Self-study
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
14.
The author would be most ██████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████████ ██ ███████
a
The standards in █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███████ ████████ █████
The author doesn’t suggest the current approach fails to assure the general public that we are protected against judicial bias. The author believes the current approach doesn’t actually protect us from bias, but she might agree that the general public perceives the rules as assuring the avoidance of bias. There’s a difference between what the public is assured of and what is actually true.
b
The professional codes ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████
We have no evidence judges consider professional codes of conduct meddlesome and ineffective.
c
Judges are rarely ███████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███████
The author never suggests that it’s “rare” for judges to be removed when they are not actually biased. Indeed, since the current approach is based on the appearance of bias, this opens the possibility that removal might happen often even when judges aren’t biased, because they might appear to be biased.
d
Judges are rarely ███████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████
The author never suggests that it’s “rare” for judges to be allowed to sit on cases when they’re biased. Indeed, since the current approach is based on the appearance of bias, this opens the possibility that they might be allowed to sit often when they are biased, merely because they don’t appear to be biased.
e
Judges are sometimes ███████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ███ ███ █████ █████████
Supported, because the author believes