Abstract
Abstract: This essay examines rhetorical dynamics in the 2004 US Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. News reports suggested the court split 8-1 or 6-3. However, case texts show substantive disagreements created a 4-2-2-1 split in the court. Moreover, while the justices on the bench split into four camps rather than two, those camps were not defined along ideological lines. This essay argues that pragmatism, the legal philosophy that held sway in the case, achieved practical expediency at the expense of judicial and constitutional coherency. In the end, the court found a majority through neither persuasion nor principled conviction but, rather, through reluctant compromise in order to achieve a partial resolution rather than none. In other words, argumentation failed and consensus followed from necessity rather than persuasion. The essay explores the question of whether constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties were violated in the ruling.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
