Reflection on SCOTUS Speeches
As I listened, I noticed the importance of clear representation of both plaintiff and defendant views and arguments to the audience’s understanding of the case. Failing to provide accurate distinctions between arguments, beliefs, and perspectives can leave the audience confused on the nature of a case. I also recognized how essential it is to reference the situational variables as well. If important details, as such, were to be left out of a speech, the case has the potential to be portrayed inaccurately.
The speech on Loving V. Virginia—as written and presented by Megan Nazaryk on the topic of civil rights—is a great example of clear representation of views and the situation of the case. She had made certain to personalize both plaintiff and defendant by doing small things such as describing the plaintiff’s hobbies, lifestyle, and interests. This, as well as aiding audience understanding, also made her audience view the people involved in this case as people, as opposed to …show more content…
Our judicial system appears entirely ineffective until a case reaches the Supreme Court. Almost every plaintiff of every case appealed to SCOTUS after losing miserably at state levels due to factors like regional and national biases. Equally, it was also brought to my attention how easy it is to abuse our judicial system for personal gains if the determination is there. In Devin Feeser’s case of Winston V. Lee on the topic of unwanted physical intrusion, the plaintiff fought his way to SCOTUS to avoid a conviction that would most definitely follow the removal of a bullet lodged in his left chest area—evidence that would place Lee at the scene of the crime. I cannot speak much of possible reform due to my lack of knowledge, but I do think that our judicial system is desperate for change to avoid abuse on both ends of the
As I listened, I noticed the importance of clear representation of both plaintiff and defendant views and arguments to the audience’s understanding of the case. Failing to provide accurate distinctions between arguments, beliefs, and perspectives can leave the audience confused on the nature of a case. I also recognized how essential it is to reference the situational variables as well. If important details, as such, were to be left out of a speech, the case has the potential to be portrayed inaccurately.
The speech on Loving V. Virginia—as written and presented by Megan Nazaryk on the topic of civil rights—is a great example of clear representation of views and the situation of the case. She had made certain to personalize both plaintiff and defendant by doing small things such as describing the plaintiff’s hobbies, lifestyle, and interests. This, as well as aiding audience understanding, also made her audience view the people involved in this case as people, as opposed to …show more content…
Our judicial system appears entirely ineffective until a case reaches the Supreme Court. Almost every plaintiff of every case appealed to SCOTUS after losing miserably at state levels due to factors like regional and national biases. Equally, it was also brought to my attention how easy it is to abuse our judicial system for personal gains if the determination is there. In Devin Feeser’s case of Winston V. Lee on the topic of unwanted physical intrusion, the plaintiff fought his way to SCOTUS to avoid a conviction that would most definitely follow the removal of a bullet lodged in his left chest area—evidence that would place Lee at the scene of the crime. I cannot speak much of possible reform due to my lack of knowledge, but I do think that our judicial system is desperate for change to avoid abuse on both ends of the