Abstract
“The Supreme Court”, first published in 1987, is a concise and informative narrative of the highest court in the USA. It contains much that is of interest and probing about the court and the intrigues of its decision-making. Moments abound when the reader is taken on a journey through the humanity of the cases, the erudite corridors of high-law and into the intensely high-strung but level-headed hallowed chambers of the Justices and Justice. What is revealed is the exacting mask of law, the humanity and affectations of those whose burden it is to deliver far reaching judgment on the American people. However, more revealing of the storyline is, perhaps, not so much the woven narratives contained within the three pages of text as it is the peripheral story (what Gerard Genette called the ‘paratext’) unfolded in the cover wraps, what they contain and the stories they weave. In this paper, I examine the liminal devices of ‘The Supreme Court’. I argue that much of the systemic cognition of the legal system can be divined from a scholarly encounter with these elements. Furthermore, the paratexts of two editions of the book indicate a paradigmatic shift in the legal perception of both the Supreme Court and the author between the periods of publication. This underscores the law not only in its reactive form but also in its dexterity in shifting its position to reflect the reality of its time. On each occasion, it alters the legal consciousness of a nation. Yet, it stays remarkably stable and self-effacing. The essential question is one of deference. It is of great interest that the Chief Justice targets the informed and the interested as opposed to the ignorant and ambivalent. The liminal devices, I observe, are probably as eloquent with this message as the text within. The paratext bears testimony to this.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Gerrard Genette (2001) Cambridge University Press, as translated by Lewin, J. E. Originally published in French as Seuils in 1987. He described these as those devices within and without a book that form part of the complex mediation between book, author, publisher and reader. These include titles, forwards, epigraphs and publishers’ jacket copy.
In order to illustrate the gravitas of the court and highlight the eminence of the author of the book, it is helpful to relate the constitutional framework which defines the authority of the court. Section 2 establishes the jurisdictional scope of the Court by stating that: Its judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects) as modified by the 11th Amendment. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Taken from the website of the US Supreme Court at www.supremecourtus.gov.
No. 78 The Federalist Papers.
Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes under the authority given Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in 28 U. S. C. §1251 et seq., and various special statutes. The general jurisdiction is conferred by (Art. III, §2) of the US Constitution.
So called to depict the period of his authority over and leadership of the Court.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
In the case of Terry v. Adams 345 U.S. 461 (1953), Rehnquist wrote the following in a memorandum to Justice Jackson that ‘the Constitution does not prevent the majority from banding together, nor does it attaint success in the effort. It is about time the Court faced the fact that the white people of the south do not like the colored people: the constitution restrains them from effecting this dislike through state action but it most assuredly did not appoint the Court as a sociological watchdog to rear up every time private discrimination raises its admittedly ugly head. This case was about the right of African-Americans to vote in an allegedly private Texas election. In an article written in the USA Today on the 4th of September 2005, Biskupic, Joan wrote that ‘Rehnquist left the court with a conservative legacy’.
Or more scholarly ‘liminal piggy-backing’ to coin or borrow a phrase—this, I define as the use of one book to promote another book by the same author.
Rehnquist (1998).
Rehnquist’s book about impeachment long before he found himself presiding at President Clinton's Senate trial is a case in question. See Rehnquist (1992).
In time of war, the laws are silent—Cicero (106 BC–43 BC) Roman author, orator & politician.
Jon Roland. Review of Rehnquist, William H., All The Laws But One: Civil Liberties In Wartime. H-Scholar, H-Net Reviews. November, 1998 at http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php.
Jon Roland, President, Constitution Society at www.amazon.com.
Necessity justifies what it compels. 1 Hale’s P.C. 54.
Woodward and Armstrong (2005).
References
Rehnquist, W. H. (1992). Grand inquests: The historic impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson. New York: Knopf Publishing Group.
Rehnquist, W. H. (1998). All the laws but one: Civil liberties in wartime. New York: Random House.
Woodward, B., & Armstrong, S. (2005). The Brethren. Simon & Schuster (Paperbacks).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Erastus-Obilo, B.G.A. Liminal devices of interpretation: paratexts of the Supreme Court. Neohelicon 37, 127–137 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-010-0056-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-010-0056-7