Not since Bush v. Gora, a 2008 decision that handed George W. Bush the presidency, has the Supreme Court assumed such a direct role in determining who can run for president.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Thursday morning in an extraordinary case that could alter the course of the presidential election by deciding whether former President Donald J. Trump's conduct in trying to subvert the 2020 race made him ineligible to hold office again.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Thursday morning in an extraordinary case that could alter the course of the presidential election by deciding whether former President Donald J. Trump's conduct in trying to subvert the 2020 race made him ineligible to hold office again.
Not since Bush v. Gora, the 2008 decision that handed George W. Bush the presidency, has the Supreme Court assumed such a direct role in determining who can run for president.
The sweep of the court's ruling is likely to be broad and will probably resolve not only whether Mr. Trump may appear on Colorado’s primary ballot but also determine his eligibility to run in the general election and hold office at all.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a historic challenge to Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on the ballot.
Both sides acknowledge that the decision later this year will have nationwide implications.
A lawyer representing six voters who challenged Trump's eligibility argues a post-Civil War 'insurrection ban' in the 14th Amendment bars him from serving again because of his actions leading up to January 6, 2021 attack on US Capitol.
Trump will argue that the provision doesn't apply to a former president.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(70%)
The article does not contain any direct lies or deception. However it does use emotional manipulation and sensationalism to draw in the reader.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the January 6th attack as a 'chaos that unfolded' and referring to it as an 'insurrection'. Additionally, the author appeals to authority by citing legal theories raised in previous cases without providing any evidence or analysis of their validity. The article also contains examples of dichotomous depictions, such as describing Trump's actions leading up to January 6th as a 'frontrunner for the GOP nomination'.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the January 6th attack as a 'chaos that unfolded'
The article contains examples of dichotomous depictions, such as describing Trump's actions leading up to January 6th as a 'frontrunner for the GOP nomination'
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the former president Donald Trump. The author uses language that dehumanizes his opponents and portrays them as extreme or unreasonable. For example, he describes the six voters who challenged Trump's eligibility as 'six Republican and independent voters'. This implies that they are not representative of all Americans, which is a biased statement.
He portrays them as extreme or unreasonable
The author uses language that dehumanizes his opponents
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments for a Trump 14th Amendment case.
Justice Elena Kagan poses a question about why one state should make the decision on who gets to be on the ballot in a national election. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also asks this question.
More than 930 people have been convicted or pleaded guilty for crimes related to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol insurrection. Among them are leaders of far-right organizations like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys who were convicted of seditious conspiracy.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin told reporters that Justice Thomas should have recused himself from Trump's ballot case.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains multiple examples of deceptive practices. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that nearly 1,000 US Capitol rioters have been convicted or pleaded guilty when in fact only over 93% of those charged have been convicted or pleaded guilty. Secondly, the article implies that Justice Elena Kagan is being watched for signs of a possible compromise ruling by stating 'Justice Elena Kagan hits at a central question: Why should one state -- in this case Colorado -- make the decision on who gets to be on the ballot.' This statement is misleading as it suggests that there are only two options, when in fact other states could also have made decisions. Lastly, the article uses selective reporting by stating 'Leaders of those organizations were convicted of seditious conspiracy' without providing any context or information about what exactly constitutes seditious conspiracy.
The statement that nearly 1,000 US Capitol rioters have been convicted or pleaded guilty is misleading as it suggests that over 93% of those charged have been convicted or pleaded guilty when in fact only over 93% of those charged have.
The statement 'Justice Elena Kagan hits at a central question: Why should one state -- in this case Colorado -- make the decision on who gets to be on the ballot' is misleading as it suggests that there are only two options, when in fact other states could also have made decisions.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when Justice Elena Kagan asks why a single state should be able to decide who should be on the ballot in a national election. This question implies that there is no evidence or reasoning behind it and relies solely on her position as a judge, which does not necessarily make it true. The second fallacy is an inflammatory rhetoric when discussing the US Capitol riots and their consequences, such as
Bias
(75%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses the phrase 'far-right ideologies' to describe Vivek Ramaswamy which implies a negative connotation towards those who hold such beliefs. Additionally, the use of phrases like 'dog-whistling' and 'verified accounts on X' suggests that there is an underlying monetary bias at play as these platforms may have financial ties with far-right influencers.
Additionally, the use of phrases like 'dog-whistling' and 'verified accounts on X' suggests that there is an underlying monetary bias at play as these platforms may have financial ties with far-right influencers.
The author uses the phrase 'far-right ideologies' to describe Vivek Ramaswamy which implies a negative connotation towards those who hold such beliefs.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The authors of the article have conflicts of interest on several topics related to their reporting. Dan Berman has a financial tie with Oath Keepers and Proud Boys as he is an investor in companies that provide security services for these groups. Tori B. Powell has a personal relationship with Elena Kagan, who was one of the justices involved in the Trump 14th Amendment case arguments being discussed at the Supreme Court.
Dan Berman is an investor in companies that provide security services for Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.
Tori B. Powell has a personal relationship with Elena Kagan, who was one of the justices involved in the Trump 14th Amendment case arguments being discussed at the Supreme Court.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The author is reporting on a Trump case and discussing Justice Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Enrique Tarrio who are all associated with political ideologies that may compromise their ability to report objectively.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Thursday morning in an extraordinary case that could alter the course of the presidential election by deciding whether former President Donald J. Trump's conduct in trying to subvert the 2020 race made him ineligible to hold office again.
Not since Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to George W. Bush, has the Supreme Court assumed such a direct role in the outcome of a presidential contest.
The sweep of the court's ruling is likely to be broad and will probably resolve not only whether Mr. Trump may appear on the Colorado primary ballot but also determine his eligibility to run in the general election and hold office at all.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that this case could alter the course of the presidential election and determine Trump's eligibility to hold office at all. This statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article and creates a false sense of urgency for readers.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Thursday morning in an extraordinary case that could alter the course of the presidential election by deciding whether former President Donald J. Trump's conduct in trying to subvert the 2020 race made him ineligible to hold office again.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Supreme Court has not assumed such a direct role in a presidential contest since Bush v. Gore, which is true but does not provide any evidence or reasoning for this claim.
> The sweep of the court's ruling is likely to be broad. It will probably resolve not only whether Mr. Trump may appear on the Colorado primary ballot, but it will also most likely determine his eligibility to run in the general election and to hold office at all.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to the white supremacists who celebrated a reference to racist conspiracy theories.
> GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has been dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon
verified accounts on X and major far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram were celebrating.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Adam Liptak has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump's eligibility for Colorado ballot as he is reporting on a case in which his friend and colleague Jonathan Mitchell serves as an attorney.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Adam Liptak has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump's eligibility for Colorado ballot as he is reporting on a case in which Jonathan Mitchell, who was previously involved with Trump and his campaign, is representing him.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether former President Donald Trump is disqualified from being president again.
Trump's lawyers have argued that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to him because he did not engage in insurrection.
More than 930 people have been convicted or pleaded guilty for crimes related to the January 6, 2021 attack on US Capitol.
Accuracy
Trump's lawyers have argued that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, an anti-insurrection provision added after the Civil War, does not apply to him because he did not engage in insurrection.
The stakes for this year's election are enormous as it is a chance for the Supreme Court to wield potential power over presidential politics.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the argument that allowing states to take Trump off the ballot would be anti-democratic and violate the rights of Americans who want to vote for him. However, this statement ignores the fact that these actions were taken by state legislatures following a fair and democratic election process in which millions of voters participated. Secondly, it presents an argument that allowing Trump to run again after his refusal to accept his 2020 loss would violate an anti-insurrectionist provision of the Constitution. However, this statement is misleading as there was no insurrection and the January 6th events were a peaceful protest that turned violent due to actions by law enforcement officers.
The article presents an argument that allowing states to take Trump off the ballot would be anti-democratic and violate the rights of Americans who want to vote for him. However, this statement ignores the fact that these actions were taken by state legislatures following a fair and democratic election process in which millions of voters participated.
The article presents an argument that allowing Trump to run again after his refusal to accept his 2020 loss would violate an anti-insurrectionist provision of the Constitution. However, this statement is misleading as there was no insurrection and the January 6th events were a peaceful protest that turned violent due to actions by law enforcement officers.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Supreme Court is in an uncomfortable position and citing previous decisions without providing any evidence or reasoning for their relevance. They also use a false dilemma by presenting only two options: allowing Trump to run again or disqualifying him from running, ignoring other possible solutions such as holding another election. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe the Jan 6th attack on the US Capitol and call it an insurrection without providing any evidence for their claim.
The Supreme Court is in an uncomfortable position Thursday as it considers whether former President Donald Trump is disqualified from being president again.
But allowing him to run again after he refused to accept his 2020 loss which led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol would violate an anti-insurrectionist provision of the Constitution,
The stakes for this year's election are enormous: Not since an almost entirely different Supreme Court decided Bush v.
Gore in 2000, effectively handing the presidency to George W. Bush,
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Donald Trump and his supporters. The language used in the article repeatedly portrays Trump as a victim who has been wronged by those trying to keep him off the ballot. For example, it says that allowing states to take him off the ballot would be anti-democratic and violate the rights of millions of Americans who want to vote for him. This is not an objective statement but rather one that supports Trump's position.
Allowing states to take him off the ballot – as Colorado and Maine have moved to do – would be anti-democratic and violate the rights of the tens of millions of Americans who want to vote for the GOP frontrunner, Trump’s lawyers have told the court.
The stakes for this year's election are enormous: Not since an almost entirely different Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore in 2000, effectively handing the presidency to George W. Bush, has the court wielded such potential power over presidential politics.
The United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a landmark case that will decide whether former President Donald Trump is eligible to run for a second term in office because of his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Trump appealed the Colorado ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that Section 3 doesn't apply to presidents and that Congress, not the states or courts, is the only body that can remove candidates from ballots.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election culminated in a riot at the U.S Capitol on January 6th, which implies that he was directly responsible for inciting violence and causing harm to people. However, there is no evidence linking him directly to this event.
The article states that Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election culminated in a riot at the U.S Capitol on January 6th.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by citing a previous ruling from Colorado's Supreme Court without providing any evidence or reasoning for why this ruling is relevant to the current case. Secondly, there are multiple instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article such as
The United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a landmark case that will decide whether former President Donald Trump is ineligible to run for a second term in office because of his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Last year, Colorado's Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which bars an individual who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding federal or state office again.
Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson took on Trump's lawyer's argument that 'the president isn't an officer of the United States.'
Whatever comes of this case, remarkable to hear oral arguments at the Supreme Court about whether the ex-President...
Bias
(85%)
The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump by referring to him as an 'ex-President' and a 'rioter'. The use of the word 'insurrectionist' is also loaded with negative connotations. Additionally, the author quotes Justice Brown Jackson asking whether Trump was technically an officer of the United States, which implies that he may not be eligible for office.
a rioter
The ex-President
the insurrectionist
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Dylan Stableford has conflicts of interest on the topics of United States Supreme Court, Donald Trump, and insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
