Passage A
Topic
Judicial candor—whether judges need to genuinely believe and honestly state the reasons for their decisions.
Framework
Present Debate
Main Point
Both passages examine whether judges should be required to be sincere and honest (show candor) in the reasons they give for their decisions. Passage A discusses two main approaches to defending judicial candor (prudential and moral), while Passage B argues that there is a strong presumption in favor of judicial candor due to its role in constraining judicial power. Most Valuable Sentences:
Passage A: (end of P3)
Passage B: (end of P3)
P1 (Passage A): Skepticism About Judicial Sincerity
Some legal scholars reject the idea that judges should truly believe what they write in their decisions, arguing that honesty can conflict with the practical demands and responsibilities judges face.
P2 (Passage A): Prudential Defense of Candor
One way to defend sincerity is by showing that it leads to good practical outcomes—like increased transparency or legitimacy—but this is a "means-to-an-end" type of justification.
P3 (Passage A): Moral Defense of Candor
The author argues that relying only on practical benefits ignores the deeper moral reasons for honesty—truth-telling is a core moral duty, not only valuable when it leads to good results.