{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/45352"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/45352","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Judicial rhetoric and radical politics: sexuality, race, and the fourteenth amendment","abstract":"“Judicial Rhetoric and Radical Politics: Sexuality, Race, and the Fourteenth Amendment” takes up U.S. judicial opinions as performances of sovereignty over the boundaries of legitimate subjectivity. The argumentative choices jurists make in producing judicial opinion delimit the grounds upon which persons and groups can claim existence as legal subjects in the United States. I combine doctrinal, rhetorical, and queer methods of legal analysis to examine how judicial arguments about due process and equal protection produce different possibilities for the articulation of queer of color identity in, through, and in response to judicial speech. The dissertation includes three case studies of opinions in state, federal and Supreme Court cases (including Lawrence v. Texas, Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1, & Perry v. Brown) that implicate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s development and application of a particular form of Fourteenth Amendment rhetoric that I argue has liberatory potential from the perspective of radical (anti-establishmentarian and statist) queer politics. I read this queer potential in Kennedy’s substantive due process and equal protection arguments about gay and lesbian civil rights as a component part of his broader rhetorical constitution of a newly legitimated and politically regressive post-racial queer subject position within the U.S. constitutional state. My queer rhetorical analysis of judicial speech contributes to the project of bridging post-structural philosophy with everyday material relations. By theorizing queer politics in terms of institutional legal rhetoric, I offer a method for evaluating judicial argumentative choice in terms of radical queer of color political goals.","abstract_html":"“Judicial Rhetoric and Radical Politics: Sexuality, Race, and the Fourteenth Amendment” takes up U.S. judicial opinions as performances of sovereignty over the boundaries of legitimate subjectivity. The argumentative choices jurists make in producing judicial opinion delimit the grounds upon which persons and groups can claim existence as legal subjects in the United States. I combine doctrinal, rhetorical, and queer methods of legal analysis to examine how judicial arguments about due process and equal protection produce different possibilities for the articulation of queer of color identity in, through, and in response to judicial speech. The dissertation includes three case studies of opinions in state, federal and Supreme Court cases (including Lawrence v. Texas, Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1, & Perry v. Brown) that implicate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s development and application of a particular form of Fourteenth Amendment rhetoric that I argue has liberatory potential from the perspective of radical (anti-establishmentarian and statist) queer politics. I read this queer potential in Kennedy’s substantive due process and equal protection arguments about gay and lesbian civil rights as a component part of his broader rhetorical constitution of a newly legitimated and politically regressive post-racial queer subject position within the U.S. constitutional state. My queer rhetorical analysis of judicial speech contributes to the project of bridging post-structural philosophy with everyday material relations. By theorizing queer politics in terms of institutional legal rhetoric, I offer a method for evaluating judicial argumentative choice in terms of radical queer of color political goals.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Campbell, Peter"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Speech Communication","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Ono, Kent A.","Finnegan, Cara A.","Gill, Pat","O'Gorman, Thomas","Somerville, Siobhan B."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2013,"date_issued":"2013-08-22T16:37:32Z","date_published":"2013-08-22T16:37:32Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:34Z","subjects":["judicial rhetoric","legal argument","rhetoric","argumentation","queer of color","queer","race","sexuality","sovereignty","performative","constitutional law","United States Supreme Court","Fourteenth Amendment","due process","equal protection","lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, or questioning (LGBTQ)","Lawrence v. Texas","Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1","Romer v. Evans","Bowers v. Hardwick","In re Marriage Cases","Perry v. Brown","marriage","sodomy law","Anthony Kennedy"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2013 Peter O. Campbell"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/45352","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Ono, Kent A.","Finnegan, Cara A.","Gill, Pat","O'Gorman, Thomas","Somerville, Siobhan B."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Campbell, Peter"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2013-08-22T16:37:32Z","2013-08"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Speech Communication"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["judicial rhetoric","legal argument","rhetoric","argumentation","queer of color","queer","race","sexuality","sovereignty","performative","constitutional law","United States Supreme Court","Fourteenth Amendment","due process","equal protection","lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, or questioning (LGBTQ)","Lawrence v. Texas","Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1","Romer v. Evans","Bowers v. Hardwick","In re Marriage Cases","Perry v. Brown","marriage","sodomy law","Anthony Kennedy"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2013 Peter O. Campbell"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/45352"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["“Judicial Rhetoric and Radical Politics: Sexuality, Race, and the Fourteenth Amendment” takes up U.S. judicial opinions as performances of sovereignty over the boundaries of legitimate subjectivity. The argumentative choices jurists make in producing judicial opinion delimit the grounds upon which persons and groups can claim existence as legal subjects in the United States. I combine doctrinal, rhetorical, and queer methods of legal analysis to examine how judicial arguments about due process and equal protection produce different possibilities for the articulation of queer of color identity in, through, and in response to judicial speech. The dissertation includes three case studies of opinions in state, federal and Supreme Court cases (including Lawrence v. Texas, Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1, & Perry v. Brown) that implicate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s development and application of a particular form of Fourteenth Amendment rhetoric that I argue has liberatory potential from the perspective of radical (anti-establishmentarian and statist) queer politics. I read this queer potential in Kennedy’s substantive due process and equal protection arguments about gay and lesbian civil rights as a component part of his broader rhetorical constitution of a newly legitimated and politically regressive post-racial queer subject position within the U.S. constitutional state. My queer rhetorical analysis of judicial speech contributes to the project of bridging post-structural philosophy with everyday material relations. By theorizing queer politics in terms of institutional legal rhetoric, I offer a method for evaluating judicial argumentative choice in terms of radical queer of color political goals.","Item withdrawn by Alexis Thompson (athmpsn1@illinois.edu) on 2013-07-11T13:28:49Z Item was in collections: University of Illinois Theses & Dissertations (ID: 1) No. of bitstreams: 2 Campbell_Peter.docx: 572951 bytes, checksum: bceeaf51daa95fb98aa1e83507ac7968 (MD5) Campbell_Peter.pdf: 2054933 bytes, checksum: 56b019dcfb117b20c7d6b521a4bc9aff (MD5)","Made available in DSpace on 2013-08-22T16:37:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 Peter_Campbell.pdf: 2056258 bytes, checksum: 1c36e1f0a5966daa75cccc18d364aa50 (MD5) Campbell_Peter.docx: 572951 bytes, checksum: bceeaf51daa95fb98aa1e83507ac7968 (MD5) license.txt: 4064 bytes, checksum: 5fb20df6acf93075933f09d5ba0d9291 (MD5)"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Judicial rhetoric and radical politics: sexuality, race, and the fourteenth amendment"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Ono, Kent A.","Finnegan, Cara A.","Gill, Pat","O'Gorman, Thomas","Somerville, Siobhan B."],"dc:creator":["Campbell, Peter"],"dc:date":["2013-08-22T16:37:32Z","2013-08"],"dc:description":["“Judicial Rhetoric and Radical Politics: Sexuality, Race, and the Fourteenth Amendment” takes up U.S. judicial opinions as performances of sovereignty over the boundaries of legitimate subjectivity. The argumentative choices jurists make in producing judicial opinion delimit the grounds upon which persons and groups can claim existence as legal subjects in the United States. I combine doctrinal, rhetorical, and queer methods of legal analysis to examine how judicial arguments about due process and equal protection produce different possibilities for the articulation of queer of color identity in, through, and in response to judicial speech. The dissertation includes three case studies of opinions in state, federal and Supreme Court cases (including Lawrence v. Texas, Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1, & Perry v. Brown) that implicate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s development and application of a particular form of Fourteenth Amendment rhetoric that I argue has liberatory potential from the perspective of radical (anti-establishmentarian and statist) queer politics. I read this queer potential in Kennedy’s substantive due process and equal protection arguments about gay and lesbian civil rights as a component part of his broader rhetorical constitution of a newly legitimated and politically regressive post-racial queer subject position within the U.S. constitutional state. My queer rhetorical analysis of judicial speech contributes to the project of bridging post-structural philosophy with everyday material relations. By theorizing queer politics in terms of institutional legal rhetoric, I offer a method for evaluating judicial argumentative choice in terms of radical queer of color political goals.","Item withdrawn by Alexis Thompson (athmpsn1@illinois.edu) on 2013-07-11T13:28:49Z Item was in collections: University of Illinois Theses & Dissertations (ID: 1) No. of bitstreams: 2 Campbell_Peter.docx: 572951 bytes, checksum: bceeaf51daa95fb98aa1e83507ac7968 (MD5) Campbell_Peter.pdf: 2054933 bytes, checksum: 56b019dcfb117b20c7d6b521a4bc9aff (MD5)","Made available in DSpace on 2013-08-22T16:37:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 Peter_Campbell.pdf: 2056258 bytes, checksum: 1c36e1f0a5966daa75cccc18d364aa50 (MD5) Campbell_Peter.docx: 572951 bytes, checksum: bceeaf51daa95fb98aa1e83507ac7968 (MD5) license.txt: 4064 bytes, checksum: 5fb20df6acf93075933f09d5ba0d9291 (MD5)"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/45352"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2013 Peter O. Campbell"],"dc:subject":["judicial rhetoric","legal argument","rhetoric","argumentation","queer of color","queer","race","sexuality","sovereignty","performative","constitutional law","United States Supreme Court","Fourteenth Amendment","due process","equal protection","lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, or questioning (LGBTQ)","Lawrence v. Texas","Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1","Romer v. Evans","Bowers v. Hardwick","In re Marriage Cases","Perry v. Brown","marriage","sodomy law","Anthony Kennedy"],"dc:title":["Judicial rhetoric and radical politics: sexuality, race, and the fourteenth amendment"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Speech Communication"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:34Z"}