Self-study
P1
Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement as seeking to debunk orthodox legal theory by exposing its contradictions. ████████ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ███████
Denise Myerson's (DM) Perspective ·
Criticism of Critical Legal Studies (CLS)
CLS tries to show contradictions in orthodox legal theory. But, CLS points to contradictions that don't exist.
P2
█████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ███████████ ██████ ████████ ███████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████████ ████ █████████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████████ ███
CLS Perspective (according to DM) ·
Conflicting values in law make law irrational
Conflicting values means there are always multiple equally plausible answers to any legal question. And, choosing one answer over another is always irrational.
DM's response ·
Can rank conflicting values, so different answers are not always equal
Conflicting values may lead to multiple answers, but we can sometimes rationally choose one answer over another based on ranking of values.
P3
██ █████████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ █ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██ █████████████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ █████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ████████ █ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████████ ████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███
DM's additional response ·
Choice between equally plausible answers is not always irrational
Two answers can be equally plausible, but are both reasonable compared to a third answer.
P4
█████ ████████ █████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ██ █ ███████████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ ████████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███
CLS perspective (according to DM) ·
Legal formalism requires belief that law has moral authority
Legal formalism is the view that there's a method that can decide the correct answers to legal questions.
DM's response ·
Law does not need moral authority to provide unambiguous answers
Illustration: We can clearly identify the winner of game in which people try to steal the highest value item. This doesn't mean there's any moral authority in the game or the identification of the winner.
CLS's rebuttal ·
DM's game illustration isn't like actual legal cases
In legal cases, we have to appeal to things beyond the rules, such as the purpose of laws, and societal policies and values.
DM's rebuttal ·
The game illustration is like actual legal cases
Purpose, policies, and values can be characterized as part of the rules of the game.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
18.
It can be inferred from ███ ███████ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████
a
How one determines ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██████████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████████
Unsupported. Meyerson never mentions how someone’s “degree of belief in the legal process” might affect their understanding of the external considerations. She just says that the external considerations can be seen as a part of the legal process rather than separate from it.
b
The extent to █████ █████ ██████████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ █████████
Unsupported. Meyerson says that we can view policies and values as a part of the legal process rather than separate from it. She doesn’t mention whether this varies depending on how much we endorse the policies and values. In fact, she argues in her analogy that viewing these considerations as part of the legal process
c
When these considerations ████ ████ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████████ ███ ███████
Unsupported. Meyerson never describes what should happen if external considerations like policies and values have more moral authority than the law. She argues that, when we view external considerations as part of the legal process, we don’t have to believe that the legal process has moral authority.
d
If one uses █████ ██████████████ ██ ███████████ █ █████ █████████ ███ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████
Anti-supported. CLS proponents argue
e
Whether these considerations ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███████
Supported. CLS proponents argue that the legal process isn’t like a game, since you have to appeal to “external considerations of purpose, policy, and value.” But Meyerson argues that those things can be seen as part of the legal process, not separate from it. Since she’s arguing with CLS about whether these things are separate from or integral to the legal process, she must think that the matter is up for debate.