After reading pages 117-145from the textbook, please write responses to the questions below. Textbook reading https://drive.google.com/file/d/19B7370204RICE+x3ROBmY2EcNw3vHi2T/view?usp=sharing

(proposing Critical Legal theory) (pl 1?) CLS is a descendant of Legal Realism (see Frank 93113-117) (Recall that Legal Realism suggests that Law and legal conclusions are dened byjudges' biases, feelings, etc: then they rationalize their conclusions, to make it appear reasonable} (p118) To discover meaning of Law, we shOuld pay attention to interest groups in society Identifying social interests will reveal how the legal system actually operates. Decision makers have to balance the different interests in society (in order to avoid revolt) But CLS differs from Legal Realism: CLS attacks policy analysis, balancing, shared social values. (p119) Any such analysis is always overly simplistic assumption about society and the world. Furthermore, law doesn't merely reect interests, legal system also shape social preferences. Social values are values because our society is structured to produce such beliefs in people. Because minority interests are better represented in society, Legal Realism isn't enough! Democratization and representation (of multiple interests) are needed! " System can't try to meet society's values without acknowledging that the values are constructed by the System! * So, CLS questions the deepest values of society. Because there is nothing timeless about these values, we might simply decide to abandon them! Social reality is socially constructed. If you want to change society, you must change the rules that create the values in the society. out The point of CLS is to continue the critique of existing society. The goal of CLS isn't to get particular proposals adopted. So, to criticize C LS for not having a constructive program, they respond: that's not the point! Another goal is to reveal the relationship between legal rules and Enter. The current legal system in America is tilted in favor of capitalism, and all that entails. CLS works to show that a multitude of competing stories is just as relevant as the dominant one: no particular historical story has epistemological priority. (George: recall that Biden is rst president to acknowledge white Supremacy in US as problem.) (George: Also consider how systematic racism was structured by certain housing laws, etc.) (will) The philosophies of deconstructionism and structuralism are used in CLS. Many different, competing, contradicting explanations are just as good at explaining things. This is a decentering project. Social power {illegitimate hierarchy) exists. merely trying to describe phenomena. So, how are we supposed to understand anything, then? 1, we're not trying to understand in the traditional sense. 2. understanding emerges via literary techniques (the modern condition is Kallraesque (p123). 3. understanding emerges from detailed descriptions (esp 'orn underrepresented groups). (13122} There is an ethical open-endedness in CLS. (There really are no morals at play here, at all!) The only position CLS takes is against the dominant power structure, to decenter. That is, always operate as critiquing the existing order. CLS isn't trying to establish a new, sustainable order (after all, that'll have problems, too!) Of course, this can be controversial, since CLS also critiques: 1. (from page 145) In what ways, according to Mark Tushnet, does critical legal studies (CLS) differ from legal realism? 2. How does Tushnet respond to the criticism that CLS has no positive or constructive agenda or outlook? Do you find his response convincing? 3. Based on your reading of Tushnets article, do you think that Tushnet foresees further development for critical legal studies? Or does he think that CLS has run its course, with nothing further to contribute? Do you think CLS has any thing else to contribute? 1. (from page 145) In what ways, according to Mark Tushnet, does critical legal studies (CLS) differ from legal realism? 2. How does Tushnet respond to the criticism that CLS has no positive or constructive agenda or outlook? Do you find his response convincing? 3. Based on your reading of Tushnets article, do you think that Tushnet foresees further development for critical legal studies? Or does he think that CLS has run its course, with nothing further to contribute? Do you think CLS has any thing else to contribute? (proposing Critical Legal theory) (pl 1?) CLS is a descendant of Legal Realism (see Frank 93113-117) (Recall that Legal Realism suggests that Law and legal conclusions are dened byjudges' biases, feelings, etc: then they rationalize their conclusions, to make it appear reasonable} (p118) To discover meaning of Law, we shOuld pay attention to interest groups in society Identifying social interests will reveal how the legal system actually operates. Decision makers have to balance the different interests in society (in order to avoid revolt) But CLS differs from Legal Realism: CLS attacks policy analysis, balancing, shared social values. (p119) Any such analysis is always overly simplistic assumption about society and the world. Furthermore, law doesn't merely reect interests, legal system also shape social preferences. Social values are values because our society is structured to produce such beliefs in people. Because minority interests are better represented in society, Legal Realism isn't enough! Democratization and representation (of multiple interests) are needed! " System can't try to meet society's values without acknowledging that the values are constructed by the System! * So, CLS questions the deepest values of society. Because there is nothing timeless about these values, we might simply decide to abandon them! Social reality is socially constructed. If you want to change society, you must change the rules that create the values in the society. out The point of CLS is to continue the critique of existing society. The goal of CLS isn't to get particular proposals adopted. So, to criticize C LS for not having a constructive program, they respond: that's not the point! Another goal is to reveal the relationship between legal rules and Enter. The current legal system in America is tilted in favor of capitalism, and all that entails. CLS works to show that a multitude of competing stories is just as relevant as the dominant one: no particular historical story has epistemological priority. (George: recall that Biden is rst president to acknowledge white Supremacy in US as problem.) (George: Also consider how systematic racism was structured by certain housing laws, etc.) (will) The philosophies of deconstructionism and structuralism are used in CLS. Many different, competing, contradicting explanations are just as good at explaining things. This is a decentering project. Social power {illegitimate hierarchy) exists. merely trying to describe phenomena. So, how are we supposed to understand anything, then? 1, we're not trying to understand in the traditional sense. 2. understanding emerges via literary techniques (the modern condition is Kallraesque (p123). 3. understanding emerges from detailed descriptions (esp 'orn underrepresented groups). (13122} There is an ethical open-endedness in CLS. (There really are no morals at play here, at all!) The only position CLS takes is against the dominant power structure, to decenter. That is, always operate as critiquing the existing order. CLS isn't trying to establish a new, sustainable order (after all, that'll have problems, too!) Of course, this can be controversial, since CLS also critiques: Rights, free speech, anti-discrimination After all, aren't such discussion too abstract? CLS thinks so. (George: but their response would be that such rights merely support the status quo) (p123) CLS argues that our lives are structured by institutions we create and sustain, and our lives have no meaning outside those institutions. CLS tries to shatter congealed forms of life, and showing there is no inherent integrity therein. (George: ok. then what? Recall Churchill's defense of democracy: it's bad, except all the rest.)