Reframing Law's Domain: Narrative, Rhetoric, and the Forms of Legal Rules

Legal scholars typically understand law as a system of determinate rules grounded in logic. And the public sphere, textualist judges and others often claim that should not "make" law, arguing instead judge's role is simply to find meaning inherent law's language. This essay offers different understanding both structure legal judges. Building on Caroline Levine's texts have multiple ordering principles, argues simultaneously three overlapping forms, none which dominant: only form conditional, "if-then" logic, but also rhetorical situation (as Lloyd Bitzer defines it) stock story, story's elements are reduced classes things, acts, circumstances. As result, lawyers must tell stories, decisions complex act categorization judge decide whether story before court fits within category stories defined by governing rule. further suggests if storytelling practice, then textualism flawed because it ignores actual authors audiences. In very real sense do make legitimacy modern democracy depends willingness consider divergent voices those who write bound or benefit from them.