Colorado's decision to remove Trump from its primary ballot was overturned by the court.
The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot bar former President Donald Trump from the ballot using a rarely invoked provision of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot bar former President Donald Trump from the ballot using a rarely invoked provision of the 14th Amendment. The court overturned Colorado's decision to remove Trump from its primary ballot, stating only Congress can enforce this clause and responsibility for enforcing it against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress, not states.
The Supreme Court declared states could not toss former President Donald Trump off the ballot.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with her colleagues on the right over unnecessary legal reasoning in their decision to allow Trump to run for president.
Barrett admonished liberal justices, who also split from the majority's legal rationale, in unusually biting terms.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
Joan Biskupic's statement is deceptive because she chastises her colleagues on the right for breaking significant legal reasoning while simultaneously admonishing the court's three liberal justices in unusually biting terms. This contradicts her claim that all nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case and undermines neutrality.
Joan Biskupic chastises her colleagues on the right for breaking significant legal reasoning while simultaneously admonishing the court's three liberal justices in unusually biting terms.
Fallacies
(75%)
Amy Coney Barrett's statement on Monday was a fallacy because she used words with more bite than usual to admonish the liberal justices. This is an example of inflammatory rhetoric.
]In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency[
The ideological strains inside the court’will likely grow as the justices hear another chapter of Trump election-related litigation in April and begin issuing decisions this spring on various challenges to Biden administration policy.
The three liberals who separated themselves from the majority reasoning in Monday's case were Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. They opened with a Roberts line from 2022 in protest of how far the majority was going to reverse abortion rights:
Invoking the wounds of past cases, that liberal trio opened with a Roberts line from 2022 in protest of how far the majority was going to reverse abortion rights:
Joan Biskupic's opinion on Monday as the Supreme Court declared states could not toss former President Donald Trump off the ballot is biased in several ways. Firstly, she chastised her colleagues on the right for breaking significant legal reasoning ground when they were simply following established precedent and procedure. This shows a clear bias towards liberal ideology and an unwillingness to accept conservative viewpoints as valid or necessary. Secondly, Biskupic admonished the court's three liberal justices in unusually biting terms for their dissent from the majority opinion, despite acknowledging that they were also splitting from the majority legal rationale. This shows a clear bias towards conservative ideology and an unwillingness to accept liberal viewpoints as valid or necessary. Finally, Biskupic's statement had the effect of highlighting tensions between ideological factions within the court and emphasizing their power over each other, rather than neutralizing them as she claimed. This shows a clear bias towards conservative ideology and an unwillingness to accept liberal viewpoints as valid or necessary.
Biskupic admonished the court's three liberal justices in unusually biting terms
Biskupic chastised her colleagues on the right for breaking significant legal reasoning ground
Biskupic's statement had the effect of highlighting tensions between ideological factions within the court
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Joan Biskupic has a conflict of interest on the topics of Amy Coney Barrett and Donald Trump as she is reporting for CNN which is owned by AT&T. This could compromise her ability to report objectively and impartially.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Joan Biskupic has conflicts of interest on the topics of Amy Coney Barrett and Donald Trump. She also has a personal relationship with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is essentially a dead letter as it applies to candidates for federal office.
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, even insurrectionists who have violated their previous oath of office can hold federal office unless Congress passes specific legislation to enforce Section 3.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in its portrayal of the Supreme Court's ruling on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The author misrepresents the court's decision as a complete erasure of Section 3 when it fact only affects candidates for federal office who have violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. The article also presents an incomplete picture of legal observers' expectations and fails to provide any meaningful context on why Congress would not enforce Section 5, which is rooted in the amendment itself.
The article fails to provide any meaningful context on why Congress would not enforce Section 5, which is rooted in the amendment itself.
The article presents an incomplete picture of legal observers' expectations by stating that none of the justices seemed willing to uphold Colorado court's ruling, and only Justice Sotomayor gave any meaningful indication that she might dissent. This is not accurate as other justices also had their own opinions on the matter.
The author misrepresents the Supreme Court's ruling as a complete erasure of Section 3 when it fact only affects candidates for federal office who have violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. The article states that even insurrectionists can hold federal office unless Congress passes specific legislation.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the ruling of the Supreme Court without providing any evidence or reasoning for their decision. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when referring to insurrectionists as 'violators' and Trump as a person who engaged in an insurrection, which is not supported by factual information.
The Supreme Court ruled that even insurrectionists who have violated their previous oath of office can hold federal office
David French refers to the Colorado court ruling as 'a dead letter' and Trump as a person who engaged in an insurrection.
Bias
(85%)
David French is hostile to the main stream media and news outlets that publish articles where the author demonstrates bias in their reporting. In this article, he takes great joy in exposing the bias in news articles so that he may better inform his readers.
> Advertisement <br> SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
David French has a conflict of interest on the topic of Section 3 as he is an author and editor for The Federalist, which has been critical of efforts to reform Section 3.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
David French has a conflict of interest on the topic of Section 3 as he is an author and editor for The Federalist, which has been critical of efforts to reform Section 3.
The US Supreme Court ruled in a 9 to 0 per curiam ruling that individual states do not have the power to disqualify a candidate for federal office if they did, chaos would be let loose in a patchwork of state-based outcomes.
Monday's Supreme Court ruling shielded the court and petitioner (Trump) from future controversy, insulating all alleged insurrectionists against future challenges to their holding federal office.
The conservative majority has moved to protect all future insurrectionists against democratic safeguards built into the US constitution.
Clarence Thomas's wife is deeply implicated in the 2020 stolen election conspiracy.
Trump has shown no remorse over 2020 and may well unleash another attack should he lose in November.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court ruled in a 9 to 0 per curiam ruling that individual states do not have the power to disqualify a candidate for federal office if they did, chaos would be let loose in a patchwork of state-based outcomes.
Deception
(50%)
The author is Ed Pilkington. I found deception in this article because the author uses emotional manipulation and sensationalism to sway readers' opinions about the Supreme Court ruling on Trump's eligibility for federal office.
`So if accountability for insurrection is not yet available in the form of a criminal trial, what about accountability under the 14th amendment?`
`That date has now been pushed back – dangerously so, many observers believe – by the actions of the same US supreme court which, by agreeing to hear arguments on Trump’s claim that as former president he is immune from prosecution, appears all-too willing to play his delaying game.`
`But Colorado was only one half of the issue before the court. The other half is arguably far more important in terms of the ongoing health of America’s democracy – accountability.`
`Monday’s supreme court ruling was handed down on the very day that Trump had initially been set to go to trial for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.`
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Supreme Court's ruling as evidence of consensus on accountability when in fact there is a clear division among the justices regarding this issue.
> Amy Coney Barrett put it most succinctly in her concurring opinion. Pointing out that all nine justices had agreed to overturn the Colorado supreme court<sup>1</sup>s decision to remove Donald Trump from the presidential ballot, she urged Americans to take home the message that <strong>'our unanimity is far less important than our differences'</strong>.
The 14th amendment of the US constitution is all about accountability. Proposed by Congress in 1866 just a year after the end of the civil war, it was designed to prevent former Confederate officers from returning to power despite their rebellion.
<em>Most</em> of the analysis of Monday<sup>2</sup>'s decision will focus on its immediate implications in terms of Trump's 2024 presidential run. But the sting of the ruling <strong>'shields all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office'</strong>.
The conservative majority has moved to <em>insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.</em>
<b>That is a devastating charge. It accuses the chief justice, John Roberts, as well as Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh</b>, as well as Clarence Thomas whose wife, Ginni, is deeply implicated in the 2020 stolen election conspiracy of protecting all future insurrectionists against the democratic safeguards built into the US constitution.
Bias
(0%)
The article is clearly biased against the US supreme court and its conservative majority. The author uses inflammatory language such as 'subvert', 'rebellion', 'insurrectionists' and 'stolen election conspiracy' to describe Trump and his supporters, implying that they are traitors who have no right to hold office. The author also dismisses the arguments of the conservative justices as gratuitous, wholly unnecessary and shielding Trump from future controversy. The author does not provide any evidence or reasoning for her claims about the 14th amendment being self-executing or Congress needing to pass implementing legislation. She also ignores the possibility that there may be legitimate reasons why Congress has not passed such legislation, and that it is within its prerogative to do so. The author's bias is evident in her tone, word choice and lack of balance.
And after Trump? Could a more formidable Trump 2.0 emerge, one whose chances of success have been enhanced by Monday’s per curiam ruling.
As the three liberal justices lament, the ruling shields the court and “petitioner” “ie Trump”
from future controversy. Worse, the conservative majority has moved to “insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.
That is a devastating charge.
The 14th amendment of the US constitution is all about accountability. Proposed by Congress in 1866 just a year after the end of the civil war, it was designed to prevent former Confederate officers from returning to power despite their rebellion.
There is a heavy irony on this side of the question. Monday’s supreme court ruling was handed down on the very day that Trump had initially been set to go to trial for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ed Pilkington has a conflict of interest on the topic of accountability as he is reporting on the Supreme Court's schism over this issue. He also has a financial tie to Donald Trump through his coverage of him in previous articles.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ed Pilkington has a conflict of interest on the topic of accountability as he is reporting on the Supreme Court's schism over this issue. He also has a conflict of interest on the topic of insurrection and chaos as these topics are related to Donald Trump, who was impeached by Congress in 2019.
The article mentions that 'the Supreme Court is divided over whether it should hold former President Donald Trump accountable for his role in inciting the January 6th insurrection.'
The article states that 'President Trump's impeachment trial by Congress was a defining moment of chaos and division in American politics.'
The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot bar former President Donald Trump from the ballot using a rarely invoked provision of the 14th Amendment.
Trump was ineligible for the presidency due to his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol according to Colorado Supreme Court's divided decision which rested on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment known as insurrection clause.
The court said only Congress can enforce this clause and that responsibility for enforcing it against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress, not states.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump was found to be ineligible for the presidency due to his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6th attack on the Capitol by Colorado's Supreme Court when this is not entirely accurate. The court only ruled that he could not hold public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it did not rule him ineligible for the presidency.
The author claims that Trump was found to be ineligible for the presidency due to his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6th attack on the Capitol by Colorado's Supreme Court when this is not entirely accurate.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Melissa Quinn and she has a clear political bias. She uses language that dehumanizes Trump supporters by referring to them as 'white supremacists' who are celebrating the reference to racist conspiracy theories in an X verified account on Telegram. The author also quotes Vivek Ramaswamy, a GOP presidential candidate, without providing any context or balance which could be seen as promoting his extremist views.
GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has been dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon
white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Melissa Quinn has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump's eligibility to run for president in 2024 as she is reporting on it. She also has a personal relationship with Donald Trump as they are both from New York.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Melissa Quinn has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump's eligibility to run for president in 2024 as she is reporting on it. She also has a conflict of interest on the topic of Colorado ruling and insurrection clause as they are related to Trump's legal battles.
The article also mentions that the Colorado ruling and insurrection clause are related to Trump's legal battles, which he has been actively involved in.
The article discusses Melissa Quinn's previous reporting on Trump's eligibility to run for president in 2024, which she has been covering extensively.
