The legal world sometimes seems like it's the ideal world. It's a sphere where the good and the bad fight it out and in the end (hopefully) justice, and the good, triumph. However the legal argumentation is not free from subjectivity and story-telling. Though we have discussed earlier in the semester how personal accounts are often seen as not substantial, the account a lawyer tells the jury and the courtroom is also in a way, personal. The defendant and the plaintiff bring their side of the facts. Meaning, although both parties may be discussing and recounting the same event, their different variations of the truth of the event gives the facts of the story meaning and reputability. The "truth of the matter" is not so easy to parse out. And often times, there are multiple truths and hundreds of vantage points. Despite this however, the judges and/or the jury must decide which set of facts composed in which narrative are the most convincing and the most likely to replicate the truth of the matter. Things like consistency and noncontradiction help bolster narratives. The Supreme Court tries to be consistent by using decisions made in prior cases to reference the case at hand. To rule against a prior decision may unveil a contradiction or a false adherence to objectivity. The Supreme Court tries to define things in a way which could apply to all analogous cases and in regards to questions they know are bound to come up again. Their ruling is therefore not simply in regards to the case at hand, but encapsulates a more conclusive idea of the essence of a particular law and the question it generates. For instance their ruling in FEC v Citizens United, completely altered the way money can be used in political campaigning. They didn't just allow the documentary about Clinton to be permissible, they also tackled a larger issue in the process of their decision making.
There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A...
Comments
Post a Comment