New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

LSJ 363 Week 2

by: Nicole Goodfliesh

LSJ 363 Week 2 LSJ 363

Nicole Goodfliesh
GPA 3.7

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover all of week 2: lecture 3 and 4.
Law in Society
Erin Adam
Class Notes
lsj363, LSJ, Law in society
25 ?




Popular in Law in Society

Popular in Law and Legal Studies

This 8 page Class Notes was uploaded by Nicole Goodfliesh on Sunday April 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to LSJ 363 at University of Washington taught by Erin Adam in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 28 views. For similar materials see Law in Society in Law and Legal Studies at University of Washington.

Similar to LSJ 363 at UW

Popular in Law and Legal Studies


Reviews for LSJ 363 Week 2


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 04/10/16
4/5/2016   WEEK  2:  Lecture  #3  (Guest  Lecturer)   Myth  of  Rights   •   Legal  version  of  the  American  Dream   •   We  are  all  born  with  rights   •   We  can  expect  the  state  to  recognize  and  enforce  our  rights     Principles  (key  elements)  of  the  Myth  of  Rights   •   Organization  of  government   o   Constitutional  order   §   Bedrock  organizing  text  for  the  organization  of  the  American  Government   o   Separation  of  power   •   Courts   o   Make  sure  the  politics  take  place  within  the  legal  principles   o   Make  sure  the  other  political  players  play  according  to  the  rules   o   Make  sure  no  one  oversteps  their  powers   o   Determine  when  there  is  a  conflict  between  national  and  state  government   o   Assure  that  legality  prevails   o   Judges  are  socialized  and  trained  to  be  independent,  impartial,  objective   interpreters  of  the  law   o   Not  to  make  policy,  but  to  make  sure  the  policy  makers  are  playing  to  the  rules   o   Indirect  but  important  power     What  is  substance  of  ideology  or  myth?   •   Ideas  about  state  legal  institutions     –   Law  is  separate  from  and  above  politics     –   Constitution  ensures  order,  stability   –   Legal  reasoning  >  Principled  change  through  orderly  procedures  (p.  17)   –   Independent  courts  enforce  constitution  on  partisan  politics   –   Law  >  order,  justice,  impartiality,  responsiveness  (pyramid/fountain)   §   Pyramid:  Top-­‐Down   •   Alexander  Hamilton’s  vision  of  power   •   Pyramids  are  solid;  they  endure   •   Rigid;  image  of  continuity  and  sustainability  and  order  over  time   •   Set  in  stone;  lasts  forever   §   Fountain:  Bottom-­‐Up   •   Water  coming  up  from  below:  the  people  should  be  the  ones  who   govern   •   Constitution  is  dynamic;  always  changing   •   Ideas  about  legally  enforced  social  relations  and  values   –   Property  is  the  first  goal  (Madison,  Fed  #10)   §   Society  where  property  ownership  is  the  basic  element  of  social  activity   §   Basis  of  the  new  society  where  people  are  competing  for  the  ownership   of  wealth   –   Equal  treatment/rights  before  the  law   –   Vision  of  society  embedded  in  the  constitution:  Individualism,  market  competition,   limited  government  (all  favor  property)   –   Formal  legal  equality  along  with  social  inequality     Effect  of  the  Myth  of  Rights   •   Myths  shape  our  view  of  law;  express  AND  hide/distort  law’s  reality  in  these  ways:   o   Constitutional  rights  excluded  many  people  from  start,  law  was  not  for  all   o   Government  often  ignores  laws/rights   o   Courts  make  law,  do  not  just  follow  law   o   Courts  are  political/partisan,  not  independent   o   Law  reflects/  enforces  unequal  power   o   Core  constitutional  values  and  rights  >  social  inequality   •   Law  absorbs  and  contains  conflict—realistic,  practical,  simple,  ethical   o   But  discourages/blocks  alternatives   o   Robs  its  substance   •   Proceduralism  obscures  substantive  effects,  impedes  egalitarian  reform   o   Courts/  law  are  all  about  procedure     •   Law  legitimizes  existing  order  of  things—makes  our  system  seem  natural,  normal   •   Law  supports  hegemony-­‐  consent  to  status  quo,  trust  in  law  despite  pain/injustice  it   inflicts/supports   o   System  of  organization  and  distribution  of  power  requires  a  certain  amount  of   consent  of  the  people   o   Not  everyone  buys  into  it  in  the  same  way   o   Faith  in  law/courts  is  not  uniform  across  society   §   Poor  people,  people  of  color,  low  class  don’t  seem  to  buy  into  the  story   as  much  as  rich  and  powerful   •   Trust  is  fragile,  uneven  among  groups     Where  does  Scheingold  stand  on  the  Myth?   •   Advocates  of  rights  Myth   P.  6-­‐7   •   Radical/  Realist  Critics     •   Law  cuts  both  ways—mostly  supports  but  can  contest  status  quo   •   Advocates  appeal  to  rights  to  close  gap  between  myth  and  reality,  to  realize  promises  of   rights   •   Rights  are  a  resource  for  challenge  and  change   •   Litigation  alone  is  not  enough—need  other  political  resources  and  tactics;  indirect   effects  of  litigation  key     Politics  of  Rights   •   Term  that  describes  the  relationship  between  political  activity  and  ideology   o   Politics  influences  the  system   o   Rights  are  achieved  through  political  processes   •   People  demanding  that  the  rights  under  the  constitution  actually  matter  and  are   enforced   •   Mobilizing  to  demand  that  those  rights  are  a  reality;  to  claim  rights  that  are  promised   under  the  existing  constitutional  order   •   Rights  are  recognized,  enforced  and  practiced     EXAMPLE  (POR):  Gordon  Hirabayashi   o   Born  into  a  Japanese  American  Christian  Family:  small  property  owners  who   lived  in  norther  WA  and  he  attended  the  UW;  he  wanted  to  be  a  history   professor   o   Born  in  the  US—had  rights  of  citizenship  but  were  always  contested   o   Then  comes  WW2   §   Japanese/  Japanese  Americans  got  a  curfew  where  they  had  to  be  out  of   the  public  by  8pm   o   One  day  he  was  with  his  friends  in  the  library  and  it  was  8pm  and  they  said  he   had  to  go  home.  He  refused  to  go  because  he  was  a  citizen  but  then  he  was   thrown  in  jail   o   Then  comes  Japanese  internment  in  1942  (removal  from  WA  to  live  in   concentration  camps)   o   Gordon  said  ‘I’m  not  going  to  do  it  because  it  is  a  violation  of  my  basic  rights.  I   have  no  allegiance  to  the  Japanese  government;  my  family  works  hard’  but  he   was  still  sent  to  the  camps   o   Went  to  courts  for  his  rights  but  they  lost     o   Court  ruled  that  the  government  has  the  discretion  to  do  what  they  want  in  war   time   o   He  became  a  teacher  and  a  lead  advocate  of  Japanese  Americans  and  their   wrongful  internment  and  human  rights   o   “As  fine  a  document  as  the  Constitution  is…  it  is  nothing  but  a  scrap  of  paper  if   citizens  are  not  willing  to  defend  it.”     The  US  Civil  Rights  Movement:  3  Angles   1.   The  Myth  of  Rights  Interpretation   a.   Southern  Racism,  segregation  was  the  evil   b.   Heroic  story  of  Brown  v.  Board  (1954)   i.   NAACP  litigation  and  lawyers  à  desegregation   ii.   Atticus  Finch  as  romantic  hero   iii.   South  nationalized,  racism  ended   iv.   Lawyers  and  judges  abolished  racism  >  post  racial  America  of  legal  equality   today     4/7/2016   WEEK  2:  Lecture  #4     Today’s  Agenda   •   Critical  Legal  Studies  Critique   •   The  Politics  of  Rights     •   Scheingold:  The  Trouble  with  Lawyers  (May  Need  to  Finish  Next  Tuesday)     Critical  Legal  Studies  (CLS)  Critique       CLS  &  Scheingold  (POR)  Agreement   CLS  &  Scheingold  (POR)  Disagreement   –   The  myth  of  rights  hides  and  distorts  law’s   –   The  law  is  limited  to  litigation  (CLS)   relationship  to  power                      -­‐-­‐Look  at  court  cases  that  try  to             –   The  myth  of  rights  discourages  alternative,   accomplish  social  change  and  if  they   non-­‐legal  forms  of  conflict  resolution     create  change,  then  it  is  a  sign  that  the  law   –   The  procedures  of  the  myth  impede  social   is  effective,  if  they  don’t,  the  law  is   change   ineffective   –   The  myth  of  rights  legitimates  social   –   The  myth  of  rights  critique  fully   inequality   explains  how  the  law  operates  in   –   The  myth  supports  hegemony   society  (CLS)     –   The  law  and  rights  are  a  limited  vehicle   for  accomplishing  social  change  (CLS:   Almost  Never;  Politics:  mostly  never,   but  sometimes  can-­‐  almost  never   agree  you  can  use  the  law  to  bring   about  social  change)   –   Using  the  law  to  accomplish  social   change  results  in  the  further   marginalization  of  minority  groups   (CLS)     Critical  Legal  Studies  Examples   •   (1)  Cheryl  Harris  and  “Whiteness  as  Property”:   –   Brown  v.  Board  of  Education  eliminated  explicit  racial  distinctions  (de  jure  segregation),  but   left  intact  “white  privilege  not  mandated  by  law”  (de  facto  segregation)   §   De  jure:  discrimination  by  law   §   De  facto:  when  you  don’t  have  an  explicit  law  that  you  must  not  do  something     o   Occurs  mostly  because  of  prior  laws  that  were  deemed  unconstitutional   §   Harris  argues  that  the  court  has  created  a  false  line  between  de  jure  and  de  facto   that  doesn’t  reflect  how  segregation  happens  in  society     •   (2)  Dean  Spade  and  Normal  Life  (Critical  Queer  Theorist)   –   Anti-­‐discrimination  laws  and  hate  crime  laws  do  not  accomplish  social  change  because  they   are  not  redistributive  (they  do  not  challenge  existing  power)   §   They  don’t  redistribute  property  in  a  way  that  enables  individuals  who  don’t  have   access  to  achieve  broader  power  within  society   §   See  who  has  access  to  anti  discrimination  laws  and  who  doesn’t   §   Use  of  court  is  dependent  on  individual’s  income   §   Discrimination  laws  are  used  by  the  most  privileged  minority  groups     o   Ones  on  the  outside  cannot  afford  it  or  have  access  to  the  law     Class  Question   •   How  does  litigation  figure  into  the  “politics  of  rights”?     §   Effective  tools  as  long  as  you  recognize  its  limitations   §   People’s  movement  to  advocate  for  themselves   §   Something  you  can  use  strategically  for  creating  social  change,  but  you  cannot   depend  solely  on  the  law     •   What  about  Critical  Legal  Studies?  (use  examples)   §   Not  to  make  a  social  statement,  but  on  individual  cases     The  U.S.  Civil  Rights  Movement:  3  Angles   1)   Myth  of  rights  interpretation   A.   Civil  rights  defined  by  desegregation     •   The  crux  of  the  social  change  that  occurred  during  the  civil  rights   movement   B.   Heroic  story  of  Brown  v  Bd.  (decided  in  1954)   i.   NAACP  litigation  &  lawyers  the  focus   1)   Predominant  organization  pushing  litigation  leading  up  Brown  v  B   ii.   Atticus  Finch  as  romantic  hero   iii.   South  nationalized,  racism  ended   iv.   Lawyers  and  judges  abolished  racism.  Post  racial  America  of  legal  equality   today   1)   Lawyers  were  the  heroes;  Jim  Crow  laws     2)   CLS  approach  exposes  myth  as  false     A.   Courts  protected  slavery  and  Jim  Crow  segregation  (Dredd  Scott,  Plessy  v   Ferguson,  Cases  of  1883)   •   Predominantly  protected  slavery   •   Don’t  see  courts  as  heroes  but  courts  exist  to  promote  racial  hierarchies   B.   Litigation  for  change  =  Hollow  Hope  (Brown,  Milliken  v.  Bradley)   C.   Bell  (founder  of  critical  race  theory  within  law  schools)  –  “interest  convergence”>   symbolism   •   Argues  that  BvB  was  instituted  by  something  that  was  already  accepted  by   the  majority  of  society   1)   Cold  War  influence  shaped  political  context  within  which  BvB  was   decided   2)   Reassured  Black  Veterans  returning  from  WWII   •   During  WWII,  veterans  who  served  abroad  experienced  a   greater  degree  of  equality  than  those  who  served  at  home   3)   Segregation  barrier  to  industrialized  South   D.   Promise  of  economic  rights  “lost”  in  litigation  for  desegregation  (Du  Bois,   Goluboff)   E.   Mix  of  resistance  and  evasion  in  South   F.   CR  peaceful  protest  >  white  violence  >  turned  non-­‐southern  opinion,  pressure   for  change     G.   March  on  Washington  >  1964  CR  Act,  Voting  Rights  Act  –  were  keys  to  change   H.   Courts  rolled  back  civil  rights  laws  in  1980s         3)   Civil  rights  struggles  &  “politics  of  rights”   A.   Courts  did  defer  to  white  racism  on  slavery,  Jim  Crow   B.   Myth  of  rights  conflicted  with  reality  of  racial                    hierarchy  (i.e.,  Myth  of  Rights   wrong  –  racial  justice  not  achieved  in  desegregation  cases)   C.   Long  history  invoking  rights  as  resource.  Black  lawyers  and  labor  leaders   appealed  to  world,  UN  in  1940s  =  human  rights  claims   D.    Brown  v.  Board  of  Education  had  “indirect  effects:”  language,  opportunity,  hope,   leverage     E.   Litigation  success  catalyzed  marches,  protests,  lobbying,  national/international   attention  -­‐-­‐>  power     F.   Pre-­‐Brown  grassroots  rights  mobilization  -­‐-­‐>  Brown  -­‐-­‐>  southern  resistance,   violence,  peaceful  protest  -­‐-­‐>  change   •   The  law  was  involved  all  the  way  up  to  the  southern  resistance   G.   Brown  -­‐-­‐>  1964  CRA  in  “private”  economic  realm   H.   Court  followed  conservative  backlash  in  society  and  politics  in  Brown  rollback   cases  of  70s  and  80s  (sign  that  rights  changes  mattered,  but  rights  need  to  be   constantly  re-­‐won  to  be  sustained)   I.   Legal  mobilization  =  rights  claiming  in  &  beyond  court   –   Legal  Mobilization:  Process  by  which  individuals  make  claims  about  their   legal  rights  and  pursue  legal  and  political  strategies  to  defend  or  develop   those  rights.    This  is  the  deliberate,  strategic  organizing  by  rights  activists     Recent  Example:  Same-­‐Sex  Marriage  Rights   1.   2010  Gerald  Rosenberg:  litigating  for  same-­‐sex  marriage  was  “hollow  hope”  (CLS)   2.   2015…Supreme  Ct  heralded  for  endorsing  rights  of  same  sex  marriage.  Court  was  the   “pinnacle  of  justice”  in  Obergefell  v.  Hodges  (Myth  of  Rights)   3.   But  struggle  for  LGBTQ  rights  goes  back  100  years  –  Subculture  of  male  sex  workers  and   “cross  dressers,”  “public  interest  in  women  passing  as  men”  1881-­‐1935  (Eskridge)   (Politics  of  Rights)     4.   Further  -­‐-­‐-­‐  Protests  (Homophile  Movement  of  1950s/1960s;  Stonewall)  &  Long  history  of   legislation,  referenda,  initiatives,  lawsuits  (Politics  of  Rights)   5.   Losing  in  court/legislature  often  key  to  winning  (Politics  of  Rights)   6.   Battle  won  in  popular  culture  decades  earlier.    Supreme  Court  just  declared  the  change   as  final  (Politics  of  Rights)     7.   Was  a  core  inclusionary  rights  issue,  but  required  many  types  of  politics  over  long  time   to  leverage  change  (Politics  of  Rights)   8.   “Myth  of  Rights”  would  have  us  believe  that  Same-­‐Sex  marriage  solved  all  LGBTQ   struggles.  Politics  of  Rights  à  Hardly  the  end  of  LGBT  struggles….     The  Politics  of  Rights:  Conclusion   •   Politics  of  Rights  views  law  as  political,  but  must  look  beyond  law  as  litigation  to  other   forms  &  sites  of  the  law   –   Law/courts  are  political  –  part  of  gov’t,  reflect  interests  and  power   –   Litigating  in  court  achieves  little  -­‐  limited  direct  &  indirect  effects   –   Must  resort  to  other  political  tactics  in  other  institutional  venues   •   Legal  mobilization  –  politics  of  rights  via  litigation  and/or  other  tactics     Scheingold:  The  Trouble  with  Lawyers   1)   Lawyers  are  final  part  of  analysis  –  at  once  representatives  of  legal  system  (myth)  and   advocates  for  citizen’s  claims  of  right  (Lawyer’s  World  View)   A.   Lawyer  –  unreliable  “tails  that  wag  dog,”  litigation  diverts  from  politics  of  rights.   Ex:  SSM  cases,  Atticus  Finch   B.   Divided  loyalty  (process  and  profession  vs.  people).       Scheingold:  The  Trouble  with  Lawyers   2)   Professional  code  of  responsibility  –  discourages  questioning  legal  impacts  &  politics  of   rights  (Basic  Law  School  Skills)   A.   Legal  procedure  over  ends/impacts   B.   Legal  skills  over  political  skills     Scheingold:  The  Trouble  with  Lawyers   •   Whenever you got business trouble, the best thing to do is to get a lawyer. Then you got more trouble, but at least you got a lawyer. o   Chico Marx (At the Circus) The  Trouble  with  Lawyers   3)   Legal  education  –  “training  for  hierarchy,”  to  serve  legal  and  economic  system   A.   Legal  analysis  skills  >  thinking  “within  the  game,”  rule-­‐mongering.  Discourages   questioning  of  system.   B.   Lawyers  socialized  to  think  legal  ways  are  best;  defer  to  elite  experts   C.   Debt  &  intern  system  discourages  advocacy  for  unrepresented­‐stanford-­‐prison-­‐and-­‐kingsfields-­‐ harvard-­‐law/     The  Trouble  with  Lawyers   4)   Changes  in  legal  education  last  25  yrs.   A.   Far  more  women  –  change  of  values?  Law  not  just  abstract,  deductive  reason.   B.   Less  legalistic,  less  tied  to  legal  doctrine,  to  “paper”  and  text.  Critical  legal/race   studies  focus  on  power.  More  social  science;  more  clinical.   C.   Less  authoritarian,  elitist   D.   Public  interest  law  training  and  roles   E.   Still…training  for  hierarchy  (corporate,  criminal)   F.   Public  interest  lawyers  –  declining  interest   i.   Popular  culture  –  novels,  movies   i.   Erin  Brockovich;  Runaway  Jury:   ii.   High  debt,  few  jobs  >  squeezed:­‐ Tracker/   G.   Contemporary  “existential  crisis”  of  law  schools  –  old  training  serves  poorly,  but   what  to  do  in  global  market  for  specialized  skills?   i.   Big  Firm:  Young  Attorneys  as  Paralegals   ii.   Human  Rights  –  Lawyers  not  big  need        


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

"I bought an awesome study guide, which helped me get an A in my Math 34B class this quarter!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.