Self-paced
P1
The current approach to recusal and disqualification of judges heavily emphasizes appearance-based analysis. ████████████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ █████ █████ ████████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ████ ██████████████ ████████ █████ █ █████ ██ █ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████████████ ██ █ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██████████████ ███ ██████████████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██████
Intro to Topic ·
Judicial recusal
Currently, judges recuse themselves based on appearance of impropriety. Even if there's no real conflict of interest, as long as there is the appearance of impropriety, then they are expected to recuse themselves.
P2
███ █████ ███████ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████ ████████████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██████████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ██████ ███
Criticism ·
Recusal rules are too vague
Criticism ·
Focus on appearance of bias instead of actual bias is a mistake
Actual bias is what matters. Focusing on appearance of bias may distract from noticing actual bias.
P3
███ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ████████ █████ ████████ ████████████ ██ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ █████████ ████████████ ████████████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████████████████ ███████ ████████ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █ ███████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ █ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ███ ███ ████████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████ ████████ █████████ ████ █████
Proposed Solution ·
Transparent, written reasoning
If judge recuse, they should write out their reasons for recusing. If judge does not recuse, then write out their reasons for reaching their decision on the case.
P4
█ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ███████
Counterpoint ·
Written reason may be insincere
Real reason may be hidden.
Rebuttal ·
Doesn't matter
As long as impartial judges can read and agree with the explicit written reasoning, then whatever hidden real reasons don't matter.
Passage Style
Problem-analysis
Single position
11.
It can be inferred from ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██ █ ████████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██ ███████ ████████████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████
a
The guidelines for ████████ ████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██████
The author doesn’t complain about the rigidity of the current approach.
b
Such statutes are ████████████ ████ █ ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ █████████ ████████████
Incompatibility with requirements of transparency aren’t mentioned as a reason the author dislikes the current approach. Transparency is mentioned in P3 and P4; it’s not mentioned in connection with why the current approach is lacking. In addition, there’s no incompatibility. We have no reason to think a statute allowing parties to request recusal contradicts the requirement that judges be required to explain their reasoning. It’s conceptually possible for both requirements to exist.
c
Such statutes can ████ ██ █████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████████
d
Such statutes conflict ████ ████████████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ███████
The author never suggests that the statutes allowing parties to request recusal conflict with rules that require judges to recuse themselves if the judges themselves think they’re biased. It’s possible some jurisdictions allow both parties to request recusal and require the judge to recuse themselves if they believe they’re biased. In addition, the author never complains about this aspect of the current approach; this isn’t one of the reasons the author thinks the current approach is lacking.
e
There is no █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ████████████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████████
This isn’t mentioned as a weakness of the current approach. The author criticizes the current approach because it’s concerned with the appearance of justice rather than actual bias. The criticism isn’t based on the idea that recusal requests won’t always be granted.