Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1650154
 
 

Footnotes (92)



 


 



Making Sense of 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus': A Study of Rhetorical Discursive Bias in Morse v. Frederick


Ryan A. Malphurs


Courtroom Sciences, Inc.

Fall 2010

Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors, Vol. 7, 2010

Abstract:     
At its core, this article questions the cognitive influence communicative interactions in oral arguments may have upon the Justices’ decision-making ability. This article opens inquiry into judicial behavior in oral arguments, by examining, from a communication perspective, the Justices’ rhetorical discursive interaction and then considering the scholarly and social repercussions of the Justices’ interaction. By offering a unique perspective through research and methodology, this article presents findings that are distinct from the common aggregate behavioral models and typical longitudinal studies conducted by political scientists and psychologists. In addition, analysis of a specific case enables research focused upon each Justice’s individual rhetorical discursive interaction in oral argument. Mapping the Justices’ individual behavior enables readers to determine the manner in which certain Justices may have controlled the discursive flow of information and arguments within the case’s oral argument, and the mapping exposes a judicial discursive bias that may influence the Justices’ decision-making ability.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 36

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: July 30, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Malphurs, Ryan A., Making Sense of 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus': A Study of Rhetorical Discursive Bias in Morse v. Frederick (Fall 2010). Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors, Vol. 7, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1650154

Contact Information

Ryan A. Malphurs (Contact Author)
Courtroom Sciences, Inc. ( email )
4950 N. O'Connor Rd.
Irving, TX TX 75062
972-717-1773 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 623
Downloads: 61
Download Rank: 212,275
Footnotes:  92
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.516 seconds