This essay examines James Boyd White's analysis of legal discourse from the perspective of legal and cultural critic. We commend his observation that jurists have done poor job of communicating their decisions to both legal practitioners and the public community. We ask, however, how his art of translation as constitutes ethical and political communities enabling writers and readers of what White characterizes as law's most central text, the judicial opinion, to participate more constructively the creation of a world of meaning. We have focused our analysis on White's Justice as Translation.' Our focus is appropriate because this essay is the developmental sequel to When Words Lose Their Meaning2 which White announced his method of rhetorical and cultural criticism. His is method for analyzing legal texts systematically to illuminate the meaning of justice and injustice in the relations we establish with our languages and with each other.3 We argue that the forms of discourse addressed to or issued from courts the United States define distinct (in White's terms) of argument. White contributes an approach to this culture which is particularly useful to those extra-legal critics who participate the construction of the meaning of judicial opinion through thoughtful reading, but which provides little guidance to those involved the creation of those texts.4 While we accept that legal discourse is distinct culture of argument with characteristics common with other cultures of argument, including literary