Communication 762
The Rhetoric of Political Institutions—The Supreme Court
Spring 2005
Trevor Parry-Giles
Skinner Bldg. #2105
Office Phone: 301-405-8947
e-mail: tpg@umd.edu
Homepage: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~tpg
Office Hours: MW 10:30-12:30 or by appointment
Course Objectives :
This course examines the rhetorical expressions and characterizations of a U.S. political institution—the United States Supreme Court. Resting on the foundation of the inexorable relationship between rhetoric, law, and politics, the course will explore the various rhetorical articulations of the Supreme Court as well as the literature addressing and critiquing that rhetoric. Upon completion of the seminar, participants will have a complete introduction to the extant literature addressing the rhetoric of the Supreme Court and will have engaged in their own sustained, critical analysis of that discourse.
Readings :
L.H. LaRue, Constitutional Law as Fiction: Narrative in the Rhetoric of Authority (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995).
Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns, eds., The Rhetoric of Law (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994).
Readings as indicated on the course schedule.
Assignments :
I. Readings & Discussions . A seminar is only successful because of the engaged involvement of the participants. As such, I expect that you will read the assigned materials for each class period and that you will be prepared to actively and interactively discuss the material in the seminar. Furthermore, as this is a course in rhetorical/legal/political communication, some material may be controversial and partisan. Heated exchange and spirited debate are good things to be embraced, not breaches of propriety to be avoided. However, there must be an atmosphere of respect and good will for the seminar to succeed.
II. Research Project . I also ask that you submit a research paper for the seminar. You will be asked to submit an initial draft and a final draft. And you will be asked to offer a brief presentation of your research to the seminar near the end of the semester.
Ideally, this project will contribute to your larger research program and/or to your career goals. At the very least, you should strive to produce a paper that would be suitable for presentation at a regional or national communication convention and publishable in a regional or national communication journal.
III. Final Examination . In preparation for your M.A. or Ph.D. exams, I think it is useful for you to take examinations over the content of material in specific seminars and courses. You should anticipate a final exam that consists of short answer/identification questions and essay questions.
A Note about Submitting Assignments :
I'm asking that you submit all written assignments to me (book reviews and drafts of research papers) in Microsoft Word 2000, either as an e-mail attachment or on disk. I will provide feedback in Word's reviewing function and return to the paper to you on disk or via e-mail attachment. To access the comments, you will need to set up the “reviewing” toolbar (View, then Toolbars, then Reviewing). You will be able, using this toolbar, to read comments and see highlighted changes to your manuscript.
Course Schedule :
Week One
1/26, Course Introduction
Readings :
Week Two
2/2, Rhetoric & the Law
Readings :
Sarat & Kearns, “Editorial Introduction;”
James Boyd White, “Imagining the Law,” in Sarat & Kearns;
Geoffrey Klinger, “Law as Communicative Praxis : Toward a Rhetorical Jurisprudence,” Argumentation & Advocacy 30 (1994): 236-47;
John Leubsdorf, “Deconstructing the Constitution.” Stanford Law Review 40 (1987): 181-201;
Gerald B. Wetlaufer, “Rhetoric and Its Denial in Legal Discourse,” Virginia Law Review 76 (1990): 1545-97;
Riverside County v. McLaughlin , 500 U.S. 44 (1991)
Week Three
2/9, Ways of Rhetorically Reading the Law
Readings :
Robert Ferguson “The Judicial Opinion as Literary Genre,” Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 2 (1990): 201-19;
Marouf Hasian, Jr., & Earl Croasmun, “Rhetoric's Revenge: The Prospect of a Critical Legal Rhetoric,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 29 (1996): 384-99;
Hans Hohmann, “Logic and Rhetoric in Legal Argumentation: Some Medieval Perspectives,” Argumentation 12 (1998): 39-56.
William Lewis, “Law's Tragedy,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 21 (1991): 11-21;
Edward M. Panetta and Marouf Hasian, Jr., “Anti-rhetoric as Rhetoric: The Law and Economics Movement,” Communication Quarterly 42 (1994): 57-74.
Recommended Readings :
Jon Bruschke, “A Critical Analysis of Objectivity in the Legal Sphere,” Argumentation & Advocacy 30 (1994): 220-236;
Milton Dickens & Ruth E. Schwartz, “Oral Argument before the Supreme Court: Marshall v. Davis in the School Segregation Cases,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 57 (1971): 32-43;
Eileen A. Scallen, et al., “Rhetorical Criticism of Legal Texts: Four Rhetoricians on Lochner v. New York ,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 23 (1996): 621-?.
Stephen L. Wasby, Anthony A. D'Amato, & Rosemary Metrailer, “The Functions of Oral Argument in the U.S. Supreme Court,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 62 (1976): 410-423.
Week Four
2/16, The Rhetoric of Judicial Review
Readings :
Lawrence Douglas , “Constitutional Discourse and Its Discontents: An Essay on the Rhetoric of Judicial Review,” in Sarat & Kearns;
LaRue, Introduction and Chapters 1, 2 & 3.
Josina M. Makau, “The Supreme Court and Reasonableness,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 379-397.
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)
McCullough v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton 316 (1819)
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (Jackson Dissent) (Rutledge Dissent)
Recommended Readings :
William L. Benoit & J. Michael D'Agostine, “'The Case of the Midnight Judges' and Multiple Audience Discourse: Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury v. Madison ,” Southern Communication Journal 59 (1994): 89-97;
Per Fjelstad, “Legal Judgment and Cultural Motivation: Enthymematic Form in Marbury v. Madison ,” Southern Communication Journal 60 (1994): 22-32.
Marouf Hasian, Jr., “The Public Addresses of Meese and Brennan: Voices in the American Legal Wilderness,” Communication Studies 44 (1993): 299-319;
Josina M. Makau & David Lawrence, “Administrative Judicial Rhetoric: The Supreme Court's New Thesis of Political Morality,” Argumentation & Advocacy 30 (1994): 191-206.
Week Five
2/23, Race, the Law, & the Supreme Court—the 19 th Century
Readings :
LaRue, Chapter 4;
Glenda Conway, “Inevitable Reconstructions: Voice and Ideology in Two Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Opinions,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6 (2003): 487-508;
Marouf Hasian, Jr., Celeste Michelle Condit, & John Louis Lucaites, “The Rhetorical Boundaries of ‘the Law': A Consideration of the Rhetorical Culture of Legal Practice and the Case of the ‘Separate But Equal' Doctrine,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 323-42;
Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857);
Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873);
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). (Harlan Dissent)
Recommended Readings :
Marouf Hasian, Jr., and A. Cheree Carlson, “Revisionism and Collective Memory: The Struggle for Meaning in the ‘Amistad' Affair,” Communication Monographs 67 (2000): 42-62;
Todd F. McDorman, “Challenging Constitutional Authority: African American Responses to Scott v. Sandford ,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 83 (1997): 192-209;
Sean Patrick O'Rourke, “Cultivating the ‘Higher Law' in American Jurisprudence: John Quincy Adams , Neo-Classical Rhetoric and the ‘Amistad' Case,” Southern Communication Journal 60 (1994), 33-43.
Week Six
3/2, Race, the Law, & the Supreme Court—the 20 th Century
Readings :
Carrie Crenshaw, “Colorblind Rhetoric,” Southern Communication Journal 63 (1998): 244-257;
Marouf Hasian, Jr., “Aesthetics of Legal Rhetoric: The Ambiguities of Race in Adarand v. Pena and the Beginning of the End of Affirmative Action,” Howard Journal of Communications 8 (1997): 113-128;
Adarand v. Pena, ____ U.S. ____ (1995)
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. _____ (2003)
Week Seven
3/9, The Supreme Court and the Rhetoric of the First Amendment
James Arnt Aune, “Three Justices in Search of Historical Truth: Romance and Tragedy in the Rhetoric of Establishment Clause Jurisprudence,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 2 (1999): 573-598;
Donna L. Dickerson, "<Freedom of Expression> and Cultural Meaning: An Analysis of Metaphors in Selected Supreme Court Texts,” Communication Law & Policy 1 (1996): 367-396;
William Lewis, “Of Innocence, Exclusion, and the Burning of Flags: The Romantic Realism of the Law,” Southern Communication Journal 60 (1994): 4-21;
Roger Stahl, “Carving Up Free Exercise: Dissociation and ‘Religion' in Supreme Court Jurisprudence,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 5 (2002): 439-458;
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (Scalia Dissent)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (Rehnquist Dissent)
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 651(1994)
Recommended Readings :
W. Wat Hopkins, “The Supreme Court Defines the Marketplace of Ideas,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 73 (1996): 40-53;
J. Donald Ragsdale, “Last Tango in Paris et al. v. the Supreme Court: The Current State of Obscenity Law,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 61 (1975): 279-290;
Clark Rountree, “On the Rhetorical Analysis of Judicial Discourse and More: A Response to Lewis,” Southern Communication Journal 61 (1995): 166-73;
Jeffrey St. John, “Matters of Public Concern: Reconceptualizing Public Employee Free Speech Through Definitional Argument,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6 (2003): 261-285.
Week Eight
3/16, The Rhetorical of National Security in the Law
Readings :
Paul Haridakis, “The War on Terrorism: Military Tribunals and the First Amendment,” Communication Law & Policy 9 (2004): 317-330;
Marouf A. Hasian, Jr., “Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wartime Anxieties, and the Saboteurs' Case,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6 (2003): 233-241;
Clarke Rountree, “Instantiating ‘The Law' and Its Dissents in Korematsu v. United States : A Dramatistic Analysis of Judicial Discourse,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 87 (2001): 1-25;
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (Jackson Dissent) (Roberts Dissent)
Week Nine
3/23, No Class, Spring Break
Week Ten
3/30, Gay Rights and the Supreme Court
Readings :
William N. Eskridge, Jr., “No Promo Homo: The Sedimentation of Antigay Discourse and the Channeling Effect of Judicial Review,” NYU Law Review 75 (2000): 1327-1411;
Marouf A. Hasian, Jr., & Trevor Parry-Giles, “'A Stranger to Its Laws': Freedom, Civil Rights, and the Legal Ambiguity of Romer v. Evans (1996),” Argumentation & Advocacy 34 (1997): 27-43;
Doyle Srader, “Spanning Ideological Chasms: The Response to Conceptual Segregation in Bowers v. Hardwick ,” Argumentation & Advocacy 30 (1994): 206-220.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620
Week Eleven
4/6, The Rhetoric of Roe v. Wade
Readings :
Michael R. Hagan, “ Roe v. Wade : The Rhetoric of Fetal Life,” Central States Speech Journal ,” 27 (1976): 192-200;
Marouf A. Hasian, Jr., “Vernacular Legal Discourse: Revisiting the Public Acceptance of the ‘Right of Privacy' in the 1960s,” Political Communication 18 (2001): 89-106;
Randall A. Lake , “Order and Disorder in Anti-Abortion Rhetoric: A Logological View,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 425-444;
Edward Schiappa, “Analyzing Argumentative Discourse from a Rhetorical Perspective: Defining ‘Person' and ‘Human Life' in Constitutional Disputes Over Abortion,” Argumentation 14 (2000): 315-333;
Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Week Twelve
4/13, Other Rhetorics of Abortion
Readings :
Mari Boor Tonn, “Donning Sackcloth and Ashes: Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Moral Agony in Abortion Rhetoric,” Communication Quarterly 44 (1996): 265-280;
Patricia A. Sullivan & Steven R. Goldzwig, “A Relational Approach to Moral Decision-Making: The Majority Opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey ,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (1995): 167-191;
Planned Parenthood v. Casey , 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services , 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
Week Thirteen
4/20, The Supreme Court, Politics, & the Mass Media
Readings :
Richard Davis & Vincent James Strickler, “The Invisible Dance: The Supreme Court and the Press,” Perspectives on Political Science 29 (2000): 85-93;
Kurt Nutting, “Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law,” Argumentation 16 (2002): 111-134;
Theodore O. Procise & Craig R. Smith, “The Supreme Court's Ruling in Bush v. Gore: A Rhetoric of Inconsistency,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 4 (2001): 605-632;
Jennifer K. Wood, “The Rhetorical Transformation of Miranda v. Arizona ,” Communication Quarterly 48 (2000): 42-49;
Bush v. Gore , ___ U.S. ___ (2000)
Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Week Fourteen
4/27, No Class, ECA Convention
Week Fifteen
5/4, Research Paper Presentations
Week Sixteen
5/11, Final Exam
© 2005, Trevor Parry-Giles, All Right Reserved.