Talk:Critical legal studies/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 6 July 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Looks like

Looks like someone doesn't like anti-sexual-harassment laws. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The proscriptions against quid pro quo harassment are fine, but the hostile environment framework is laid on the basis that (1) there is something grossly wrong with sex, (2) people can be guilty of things without realizing it. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

2) is certianly true - "ignorance of the law is no excuse..." ħuman 21:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between not knowing something you did is against the law and not knowing that you actually did something. I was referring to the collective guilt ascribed to companies for having "systemic sexism." ListenerX^TalkerX 21:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this article rests almost entirely on the activities of one Catharine MacKinnon, it might make sense to tell us who she is, and why her opinions and writings matter so much. ħuman 21:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, why is Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants supposed to make us laugh? ħuman 21:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Catharine MacKinnon (radical feminist law professor) wrote the book, literally, on sexual harassment. Her efforts were CLS's most prominent ventures outside the ivory tower.

Liebeck is a blatant counterexample to the idea that large companies can ignore the grievances of average people. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re C MacK, then please put it in the article. Ideally, make it clear that her ideas are being used to decide cases/make laws, if they are. Also, the point of mentioning Liebeck should be made in the article. ħuman 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

delete/mission

It looks like a bunch of gobshite to me. One person's rant against an undefined law profesor. Move to essay or user space? Or improve like heck quickly? ħuman 05:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Improvement is welcome. As to your complaint, however, it reads like word salad. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't even "improved" it based on issues raised above. Hence the deletion/rant claim. The article itself is incomplete word salad. Right now it's a one-person pile of crap. If you don't improve it so it makes sense and is clear (who the uck is the professor? Answer in article. Etc.) it will go bye-bye soon. To essay or userspace is fine, but right now this is a piss-poor article. ħuman 05:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you perhaps miss this edit, which was made in direct response to all the above named complaints? As to the "off-mission" complaint, I put that it falls under points 2 and 3 of the mission. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mybe I did, yes. Crank ideas? To you, maybe. Authoritarianism? Again, to you, maybe. Need to make case in article. It may seem clear to you, but article is still a bit vacant. Removing one of the templates now... ħuman 06:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempts at re-writing the law to bring in entirely new prohibitions and strip out long-standing constitutional protections, without recourse to the constitutionally recognized channels, are facially authoritarian. Most Reds in the present day are also cranks; Prof. MacKinnon in particular because she seems to have spun most of her "observations" a priori out of her own head. [1] ListenerX^TalkerX 06:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading this a couple times makes me wonder if it should be moved to "Catharine MacKinnon", since after reading I still don't really know what is unique or on-mission about "critical legal studies", but I know a bunch about her and what she has worked to promote. Oh, I also don't see the connection to "Marxism" implied in the lead, except that you assert she is one. It also seems she does follow constitutional channels as far as the three examples given - she "wins" or "loses" in normal, legal courtrooms. Thoughts? ħuman 22:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also I read the liberally-biased WP article on CLS and the name "Marx" does not occur even once. Oddly, it is in our lead as the basic definition of CLS' goals. ħuman 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You should try following a link or two on the Wikipedia page. Critical legal studies applies critical theory to law. Critical theory is a (slightly heterodox) Marxist discipline that aims to make a "quiet revolution" of sorts in society through the means of culture (i.e., counteract the forces of cultural hegemony).

I could make a more detailed criticism of the theory in the article, saying that it presupposes "inequalities" that were completely plucked out of the air, and laboring under this misapprehension aims to install some very real inequalities, but it is easier to prove the point by taking shots at certain disagreeable consequences of the theory. The examples involving Prof. MacKinnon are applications of the theory, and the only ones of such prominence.

The established channels for law are that it is the legislature's job to make new laws (i.e., the legislature has a monopoly on putting new restrictions on people's actions) and the courts' job to determine the constitutionality of those laws (i.e., the courts can remove restrictions deemed to be unconstitutional). All the right-wingers' talk of "judicial activism" is badly misdirected, in that it primarily addresses rulings that do what the courts are supposed to do — strike down unconstitutional laws — and ignores the actual "judicial-activist" rulings that effectively make new laws or "legislate from the bench." ListenerX^TalkerX 23:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"You should try following a link or two on the Wikipedia page." So to understand this article, I not only have to do what I did (look up and read both her and its articles on WP), but I have to know which links at WP to follow to read more articles until I understand what you are saying?

"I could make a more detailed criticism of the theory in the article" that would be nice - I'm asking that it explain what it is more clearly, and present the critique more clearly. You are slowly writing here what should be in the article, but it's like pulling teeth getting it out of you.

Also, your opinion of what branches of government are constrained to do is oversimplistic. In the US, courts also interpret laws and apply them to particular circumstances. MacKinnon also has worked on issues in many other countries, where the government structures are different. Can you please try to do what offer above and make the article clearer as to what the roots of CLS are, what is "wrong" with CLS and why? Then perhaps your examples will make more sense. Thanks... ħuman 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you cannot comprehend the article, does not mean that others cannot. TheoryOfPractice understood it enough to moderate its tone slightly, which was probably an improvement. I will add a bit more about critical theory, but other than that I think the "Theory" section is adequate.

I have no intention of editorializing excessively in the article about the demerits of the discipline (LTRD and all that), although I will add to the examples to establish the link with CLS principles more clearly.

I did not deny that the courts also interpret laws, but it is of little relevance to the question of expanding or contracting restrictions. However, explicitly re-"interpreting" existing laws blatantly beyond all intent — which involves violating the legal principle of stare decisis — effectively makes new laws. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stupid guy, LX. I can't even follow the theme of the article from beginning to end. Or couldn't the last few times I tried. For instance, last I checked, it didn't even define its topic. I hope you do add more to make it clearer what is being discussed. "expanding or contracting restrictions" has no real basis in various countries' laws, it's your pet way to define what government can and can't do. You may be correct in a pedantic way, of course, but real world law and government operations are far from pedantic. Your last sentence has nothing to do with the content of the article or the last set of facts it presented. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill - the SCOTUS decisions giving corporations "human rights" were a far worse precedent in US law than trying to make it so bosses couldn't leer or come on to their employees. Your case is weak and pathetic, unless you can make it better. ħuman 05:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that the idea of expanding or contracting restrictions were official ideas in law. However, they are a proper way to look at the constitutional process, and here is why: (1) Everything that is not forbidden by law is permitted. (2) The legislature writes new laws. This can expand restrictions. (3) The courts interpret these laws, and once they have made an interpretation, they are supposed to stick to it (stare decisis). Once the interpretation is made, this has no effect on restrictions. (4) The courts determine if the laws contradict the Constitution, and can strike down laws that do not. Removing a law, according to point (1), only contracts restrictions. Compare: A court could not, by ruling, bring in a prohibition against gay marriage or gay sex, only declare that the legislature is constitutionally permitted to ban them.

My "last sentence" (the one starting with "However, explicitly...", I presume?) is relevant to the article; based on Prof. MacKinnon's work the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Civil Rights Act in just that manner with just that effect.

I am unfamiliar with the rulings giving corporations human rights, so I cannot comment on that. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Huamn is mixing up his terms--corporations don't have "human rights," they have the legal status of (artificial) persons before the law. Not quite the same thing. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My terms may be flawed, but the reality is that corporations in the US now enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights (etc.) which was written to protect human freedoms. Forgive me if that sounds a bit incestuous ;) ħuman 06:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Human--I'm being a little nit-picky about terminology only to be a pedantic asshole (one of my fields is the history of HR, so forgive me....)--the important thing, as you point out, is that US corporations enjoy rights as though they were "people," which sucks in a lot of ways...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)