Opinions in context: An exploration of the rhetoric used by Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg regarding the separation of church and state
Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg represented opposite ends of the political spectrum on the Court, having been appointed by presidents from different parties. Their opinions on cases revolving around the interpretation of separation of church and state do/did not occur within a vacuum, and this paper examines both the context surrounding these opinions and rhetoric of the opinions themselves, closing with a discussion of the former’s effect on the latter. Specifically, four cases (two for each) from the beginning and end of the justices’ careers will be analyzed: Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Edwards v. Auguillard, and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. This project serves as an introductory glance into the motivations and rhetorical strategies of two of modern time’s most prominent and incisive justices
