Thomsson, C. A.: 1969, ‘Rhetorical Madness: An Ideal in the Phaedrus’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 55 358–363.
Toulmin, Stephen E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Toulmin, S. E., R. D. Rieke and A. S. Janik: 1984, An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd ed. Macmillan, New York.
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.
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.
Woodward, Bob and Scott, Armstrong: 1979, The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, Simon and Schuster, New York.