Philosopher Denise Meyerson views the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement as seeking to debunk orthodox legal theory by exposing its contradictions.
Topic
Denise Meyerson / CLS
Framework
Highlight Noteworthy
(it's pretty much a descriptive passage with an invisible author, so from the author's point of view, it's Highlight Noteworthy or Present Debate. From Denise's point of view, it's Challenge Position (she is going after the CLS viewpoints.)
Main Point
Meyerson thinks that CLS tends to see contradictions where none exist, and that CLS overrates the threat that conflict would pose to orthodox legal theory.
Summary
P1 - Intro to the Topic and Thesis
We get our Purpose Pivot (but, yet, however, recently) in the second sentence. At that point, we would think of this passage as Present Debate (CLS vs. Meyerson vs. author?)
We can see at a bird's eye view that the author never enters the conversation. Our three body paragraphs clearly indicate that this whole passage is narrating Meyerson's thoughts.
P2 - According to Meyerson .... P3 - In addition, says Meyerson ... P4 - Last, Meyerson takes issue with
P2 - Meyerson: conflicting values doesn't mean no solution
CLS thinks that since the law has conflicting values, we can generate equally plausible (yet opposing) answers to any legal question. Meyerson is saying,
P3 - Meyerson: equally compelling ≠ irrational
CLS thinks that since we sometimes get equally compelling solutions, it must be that our decision of what solution to go with is arbitrary / irrational. Meyerson is saying
P4 - Meyerson: formalism ≠ legal process has moral authority
CLS thinks that the law's typical portrayal of having "correct" solutions to legal questions implies that the legal system is capable of determining the objectively correct solution, which implies the legal system has some God-like sense of moral authority. Meyerson is saying,
f.e. The Hunger Games has one clear winner (the last person alive), but that doesn't mean The Hunger Games has moral authority as an enterprise.