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
12.
The passage suggests that if ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████████████ ███ ███ █████ █████████ ██████████ █████ █████████ █████ ██████ ████
a
judicial bias will ██ ██████ ██████████ ██████████
“Completely eliminated” is too extreme. The author believes that written explanations will help reduce bias, but we have no reason to think the author believes they will completely eliminate bias.
b
any faulty reasoning ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ████████
Supported, because the author believes that
c
judges' written explanations ████ ███████ ███████ █████ ████ █████████
The author never suggests that the written explanations will “usually” (most of the time) conceal the real reasoning. The author acknowledges that this might happen, but never indicates that this will happen more than half of the time.
d
the public perception ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███████
The author never suggests that written explanations will have an impact on public perception of impartiality. The author’s recommendation for requiring written explanations is based on its impact on actual bias, not on public perception.
e
judges will be █████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ████
The author presents written explanations as a solution that can help reduce actual bias; the author never suggests written explanations will have an impact on likelihood of recusal based on the appearance of bias.