Subscription pricing
passage 3
Passage A.
P1
████ █████ █████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ██ █████ █████████ ███
Some legal theorists' position ·
Judges don't need to believe what they say
Support some legal theorists' position ·
Sincerity interferes with other important judicial considerations
Inference: according to some legal theorists, judges need to lie in order to do their jobs properly.
P2
█████ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ███
Introduce opposing position ·
Principle of judicial sincerity
Prudential argument ·
Judicial sincerity is good because it promotes "prudential outcomes" (legally better outcomes)
E.g., better guidance to lower courts, better public opinion of the courts.
P3
███ ███████ ████ █ ██████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███ ██ ████████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███
Author's perspective ·
Prudential argument sidesteps the fact that judicial dishonesty is simply wrong
Alternative argument ·
Judicial sincerity is good because honesty is morally right
Author appears to favor this argument
███████ █
P4
███ ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███████████████████ ████ ███ ██ ████████ █████████ ███ █████████████████ █ █████ ████████ ██ ████████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ █████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ███
Topic of passage B ·
Arguments for judicial candor (sincerity)
P5
██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██ █████████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ████████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ███████
One argument ·
Candor is needed to limit judicial power
If judges lie about their reasoning, it's not possible to tell if they're "following the rules" when reaching decisions.
Another argument ·
Lying judges will damage public opinion of the courts
P6
██ █████ ██████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████████████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ █ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███
Author's perspective ·
Judicial deception may sometimes be permissible, but it has major costs
Author's conclusion ·
Err on the side of judicial candor
Passage Style
18.
Each author implies that a ████ ██ ████████ ██████
a
violates an unshakable ████ ██ ████████ ████████
b
provides litigants with ████████████ ████████
c
is an unavoidable ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████
d
could conceivably have ████████ ████████ █████ ███████ █████████████
e
is likely to ██ ████████ ██ ██ █████████ ████ █ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████