Generic tendencies in majority and non‐majority supreme court opinions: The case of justice Douglas

Abstract

Using a sample of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas' Supreme Court opinons as the data base, this study investigated the question of whether majority or non‐majority status constitutes a variable sufficiently strong to predict the rhetorical quality of the opinion. The three traditional schools of legal philosophy, Natural Law, Legal Positivism, and Legal Realism, provided the basis of three hypothetical rhetorical genres which were found to be present in statistically similar frequencies in all opinion types. These findings (1) call into question the conventional wisdom that majority and dissenting opinions represent different rhetorical sub‐species, and (2) suggest that a more fruitful avenue of analysis looks to the generic architechtonics of Supreme Court opinions rather than to the relatively more superficial dimension of stylistics.