Argumentation 22 (3):335-353 (2008)

Eveline Feteris
University of Amsterdam
The author gives an analysis of the strategic manoeuvring in the justification of legal decisions from a pragma-dialectical perspective by showing how a judge tries to reconcile dialectical and rhetorical aims. On the basis of an analysis and evaluation of the argumentation given by the US Supreme Court in the famous Holy Trinity case, it is shown how in a case in which the judge wants to make an exception to a legal rule for the concrete case tries to meet the dialectical reasonableness norm by seeing to it that his standpoint is sufficiently defended according to the requirements of the burden of proof of a judge in a rational critical discussion and how he tries at the same time to be rhetorically convincing for the legal audience by presenting the decision as a choice that is in line with the argumentation schemes and starting points that can be considered as accepted by the legal community in the US and by the US community as a whole
Keywords Legal argumentation  Strategic manoeuvring  Burden of proof  Legal interpretation  Critical discussion  Rhetorical strategy  Precedent   Obiter dictum
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-008-9100-4
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,178
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

What the Legislature Did Not Say.Damiano Canale & Giovanni Tuzet - 2016 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 5 (3):249-270.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Strategic Maneuvering with Dissociation.M. A. van Rees - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (4):473-487.
DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation.Arno R. Lodder - 1999 - Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.


Added to PP index

Total views
23 ( #476,523 of 2,454,926 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,233 of 2,454,926 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes