Pre-political publics read legal injustice through law rather than political categories

Evidence

[This book] discards the notion that law takes place within a framework that is independent of the structure of legal argument. It rejects the view that a set of legal presuppositions exists that are discoverable in the absence of legal argument, upon which legal argument is supposed to depend. The entire enterprise in which others are engaged seems to be based on a confusion between the justification [of the system]—which is that legitimation that results from the operation of the various [modalities]—and a hypothesized causal explanation for [law] derived from socio-political thcories.’ — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 181 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Justifying a legal system differs fundamentally from causally explaining it through politics or psychology — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 181

Related

• Justifying a legal system differs fundamentally from causally explaining it through politics or psychology (similarity 0.87)
• Bobbitt asks whether Patterson believes in the pricelessness of human beings because humans are capable of love, that our decisions are impossible to explain causally because they are products of… (similarity 0.80)
• Judicial accommodation of parallel legal systems perpetuates mafia bargaining. (similarity 0.79)
• and their presence in our political discourse does not require us to deny them legitimacy or to corrupt our forms of decision according to law. American constitutional law can be a profoundly… (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Justifying a legal system differs fundamentally from causally explaining it through politics or psychology #expands (0.78) — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 181