Passage Discussion

[chike_eze]

Mapping of Passage:

P1: View of law: Natural law vs. Legal positivist
> Trad. Debate = moral order vs. ruling authority order

P2: New influence on law debate = Academia
> Legal opinions: New schools of thought
> (1) Law and Econ -> maximize wealth
> (2) Critical legal studies -> power of elites

P3: James Boyd's work = interdisciplinary
> (3) Law and Lit movement -> opinions = literary activity
> Legal opinions -> artistic performance (counter to views in P2)
> Legal opinions -> promote political or ethical value

P4: James Boyd again. More of his opinion?
> Judges = translators, middle-men
> Judges (opinions) responsive to changing society

As I read the passage, I kept expecting to get the author's opinion in support of one of the school's of thought. Even the last paragraph doesn't support James Boyd's view, it only describes it.

Based on this overall understanding of the passage, i.e., a descriptive essay about different opinions, I attacked the questions.

Thoughts??

[bbirdwell]

I like it!!

It's even too detailed for me (I don't actually think about people's names, for example). I just read this a moment agao, and here's my view:

P1: questions. TRADITIONALLY, natural law vs positivist. This leads me to anticipate that NOW there is something new.

P2: two new answers. Econ = $, Critical = elite rule

P3: one more: Law/Lit, performance

P4: more Law/Lit, translation

Descriptive, non-opinionated.

This last assessment is easily confirmed by working the main-point question.