Rhetorical Analysis: Supreme Court

Mr. Clement: Just to clarify, Justice Sotomayor, I'm not suggesting that the Federal Government has any special authority to recognize traditional marriage. So if -- the assumption is that nobody can do it. If the States can't do it either, then the Federal Government can't do it. So the Federal Government –“
MS. KAPLAN: To flip the language of the House Report, Mr. Chief Justice, I think it comes from a moral understanding today that gay people are no
different, and that gay married couples' relationships are not significantly different from the relationships of straight married people. I don't think -­
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I understand that…”

Standing up before the Supreme Court to argue a controversial issue like same sex marriage could be daunting to any average man.  It takes courage for Mr. Clement to make a case against the chief justice, and eight associate justices of the United States.  However, Mr. Clement hangs in there, while being interrupted by the chief justice.  Although Mr. Clement is particularly polite, his tone does not affect his negative treatment from the opposition and the Supreme Court. 

In this short excerpt, Clement’s claim is that the Federal Government does not have the authority to define traditional marriage if the states don’t have the authority either.  It is hard to determine his tone in his words, but it seems that his tone is calm and polite.  In his situation, it is crucial to be polite while in the company of the Supreme Court.  This is a useful tool in appealing to the audience.  Not only is his audience the Supreme Court members, but he is also speaking to the court viewers, and all the people that are watching the broadcast of the case.  Furthermore, since this issue is so relevant in contemporary politics, this particular Supreme Court will have a significant audience.  Since the issue of same sex marriage is so controversial, Clement must maintain a neutral tone, or else he will face the consequences of angry petitioners. 

While Clement is making his point, Ms. Kaplan abruptly interrupts him.  This behavior is demeaning towards Clement, perhaps undeserved.  However, Ms. Kaplan interprets Clements claim, offering her explanation.  She brings in “moral understanding” to the equation.  With this, Kaplan is using pathos to appeal to the audience.  Her claim is that gay married couples are no different than straight married couples.   Before she could finish her sentence and offer evidence to back up her statement, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted her.  This is an example of how they received impolite treatment from the Supreme Court, regardless of their manners. 

The use of diction also plays an important role in the effective language used by Clement and Kaplan.  For example, the use of the word “special” referring to the government authority makes the audience realize the unequal powers that the government has.  The use of “traditional” in context is a useful word to make marriage seem like a regular aspect of our culture, and that all people should be able to have the same right to tradition.  Kaplan’s use of “moral understanding” is a powerful form of diction as well.  Every person wants to be ethical and proper, so the use of this word makes the audience want to accomplish “moral understanding.” 

Reading the dialect of the Supreme Court cases are filled with rhetorical devices and appeals, and for a good reason.  They intend to use their language effectively, with the goal of convincing and persuading the audience.  Tools like diction and tone are useful in shaping your argument in a way that can directly make the audience feel your words.  It’s impressive to me that these professionals are able to use language in such an effective way.