Sheingold And Polleta Argumentative Analysis
The two pieces of writing from Sheingold and Polleta both analyze how law can play a role in advancing rights claims in public policy.
In his piece, Polleta takes a stance against Critical Legal Studies writers. CLS writers argue that litigation does not work, and that in fact it can be harmful to the movement. They argue that litigation replaces power-orientated strategies and those activists as limited by the law. Specifically, he counter argues Peter Gabel’s argument that rights are human bonds we desire but don’t experience in real life and that law can lead us into an illusionary trap that if recognized people believe they have won when in fact they have not. However, Polleta uses the Southern Civil Rights movements from 1961-1966 as
In his piece, Polleta takes a stance against Critical Legal Studies writers. CLS writers argue that litigation does not work, and that in fact it can be harmful to the movement. They argue that litigation replaces power-orientated strategies and those activists as limited by the law. Specifically, he counter argues Peter Gabel’s argument that rights are human bonds we desire but don’t experience in real life and that law can lead us into an illusionary trap that if recognized people believe they have won when in fact they have not. However, Polleta uses the Southern Civil Rights movements from 1961-1966 as