{"title":"奥康纳法官对阿克伦案的异议","authors":"Kristine M. Bartanen","doi":"10.1080/10417948709372693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay offers a framework for analysis of judicial dissent and examines Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the 1983 abortion decision against that backdrop. In addition to highlighting O'Connor's distinctive defense of personal credibility, emphasis on legal logic, and appeal for reversal of roe V. wade, the study reveals how effectively the value appeals characteristic of judicial rhetoric—democracy, justice, and logic—serve the motives for judicial dissent.","PeriodicalId":234061,"journal":{"name":"Southern Speech Communication Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The rhetoric of dissent in Justice O'Connor's Akron opinion\",\"authors\":\"Kristine M. Bartanen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10417948709372693\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay offers a framework for analysis of judicial dissent and examines Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the 1983 abortion decision against that backdrop. In addition to highlighting O'Connor's distinctive defense of personal credibility, emphasis on legal logic, and appeal for reversal of roe V. wade, the study reveals how effectively the value appeals characteristic of judicial rhetoric—democracy, justice, and logic—serve the motives for judicial dissent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":234061,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Southern Speech Communication Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1987-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Southern Speech Communication Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10417948709372693\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern Speech Communication Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10417948709372693","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The rhetoric of dissent in Justice O'Connor's Akron opinion
This essay offers a framework for analysis of judicial dissent and examines Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the 1983 abortion decision against that backdrop. In addition to highlighting O'Connor's distinctive defense of personal credibility, emphasis on legal logic, and appeal for reversal of roe V. wade, the study reveals how effectively the value appeals characteristic of judicial rhetoric—democracy, justice, and logic—serve the motives for judicial dissent.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
