- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:26 pm
#26093
Passage Discussion
Paragraph One:
The author begins by introducing the central topic of the passage - judicial recusal and disqualification - and highlights a potential problem: the current approach to this issue heavily emphasizes appearance-based analysis. This problem is clarified in the second paragraph.
Paragraph Two:
The rules about judicial recusal revolve around whether a judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned,” but fail to specify who would be doing the questioning. It is wrong, the author points out, to rely on the appearance of justice, rather than on the factors that might lead to bias. The focus on appearance may actually keep other potential causes of impartiality from being considered.
Paragraph Three:
This paragraph contains the Main Point of the passage: the best way to deal with concerns about bias is to have judges clarify their reasoning, rather than allow motions based on unreliable allegations of the appearance of bias. If the judge opts for recusal, the reasons for doing so should clearly be stated; if a judge decides against recusal, the same transparency should be expected of the legal reasoning behind the judgment.
Paragraph Four:
The author concludes the passage by responding to a potential objection to the solution proposed in the preceding paragraph: what if a biased judge finds a legally adequate rationale to justify her judgment? The author responds to this objection by noting that if the same decision could have been reached without the presence of bias, based on the same line of reasoning, then the presence of bias would be irrelevant and there should be no grounds for complaint.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
The only Viewpoint presented in the passage is that of the author, who believes that the current rules on judicial recusal are overly vague and improperly focused.
The Structure of the passage is as follows:
The author’s Main Point, introduced in the third paragraph, is that the current vague rules on judge recusal should be changed, and that judges should be required to specify the legal reasoning behind their rulings.
Paragraph One:
The author begins by introducing the central topic of the passage - judicial recusal and disqualification - and highlights a potential problem: the current approach to this issue heavily emphasizes appearance-based analysis. This problem is clarified in the second paragraph.
Paragraph Two:
The rules about judicial recusal revolve around whether a judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned,” but fail to specify who would be doing the questioning. It is wrong, the author points out, to rely on the appearance of justice, rather than on the factors that might lead to bias. The focus on appearance may actually keep other potential causes of impartiality from being considered.
Paragraph Three:
This paragraph contains the Main Point of the passage: the best way to deal with concerns about bias is to have judges clarify their reasoning, rather than allow motions based on unreliable allegations of the appearance of bias. If the judge opts for recusal, the reasons for doing so should clearly be stated; if a judge decides against recusal, the same transparency should be expected of the legal reasoning behind the judgment.
Paragraph Four:
The author concludes the passage by responding to a potential objection to the solution proposed in the preceding paragraph: what if a biased judge finds a legally adequate rationale to justify her judgment? The author responds to this objection by noting that if the same decision could have been reached without the presence of bias, based on the same line of reasoning, then the presence of bias would be irrelevant and there should be no grounds for complaint.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
The only Viewpoint presented in the passage is that of the author, who believes that the current rules on judicial recusal are overly vague and improperly focused.
The Structure of the passage is as follows:
- Paragraph One: Introduce the current approach to judicial recusal and disqualification.
Paragraph Two: Explain why the current approach is problematic: it is too vague and focused on appearances, leaving the potential for real bias to go unnoticed.
Paragraph Three: Suggest a new system in which only judges may recuse themselves, and if they choose not to, they must specify the reasoning behind their rulings.
Paragraph Four: Raise and respond to a possible objection to the proposal outlined in the preceding paragraph.
The author’s Main Point, introduced in the third paragraph, is that the current vague rules on judge recusal should be changed, and that judges should be required to specify the legal reasoning behind their rulings.