Judgment, justification and junctions in the rhetorical criticism of legal texts

Abstract

This note reflects on the uses of the rhetorical criticism of legal texts from the perspective of a law professor. It suggests that lawyers and rhetoricians alike tend to define “legal texts” too narrowly, and thus miss the rhetorical dimensions of important, alternate legal discourses that warrant criticism. It also suggests that careful exploration of the instructive, reconstructive, and evaluative functions of rhetorical criticism can be invaluable tools to the broad legal community which includes not only the members of the legal profession, but also those who encounter law and its language in public discourse writ large.