The Power of the Dissent and Writing The Future of Justice: Maat, Aristotle's Rhetoric, and Justice Ginsburg's Dissent in Kentucky v. King

Authors

Livan Davidson

Abstract

This article explains why Ginsburg's dissent in King is rhetorically superior to the majority opinion. It evaluates, by way of comparing and contrasting, the persuasiveness of the dissent and majority opinions in King. This article examines the opinion through the lens of Aristotle's rhetorical model and the ancient tenet of Maat. It analyzes Ginsburg and Justice Alito's (Alito) use of rhetorical devices that appeal to persuasion, including logos (appeal to logic), ethos (appeal to credibility), pathos (appeal to emotions), and Maat (rightness in the world). This article concludes that Ginsburg's use of rhetoric has a superior appeal to fairness and justice because it is informed by Western rhetoric and the ancient tenet of Maat. This article introduces the current social climate to highlight why it is an important time to discuss the dissent and majority opinions in King. Part II defines Aristotle's classical rhetoric and the ancient tenet of Maat.9 Part III discusses the role of the appellate judge and opinion writing. 10 Part IV overviews the Fourth Amendment and defines the exigent circumstance exception." Part V both analyzes the dissent and majority opinions through the frame of Aristotle's rhetorical model and applies the Afrocentric comparative rhetorical tool of Maat (balance and justice in the world). 12 Part VI then concludes that Ginsburg's use of rhetorical devices in the dissent was rhetorically superior to the majority opinion because it has a greater appeal to justice.

Recommended Citation

Livan Davidson, The Power of the Dissent and Writing The Future of Justice: Maat, Aristotle's Rhetoric, and Justice Ginsburg's Dissent in Kentucky v. King, 16 Intercultural Hum. Rts. L. Rev. (2021).
Available at: https://scholarship.stu.edu/ihrlr/vol16/iss1/5