Download Free Rhetorical Knowledge In Legal Practice And Critical Legal Theory Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Rhetorical Knowledge In Legal Practice And Critical Legal Theory and write the review.

Publisher Description
Mootz offers an antidote to the fragmentation of contemporary legal theory with a collection of essays arguing that legal practice is a hermeneutical and rhetorical event that can best be understood and theorized in those terms. This is not a modern insight that wipes away centuries of dogmatic confusion; rather, Mootz draws on insights as old as the Western tradition itself. However, the essays are not antiquarian or merely descriptive, because hermeneutical and rhetorical philosophy have undergone important changes over the millennia. To "return" to hermeneutics and rhetoric as touchstones for law is to embrace dynamic traditions that provide the resources for theorists who seek to foster persuasion and understanding as an antidote to the emerging global order and the trend toward bureaucratization in accordance with expert administration, violent suppression, or both.
Mootz offers an antidote to the fragmentation of contemporary legal theory with a collection of essays arguing that legal practice is a hermeneutical and rhetorical event that can best be understood and theorized in those terms. This is not a modern insight that wipes away centuries of dogmatic confusion; rather, Mootz draws on insights as old as the Western tradition itself. However, the essays are not antiquarian or merely descriptive, because hermeneutical and rhetorical philosophy have undergone important changes over the millennia. To "return" to hermeneutics and rhetoric as touchstones for law is to embrace dynamic traditions that provide the resources for theorists who seek to foster persuasion and understanding as an antidote to the emerging global order and the trend toward bureaucratization in accordance with expert administration, violent suppression, or both.
Original essays by 38 leading legal theorists mark the 75th anniversary of Karl Llewellyn's essay 'On Philosophy in American Law.'
Domestic violence accounts for approximately one-fifth of all violent crime in the United States and is among the most difficult issues confronting professionals in the legal and criminal justice systems. In this volume, Elizabeth Britt argues that learning embodied advocacy—a practice that results from an expanded understanding of expertise based on lived experience—and adopting it in legal settings can directly and tangibly help victims of abuse. Focusing on clinical legal education at the Domestic Violence Institute at the Northeastern University School of Law, Britt takes a case-study approach to illuminate how challenging the context, aims, and forms of advocacy traditionally embraced in the U.S. legal system produces better support for victims of domestic violence. She analyzes a wide range of materials and practices, including the pedagogy of law school training programs, interviews with advocates, and narratives written by students in the emergency department, and looks closely at the forms of rhetorical education through which students assimilate advocacy practices. By examining how students learn to listen actively to clients and to recognize that clients have the right and ability to make decisions for themselves, Britt shows that rhetorical education can succeed in producing legal professionals with the inclination and capacity to engage others whose values and experiences diverge from their own. By investigating the deep relationship between legal education and rhetorical education, Reimagining Advocacy calls for conversations and action that will improve advocacy for others, especially for victims of domestic violence seeking assistance from legal professionals.
"From the twin birth of western rhetoric and law in the Greek-speaking world in the first millennium BCE, law and rhetoric were deeply connected in the ancient world. In the modern era of legal practice, the clear connections between law and classical rhetoric have largely been lost to both those trained in the law and those who study rhetoric. This interdisciplinary reader reestablishes those lost connections by pairing primary source materials in classical rhetoric and contemporary law. The chapters in this volume show that ancient rhetorical texts can deepen or disrupt contemporary notions about principles that lie at the root of western legal traditions and return to us our past, making it possible for scholars across several disciplines to build on work accomplished centuries before. Broken into four parts, this volume first covers the historical development of rhetoric. In Part Two, volume editor Mootz and scholar David A. Frank look at rhetorical theorists at "bookends" of an era when classical rhetoric was de-valued as a mode of thought. Mootz discusses the hegemonic wave of Enlightenment epistemology that separated law from rhetoric, and Frank shows that where Cartesian rationality fails in the modern era, the humanistic tradition of rhetoric allows law to respond to the needs of justice. Part Three consists of ten chapters that each (1) introduce a classical rhetorical theorist to the reader, (2) provide an excerpt from a text by that theorist, and then (3) demonstrate the relevance of that work to a contemporary court case. Moving from the Sophists, through Aristotle and Plato and their Greek contemporaries, to the Roman rhetoricians Cicero and Quintilian, and finally, to the early medieval rhetorician, St. Augustine, these reprinted classical texts are contextualized by leading scholars in law, classics, and rhetoric, each with probing discussion questions for readers to engage and interact with the materials rhetorically. This vital resource of primary texts demonstrates how rhetoric illuminates the operation of the legal system and reconnects law to its rhetorical roots. Structured for use by scholars in critical inquiry and well suited for use in graduate or law school courses, Classical Rhetoric and Contemporary Law will be of interest to law, rhetoric, English, and communication scholars, and as an interactive catalyst to examine the ways in which ancient rhetorical theory informs our understanding of law practice today"--
All judges legitimize their decisions in writing, but US Supreme Court justices depend on public acceptance to a unique degree. Previous studies of judicial opinions have explored rhetorical strategies that produce legitimacy, but none have examined the laudatory, even operatic, forms of writing Supreme Court justices have used to justify fundamental rights decisions. Doug Coulson demonstrates that such “judicial rhapsodies” are not an aberration but a central feature of judicial discourse. First examining the classical origins of divisions between law and rhetoric, Coulson tracks what he calls an epideictic register—highly affective forms of expression that utilize hyperbole, amplification, and vocabularies of praise—through a surprising number of landmark Supreme Court opinions. Judicial Rhapsodies recovers and revalues these instances as significant to establishing and maintaining shared perspectives that form the basis for common experience and cooperation. “Judicial Rhapsodies is both compelling and important. Coulson brings his well-developed knowledge of rhetoric to bear on one of the most central (and most democratically fraught) means of governance in the United States: the Supreme Court opinion. He demonstrates that the epideictic, far from being a dispensable or detestable element of judicial rhetoric, is an essential feature of how the Court operates and seeks to persuade.” —Keith Bybee, Syracuse University
Rhetorics Change/Rhetoric’s Change features selected essays, multimedia texts, and audio pieces from the 2016 Rhetoric Society of America biennial conference, which spotlighted the theme “Rhetoric and Change.” The pieces are broadly focused around eight different lines of thought: Aural Rhetorics; Rhetoric and Science; Embodiment; Digital Rhetorics; Languages and Publics; Apologia, Revolution, Reflection; and Intersectionality, Interdisciplinarity, and the Future of Feminist Rhetoric. Simultaneously familiar yet new, the value of this collection can be found in the range of its modes and voices.
Known as the “swing justice,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy provided the key vote determining which way the Supreme Court would decide on some of the most controversial cases in US history. Though criticized for his unpredictable rulings, Kennedy also gained a reputation for his opinion writing and, more so, for his legal rhetoric. This book examines Justice Kennedy’s legacy through the lenses of rhetoric, linguistics, and constitutional law. Essays analyze Kennedy’s opinion writing in landmark cases such as Romer v. Evans, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Using the Justice’s rhetoric as an entry point into his legal philosophy, this volume reveals Kennedy as a justice with contradictions and blind spots—especially on race, women’s rights, and immigration—but also as a man of empathy deeply committed to American citizenship. A sophisticated assessment of Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence, this book provides new insight into Kennedy’s legacy on the Court and into the role that rhetoric plays in judging and in communicating judgment. In addition to the editors, the contributors to this volume are Ashutosh Bhagwat, Elizabeth C. Britt, Martin Camper, Michael Gagarin, James A. Gardner, Eugene Garver, Leslie Gielow Jacobs, Sean Patrick O’Rourke, Susan E. Provenzano, Clarke Rountree, Leticia M. Saucedo, Darien Shanske, Kathryn Stanchi, and Rebecca E. Zietlow.
From 1870 to 1940, racial eligibility for naturalization in the United States was limited to "free white persons" and "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent," and many interpreted these restrictions to reflect a policy of Asian exclusion based on the conclusion that Asians were neither white nor African. Because the distinction between white and Asian was considerably unstable, however, those charged with the interpretation and implementation of the naturalization act faced difficult racial classification questions. Through archival research and a close reading of the arguments contained in the documents of the US Bureau of Naturalization, especially those documents that discussed challenges to racial eligibility for naturalization, Doug Coulson demonstrates that the strategy of foregrounding shared external threats to the nation as a means of transcending perceived racial divisions was often more important to racial classification than legal doctrine. He argues that this was due to the rapid shifts in the nation's enmities and alliances during the early twentieth century and the close relationship between race, nation, and sovereignty.