DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Rhetoric and Radical Politics: Sexuality, Race, and the Fourteenth Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Rhetoric and Radical Politics: Sexuality, Race, and the Fourteenth Amendment JUDICIAL RHETORIC AND RADICAL POLITICS: SEXUALITY, RACE, AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY PETER O. CAMPBELL DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Speech Communication with a minor in Gender and Women’s Studies in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2013 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Kent A. Ono, Chair Associate Professor Cara A. Finnegan Associate Professor Pat Gill Associate Professor Thomas O’Gorman Associate Professor Siobhan B. Somerville ABSTRACT: “Judicial Rhetoric and Radical Politics: Sexuality, Race, and the Fourteenth Amendment” takes up U.S. judicial opinions as performances of sovereignty over the boundaries of legitimate subjectivity. The argumentative choices jurists make in producing judicial opinion delimit the grounds upon which persons and groups can claim existence as legal subjects in the United States. I combine doctrinal, rhetorical, and queer methods of legal analysis to examine how judicial arguments about due process and equal protection produce different possibilities for the articulation of queer of color identity in, through, and in response to judicial speech. The dissertation includes three case studies of opinions in state, federal and Supreme Court cases (including Lawrence v. Texas, Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1, & Perry v. Brown) that implicate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s development and application of a particular form of Fourteenth Amendment rhetoric that I argue has liberatory potential from the perspective of radical (anti-establishmentarian and statist) queer politics. I read this queer potential in Kennedy’s substantive due process and equal protection arguments about gay and lesbian civil rights as a component part of his broader rhetorical constitution of a newly legitimated and politically regressive post-racial queer subject position within the U.S. constitutional state. My queer rhetorical analysis of judicial speech contributes to the project of bridging post-structural philosophy with everyday material relations. By theorizing queer politics in terms of institutional legal rhetoric, I offer a method for evaluating judicial argumentative choice in terms of radical queer of color political goals. ii For Derek, Robert, Catherine, Dick, and Cory, and for Elvin Odell & Grandpa Moose iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: In some ways, I have been working toward this document for my entire life. I first want to thank my parents, Robert, Catherine, and Dick, for insistently raising my brother Derek and I to ask questions, demand answers, and to mistrust the authoritative claims of a warmongering state. My grandparents—Mary Haight Pease, Otis Pease, Donna McCampbell, and Lois Franklin Campbell—participated in raising my brother and I in this way as well; I am lucky to have always been among family for whom knowledge and critique were of paramount concern. I could not have asked for a more ideal advisor and mentor than Kent A. Ono. Kent has a dry wit that puts mine to shame. He is kind. Kent is skilled at generously anticipating the goals and interests and desires of his advisees, and tailoring his advice and guidance to the same; he encouraged me to focus on legal rhetoric with a prescient sense of my interests and abilities that I could not have had for myself. Kent is a skilled and inspirational editor and critic of graduate scholarship. He is a tireless advocate for justice, and a material supporter of those who struggle for the same. Those of us lucky enough to have worked with Kent will not forget the experience. I made it to college at the University of Puget Sound because of the particular guidance and support of some wonderful teachers at Sehome High School, in particular: my social studies teacher Chris Michel, who taught me how teaching can be a critical and productive practice; and my debate coach, Jeff Shaw, who continues to be a friend, and an inspiration in praxis. At the University of Puget Sound, I discovered rhetoric. I could not be more grateful to the mentorship and guidance of A. Susan Owen, James Jasinski, Dexter Gordon, Grace Livingston, and Derek Buescher. The North End of Tacoma was also the place where I cemented my now fifteen-year friendship with Josh E. Anderson (this still seems like a long time to me at this point in my life); Josh provided invaluable advice for certain portions of this manuscript. When I was deciding where to get my M.A., Sue Owen (a person who exemplifies what an academic committed to using their position to resist structures of oppressive power, and to help illuminate those structures for their students, should be) told me that the opportunity to study with Cara Finnegan, and the other rhetoric faculty in Speech Communication at Illinois, would be the best thing for my hoped-for development as a critic. Sue was right. I am privileged to have had a doctoral committee of Cara Finnegan, Pat Gill, Ned O’Gorman, and Siobhan B. Somerville, and to have had Debra Hawhee as my M.A. advisor. The staff in the Department of Communication Studies—and here I thank, in particular, Mary Strum and Amy Holland—are also a large part of the reason that this document has made it to the point of submission. I am grateful for their expertise and patience. Pat taught me much of the base of literature I cite here; I should also say that any good examples of taut, concise summary and analysis in this dissertation are due in large part to Pat, and that what remains is not her fault. I first wrote a version of what is now Chapter One for Ned’s “Rhetorical Criticism” bridge class; I will be forever thankful for that assignment, and for Ned’s support of it. I submitted that paper for award and journal consideration at Debbie’s urging–– Debbie who did so much to help me start well on this path. I would not have been able to complete this project without Siobhan’s support, guidance, incisive critique, and inspiration. iv To Siobhan, in large part, I owe my participation in a vibrant and challenging community of queer scholars at Illinois. The graduate student and faculty members of this community are as responsible as anyone for the successful completion of queer projects at UIUC. I would not have liked to face the job market this year without Cara’s level and expert guidance, and she has done more than I can say to challenge and improve my writing, research, and argumentation. Cara talks sometimes about “academic family trees.” I am grateful to be on a small part of hers. I had the opportunity to be a part of many other intellectual communities at Illinois and across the country––including the Illinois Queer Studies and Rhetorical Studies Reading Groups, and the INTERSECT Program in Cultures of Law in Global Contexts––that encouraged, shaped, and contributed to this work. The faculty and graduate student colleagues in work and activism who I was lucky enough to meet, argue with, contemplate with, and learn from in the Rhetoric Society of America Queering Rhetorical Studies and Rhetoric’s Critical Genealogies workshop and seminar groups are all represented here in some way. Three final notes. First, my job, the security of my position, and my many opportunities to do public communication in Champaign would not have been possible without the courageous and talented members, past and present, of the Graduate Employees Organization, Illinois Federation of Teachers Local 6300, AFL-CIO, UIUC. It is through the GEO that I have also met some of my dearest friends––among them (this is not an exhaustive list) Sarah Baires, Christina De Angelo, Ian Hartman, Amy Livingston, Vincent Pham, Kerry Pimblott, Stephanie Seawell, Natalie Uhl, and Kathryn Walkiewicz. But I need to thank in particular those who, more than anyone, first helped me find a home in Champaign. Sam Arnold kept me afloat, and kept me laughing and joyful, throughout a difficult first year. Katie Beall, Ian Hill, and Hank Beall-Hill welcomed me into their home, and the life of their family. Kassie Lamp literally welcomed me into her home, and made it my own too. She showed me how it is necessary, sometimes, to dance your way into a Master’s degree. It took me a little longer to get to know her, but Myra Washington is my hero. When I grow up, Myra is who I want to be. She talked me down, and she was right; I survived the defense. Then there were those who were always “home” to meet me in the salt air when I could get there: my debate partners, Plumridge, Matt, and Jessica; and Anne; Jon; Hollod; Katrina; Suni; & the Michaels. This work, and work like it, would not be possible without the courage of Michael Hardwick, Tyron Garner, John Geddes Lawrence, Bradley Manning, my students at the Danville Correctional Center, and so many others who struggle in their own ways to create queerly just worlds in this unjust state. My ability to write about the rhetoric their actions engender is the most trivial example of the good works they have created. Finally, I thank a particular person. This person was, and is today: my porpoise in life; and the intellectual, moral, and joyous beacon that I follow whenever the road becomes difficult, and I fear I might lose the way. v TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: JUDICIAL RHETORIC AND LEGAL SUBJECTS......................................1 CHAPTER ONE: DUE PROCESS ARGUMENTS IN BOWERS V. HARDWICK AND LAWRENCE V. TEXAS....................................................................................53 CHAPTER TWO: THE “CORROSIVE
Load more

Recommended publications
  • John Lewis, Reflections on Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., 109 Yale L.J
    +(,121/,1( Citation: John Lewis, Reflections on Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., 109 Yale L.J. 1253, 1256 (2000) Provided by: Available Through: The Jones Day Libraries Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Fri Sep 8 16:33:48 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information Use QR Code reader to send PDF to your smartphone or tablet device Reflections on Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. John Lewist For any student of the law, indeed for any person who believes in the values for which the Constitution of the United States stands, the name Frank Minis Johnson, Jr. should ring familiar. Frank Johnson was the best example of what this country can be. More than simply a model jurist, he was a model American. As debate rages today over the role of the judiciary and whether one should support the appointment of "strict constructionist" or "activist" judges to the bench, Judge Johnson's record stands above the fray. His career demonstrates the wisdom of those great Americans who drafted our Constitution. Our forefathers proved wise enough to provide the courts not only the moral authority-based in our Constitution and Bill of Rights and embodied in people like Judge Johnson-but also the independence necessary to exert that authority at those times when the bedrock of our freedom-the right of all Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-is threatened.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Moral Rights: Alabama Mental Health Institutions
    MINIMUM MORAL RIGHTS: ALABAMA MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTIONS AND THE ROAD TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work describe in this thesis is my own or was one in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. ____________________________ Deborah Jane Belcher Certificate of Approval ___________________________ __________________________ Larry Gerber David Carter, Chair Professor Emeritus Associate Professor History History ___________________________ __________________________ Charles Israel George T. Flowers Associate Professor Dean History Graduate School MINIMUM MORAL RIGHTS: ALABAMA MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTIONS AND THE ROAD TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION Deborah Jane Belcher A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts Auburn, Alabama December 19, 2008 MINIMUM MORAL RIGHTS: ALABAMA MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTIONS AND THE ROAD TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION Deborah Jane Belcher Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights __________________________________ Signature of Author ___________________________________ Date of Graduation iii VITA Deborah Jane Belcher was born in Mt. Clemons, Michigan. A graduate of Marshall Lab School in Huntington, West Virginia, Deborah attended Marshall University where she
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric and Law: How Do Lawyers Persuade Judges? How Do Lawyers Deal with Bias in Judges and Judging?
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University English Honors Theses Department of English 5-9-2015 Rhetoric And Law: How Do Lawyers Persuade Judges? How Do Lawyers Deal With Bias In Judges And Judging? Danielle Barnwell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/english_hontheses Recommended Citation Barnwell, Danielle, "Rhetoric And Law: How Do Lawyers Persuade Judges? How Do Lawyers Deal With Bias In Judges And Judging?." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2015. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/english_hontheses/10 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of English at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RHETORIC AND LAW: HOW DO LAWYERS PERSUADE JUDGES? HOW DO LAWYERS DEAL WITH BIAS IN JUDGES AND JUDGING? By: Danielle Barnwell Under the Direction of Dr. Beth Burmester An Honors Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation with Undergraduate Research Honors in the Department of English Georgia State University 2014 ______________________________________ Honors Thesis Advisor ______________________________________ Honors Program Associate Dean ______________________________________ Date RHETORIC AND LAW: HOW DO LAWYERS PERSUADE JUDGES? HOW DO LAWYERS DEAL WITH BIAS IN JUDGES AND JUDGING? BY: DANIELLE BARNWELL Under the Direction of Dr. Beth Burmester ABSTRACT Judges strive to achieve both balance and fairness in their rulings and courtrooms. When either of these is compromised, or when judicial discretion appears to be handed down or enforced in random or capricious ways, then bias is present.
    [Show full text]
  • National Association of Women Judges Counterbalance Spring 2012 Volume 31 Issue 3
    national association of women judges counterbalance Spring 2012 Volume 31 Issue 3 INSIDE THIS ISSUE Poverty’s Impact on the Administration of Justice / 1 President’s Message / 2 Executive Director’s Message / 3 Cambridge 2012 Midyear Meeting and Leadership Conference / 6 MEET ME IN MIAMI: NAWJ 2012 Annual Conference / 8 District News / 10 Immigration Programs News / 20 Membership Moments / 20 Women in Prison Report / 21 Louisiana Women in Prison / 21 Maryland Women in Prison / 23 NAWJ District 14 Director Judge Diana Becton and Contra Costa County native Christopher Darden with local high school youth New York Women in Prison / 24 participants in their November, 2011 Color of Justice program. Read more on their program in District 14 News. Learn about Color of Justice in creator Judge Brenda Loftin’s account on page 33. Educating the Courts and Others About Sexual Violence in Unexpected Areas / 28 NAWJ Judicial Selection Committee Supports Gender Equity in Selection of Judges / 29 POVERTY’S IMPACT ON THE ADMINISTRATION Newark Conference Perspective / 30 OF JUSTICE 1 Ten Years of the Color of Justice / 33 By the Honorable Anna Blackburne-Rigsby and Ashley Thomas Jeffrey Groton Remembered / 34 “The opposite of poverty is justice.”2 These words have stayed with me since I first heard them Program Spotlight: MentorJet / 35 during journalist Bill Moyers’ interview with civil rights attorney Bryan Stevenson. In observance News from the ABA: Addressing Language of the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination, they were discussing what Dr. Access / 38 King would think of the United States today in the fight against inequality and injustice.
    [Show full text]
  • General Election November 6, 2018 Expanded Voter Information
    General Election November 6, 2018 Expanded Voter Information Table of Contents: STATE GOVERNOR 1 ​ LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 3 ​ SECRETARY OF STATE 4 ​ CONTROLLER 5 ​ TREASURER 6 ​ ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 ​ INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 8 ​ MEMBER STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 1st District 10 ​ UNITED STATES SENATOR 10 ​ UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 29th District 13 ​ UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 30th District 13 ​ STATE SENATOR 18th District 14 ​ MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 45th District 15 ​ MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 46th District 16 ​ JUDICIAL 18 ​ SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 30 ​ COUNTY ASSESSOR 32 ​ COUNTY SHERIFF 33 ​ STATE MEASURES 34 ​ COUNTY MEASURES 45 ​ CITY MEASURES 46 ​ Prepared by Danica Bergagnini, Brandi McPherson, Kaitlin Vitek Formaker, Erin Huffer-Ethial, & ​ ​ ​ Stephanie Del Barco. Political Action Network neither supports nor opposes political parties, ballot measures, or candidates for public office. This information was compiled via multiple internet sources such as media articles, candidate websites, candidate social media accounts, votersedge.org, and ballotpedia.org. Political Action Network politicalactionnetwork.org • [email protected] • fb & twitter @politicalactnet STATE GOVERNOR John H Cox Businessman/Taxpayer Advocate https://johncoxforgovernor.com/ Political Party: Republican A native of Chicago, Cox received his bachelor's from the University of Illinois at Chicago in accounting and political science. Cox's first involvement with politics was a 1976 run for a delegate position at the Democratic Convention. In 1980, Cox graduated from ITT/Chicago Kent College of Law and began working as an accountant. One year later, Cox founded a law firm and an accounting firm, followed by forays into investment advice, real estate, and venture capital. In 1991, Cox established a local branch of Rebuilding Together, a housing repair nonprofit.
    [Show full text]
  • Athenian Homicide Rhetoric in Context
    ATHENIAN HOMICIDE RHETORIC IN CONTEXT BY CHRISTINE C. PLASTOW Thesis submitted to University College London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy DEPARTMENT OF GREEK AND LATIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON 1 DECLARATION I, Christine C. Plastow, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ABSTRACT Homicide is a potent crime in any society, and classical Athens was no exception. The Athenians implemented legal methods for dealing with homicide that were set apart from the rest of their legal system, including separate courts, long-established laws, and rigorous procedures. We have, however, limited extant sources on these issues, including only five speeches from trials for homicide. This has fomented debate regarding aspects of law and procedure, and rhetoric as it relates specifically to homicide has not been examined in detail. Here, I intend to examine how the nature of homicide and its prosecution at Athens may have affected rhetoric when discussing homicide in forensic oratory. First, I will establish what I will call the ideology of homicide at Athens: the set of beliefs and perceptions that are most commonly attached to homicide and its prosecution. Then, I will examine homicide rhetoric from three angles: religious pollution, which was believed to adhere to those who committed homicide; relevance, as speakers in the homicide courts were subject to particular restrictions in this regard; and motive and intent, related issues that appear frequently in rhetoric and, in some cases, define the nature of a homicide charge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Puzzles of Prisoners and Rights: an Essay in Honor of Frank Johnson
    JOHNSON FRANK PUZZLES BP REVISED 3 4/15/2020 (DO NOT DELETE) 4/21/20 2:23 PM ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ THE PUZZLES OF PRISONERS AND RIGHTS: AN ESSAY IN HONOR OF FRANK JOHNSON Judith Resnik I. REFUSING AND RECOGNIZING RIGHTS: FROM “CIVIL DEATH” TO BROWN ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ V. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND PRISON LITIGATION IN THE 1960S AND ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1970S ............................................................................. 101 II. ​ ​ PRISONERS RETHEORIZING PUNISHMENT .............................................. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 105 III. RECOGNIZING PRISONERS’ CLAIMS THROUGH REREADING THE ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS ........................................... 121 IV. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ HYPER-INCARCERATION, TYPICALITY, AND CONSTITUTIONALITY .... 126 V. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ALTERNATIVE BASELINES: RIGHTS TO SAFETY, THE QUESTION OF ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ REHABILITATION, AND PROTECTION AGAINST DEBILITATION .......... 139 APPENDIX ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ............................................................................................................ .... 149 THE COMPLAINT IN PUGH V. SULLIVAN, Civil Action No. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 74-57-N, filed in the Middle District of Alabama, Feb. 26, 1974 ............................... 148 THE ​ ​ ​ COMPLAINT IN JAMES V. WALLACE, Civil Action No. 74-203-N, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ filed in the Middle District of Alabama, June 21, 1974 ............................... 152 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3584352 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3584352
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of California Statement on Equality and Inclusion June 11, 2020
    Supreme Court of California Statement on Equality and Inclusion June 11, 2020 The Supreme Court of the State of California "In view of recent events in our communities and through the nation, we are at an inflection point in our history. It is all too clear that the legacy of past injustices inflicted on African Americans persists powerfully and tragically to this day. Each of us has a duty to recognize there is much unfinished and essential work that must be done to make equality and inclusion an everyday reality for all. We must, as a society, honestly recognize our unacceptable failings and continue to build on our shared strengths. We must acknowledge that, in addition to overt bigotry, inattention and complacency have allowed tacit toleration of the intolerable. These are burdens particularly borne by African Americans as well as Indigenous Peoples singled out for disparate treatment in the United States Constitution when it was ratified. We have an opportunity, in this moment, to overcome division, accept responsibility for our troubled past, and forge a unified future for all who share devotion to this country and its ideals. We state clearly and without equivocation that we condemn racism in all its forms: conscious, unconscious, institutional, structural, historic, and continuing. We say this as persons who believe all members of humanity deserve equal respect and dignity; as citizens committed to building a more perfect Union; and as leaders of an institution whose fundamental mission is to ensure equal justice under the law for every single person. In our profession and in our daily lives, we must confront the injustices that have led millions to call for a justice system that works fairly for everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • A Salute to the Women Justices of the California Supreme Court
    Left to right: Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter and Associate Justice Goodwin Liu. Courtesy of the Supreme Court of California / Photo by Wayne Woods A Salute to the Women Justices of the California Supreme Court By R ay McDevitt* & Maureen B. Dear** n 1969, the year your editor graduated from law appointed Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. At the Ischool, he was fortunate enough to have had the presentation ceremony the Chief Justice, in accept- opportunity to serve as a law clerk for the late Justice ing the award, announced that she was “proud that Raymond L. Sullivan of the California Supreme Court. the California Supreme Court now has a majority of At that time all seven of the justices on the Court were women.” men. That had been the case for the preceding 120 years, At some point in the future, there will have been so as was evident to anyone walking down the main corri- many women justices, of so many differing personal dor of the Court, its walls lined with the photographs of characteristics and judicial philosophies, that an article the justices, all male, who had served on the Court. This discussing a state Supreme Court comprised of a major- state of affairs would continue for another seven years, ity of women would no longer be newsworthy. But at until the controversial appointment of Rose Bird as this particular moment it does seem appropriate to take Chief Justice in 1977.
    [Show full text]
  • April 16–17, 2015 Ronald M
    JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA Meeting Minutes—April 16–17, 2015 Ronald M. George State Office Complex William C. Vickrey Judicial Council Conference Center Malcolm M. Lucas Board Room 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California 94102-3688 THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2015 Non-Business Meeting—Closed Session Personnel and Other Confidential Matters (Rule 10.6(b)) The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. and adjourned at 4:00 p.m. FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 2015 Business Meeting—Open Meeting (Rule 10.6(a)) Voting Judicial Council members present: Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye; Court of Appeal Justices Judith Ashmann-Gerst, Harry E. Hull, Jr., and Douglas P. Miller; Judges Marla O. Anderson, Brian John Back, James R. Brandlin, David De Alba, Emilie H. Elias, Gary Nadler, David Rosenberg, David M. Rubin, Dean T. Stout, and Martin J. Tangeman; Mr. Mark G. Bonino, Mr. James P. Fox, Ms. Donna D. Melby, and Ms. Debra Elaine Pole; advisory members present: Judges Daniel J. Buckley, James E. Herman , Morris D. Jacobson, Brian L. McCabe, Marsha G. Slough, Kenneth K. So, Charles D. Wachob, and Joan P. Weber; Commissioner David E. Gunn; Court Executive Officers Richard D. Feldstein and Mary Beth Todd; Supreme Court Clerk Frank A. McGuire; secretary to the council: Mr. Martin Hoshino, Administrative Director. Judicial Council members absent: Supreme Court Justice Ming W. Chin; Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson; Assembly Member Richard Bloom. Speakers present: Judge Laurie M. Earl, Superior Court of Sacramento County; Ms. Sherri R. Carter, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Judicial Council of California—Meeting Minutes 1 April 16–17, 2015 Others present: Judge Rhonda Burgess, Superior Court of Alameda County; Judge Nancy L.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court 8 Eastern District of California 9
    Case 1:14-cv-00117-AWI-SKO Document 4 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERT DOWD, Case No. 1:14-cv-00117-AWI-SKO 11 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BE 12 v. DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 13 CALIFORNIA STATE BAR, et al., OJBECTIONS DUE: 21 DAYS 14 Defendants. (Doc. No. 1) 15 _____________________________________/ 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 19 On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff Robert Dowd ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against the 20 California State Bar, Donald J. Miles, Judith Epstein, Joann Remke, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Joyce 21 Kennard, Marvin Baxter, Kathryn M. Werdegar, Ming W. Chin, Carol Corrigan, Goodwin Liu, 22 Jean Shah, Cathy Lindsey, Rosalie Ruiz, the California State Bar Journal, and DOES 1 through 50 23 (collectively, "Defendants"). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated 24 his constitutional rights. Plaintiff also raises state law claims for defamation and discrimination, 25 as well as a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Against all 26 Defendants, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages exclusively. 27 For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's 28 complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. Case 1:14-cv-00117-AWI-SKO Document 4 Filed 06/23/14 Page 2 of 10 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff's lengthy complaint is disorganized and rambling, making it difficult to discern the 3 factual basis of his claims. Nevertheless, it appears Plaintiff's claims arise out of events that 4 occurred as part of disciplinary proceedings initiated against Plaintiff by the California State Bar 5 Association ("State Bar").
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Law a Resource Book for Students
    Language and Law A resource book for students Allan Durant and Janny H.C. Leung First published 2016 ISBN: 978-1-138-02558-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-02557-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-43625-8 (ebk) Chapter A5 Persuasion in Court (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) DOI: 10.4324/9781315436258-6 PERSUASION IN COURT 21 A5 PERSUASION IN COURT A5 In this unit, we introduce the topic of how advocates talk. We show how courtroom persuasion by lawyers is ‘rhetorical’ in the historical meaning of ‘rhetoric’, which combines eloquence with strategic patterns of reasoning and expected standards of proof. We conclude with an outline of moves and structures that together make up the advocacy involved in legal proceedings. This description serves as an introduction to closer analysis of linguistic techniques in the language of advocates in Unit B5. Legal advocacy Silver-tongued, probing eloquence by lawyers addressing the court is the familiar representation of a distinctive style of lawyer talk. This image of advocacy, however, is highly selective. It is also in some respects anachronistic. In English law, to take one example, jury trial has declined in frequency since the mid-nineteenth century fairly dramatically, despite its continuing popular endorsement as a democratising feature of the legal system (Zander 2015). Currently, less than 1 per cent of all criminal cases are tried before a jury; and access to jury trial in civil proceedings is restricted to a very small (and diminishing) number of causes of action. The reality of courtroom advocacy, where it occurs, is more one of strategic preparation, case management and variation in style adapted to hearings at different levels in the court hierarchy, rather than grand courtroom oratory.
    [Show full text]