Rhetorical Analysis

MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Kennedy, two points. First of all, the very fact that there are 1,100 provisions of Federal law that define the terms "marriage" and "spouse" goes a long way to showing that Federal law has not just stayed completely out of these issues. It's gotten involved in them in a variety of contexts where there is an independent Federal power that supported that. Now, the second thing is the fact that DOMA involves all 1,100 statutes at once is not really a sign of its irrationality. It is a sign that what it is, and all it has ever purported to be, is a definitional provision. And like every other provision in the Dictionary Act, what it does is it defines the term wherever it appears in Federal law in a consistent way. And that was part and parcel of what Congress was trying to accomplish with DOMA in 1996. (154)

            Mr. Clement did a great job thinking on his toes while being torn apart by the Supreme Court Justices in a case against DOMA. He addresses every point in a calmly fashion and backs it up with evidence. Clement has a well-qualified argument by centering all of his claims and evidence around his largest point; DOMA is a definitional provision.

            This being a rebuttal from a debate Mr. Clement did a good job of structuring his argument to counter attack each point. Though it is choppy, each sentence reflects the previous point of the Justice. All while staying quick to the point in order to get everything in before he is interrupted. The most important part of this structure is that it all revolves around the biggest point. Cleverly answering all of the Justice Kennedy’s  points while pointing them in the direction of DOMA being a definitional provision. A perfect example of this is how he opens, “First of all, the very fact that there are 1,100 provisions of Federal law that define the terms "marriage" and "spouse" goes a long way to showing that Federal law has not just stayed completely out of these issues.” As he points us in this direction he uses logos to start out strong and ends the sentence with his claim. This way by the time you read his claim it has already been backed up; not giving you a chance to second-guess this claim.

            Clement accomplishes all this while still maintaining a calm and collected tone. This tone gives him creditability because he isn’t rudely accusing anything no is he asking any demeaning questions; he is simply stating the facts. Also in comparison to most of the Justice’s sass and disrespectful responses, it makes him look like the more trustworthy speaker.

             Clement uses such a tone because the decision is being made by the Supreme Court Justices so he needs to appeal to them as his audience. Being respectful and showing credibility is essential for accomplishing this. In order to win over the opinion of a Justice you have to really prove to them that you are qualified and that is what Clement has been doing successfully. Like I pointed out earlier the structure of his sentences and over all argument are set up to prove his claim before he even states it. Add his tone to that and you have the perfect show for a hard to please audience.

            This argument was very well done. From the structure, tone, and appeal to the audience—Mr. Clement nailed it. He counter attacks each claim thrown at him, with the claims of his own draws a bigger picture, and has the tone to please the audience. He succeeded in making his case clear and doing that while thinking on your feet is a very large accomplishment.