Well, inasmuch as it’s a reaction to even more superficial thinking, it’s “critical”.

But, yes, from what I’ve read the shallowness specifically in addressing the key assumptions (not, for instance, the legal scholarship — that seems fine) is disappointing.

To be fair, though, Critical Theory itself was (to the extent I’ve read so far; I’ll be reading more soon — I haven’t covered the postmodern part yet, but I have trouble imagining that this will be anything but worse) shockingly superficial in examining its own key assumptions. It was just looking at a deeper level to begin with, so once it wasn’t threatening itself intellectually, it still had a lot to work with.

(Aside on Critical Theory: most of Horkheimer’s predictions from ~1950 about the trajectory of society are hilariously bad. A few are sorta on-target.)