Though the supreme court ruled in favor of the Majority Opinion, Chief Justice Roberts created a very effective argument by molding his logos carefully and taking a more objective stance in comparison to his counterpart, Justice Scalia. Roberts begins his dissent by asserting what the true exigency at hand actually is. For his audience to properly interpret his argument, it is crucial for him to differentiate the court’s responsibility from the claims of what it may be. Roberts denies that the court has any place to be deciding whether or not true at this moment in time. He states, “Such a conclusion involves no judgement on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem.” (Roberts 1) The issue being addressed is simply whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has any jurisdiction over regulation of greenhouse gases. Throughout his dissent, he provides references to not only outside information, but also flaws in the Court’s opinion in order to show that his argument is more valid. Roberts takes advantage of dismissive language throughout his argument …show more content…
He makes arguments that slightly undermine the majority opinion. In this, the audience finds themselves questioning their opinions without even realizing it. Unlike Scalia, Roberts executes his rhetoric in a less obvious manner. His argument is far more approachable in the way that it doesn’t sound like he is just trying to get his point across for his own personal gain. By using subtle language, he gains credibility as a rhetor. This is important because his audience is the supreme court. People, the supreme court in particular, are more likely to listen to a dissent that sounds furthest away from personal opinion, and more like a structured analysis of the situation. By paying attention to detail, he can truly establish his authority in the