U.S. Supreme Court to Decide on Donald Trump's Return to White House

Colorado, Colorado United States of America
Colorado may keep him off the presidential ballot because he violated a provision in the 14th Amendment preventing those who engaged in insurrection from holding office.
The fate of former President Donald Trump's attempt to return to the White House is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Supreme Court to Decide on Donald Trump's Return to White House

The fate of former President Donald Trump's attempt to return to the White House is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on Thursday about whether Colorado may keep him off the presidential ballot because he violated a provision in the 14th Amendment preventing those who engaged in insurrection from holding office.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

70%

Doubts
  • It is unclear if other states will follow suit and also prevent Trump from running for president.

Sources

79%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Trump's ballot eligibility is headed to the Supreme Court. Here's what to know about Thursday's historic arguments.

CBS News Site: https://www.cbsnews.com/articles/about-us/ Melissa Quinn Wednesday, 07 February 2024 15:46
  • Unique Points
    • The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump is eligible for a second term in office because of his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
    • A decision against him could disrupt his bid for a second term in the White House.
    • The outcome of this legal battle is expected to reverberate across all 50 states and provide clarity about Trump's eligibility for primary and general election ballots.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (30%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Supreme Court will decide whether Trump is eligible for a second term in office because of his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S Capitol.
    • Fallacies (85%)
      The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that a decision against Trump could disrupt his bid for a second term in the White House without providing any evidence or reasoning behind this claim. Secondly, the author commits an informal fallacy by using inflammatory rhetoric when they describe Trump's conduct related to Jan. 6 as
      • 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 stating that the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Trump from the ballot is a landmark decision.
        • The court ordered him to be excluded from the state’s GOP presidential primary ballot.
          • >the nation’s history been used to disqualify a presidential candidate
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          82%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          ‘Judged by history’: Trump’s 14th Amendment fight at Supreme Court poses an enormous test for John Roberts

          CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language John Fritze Wednesday, 07 February 2024 10:00
          • Unique Points
            • The Supreme Court will hear a politically fraught challenge to Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on Colorado's ballot.
            • Chief Justice John Roberts has built a reputation of trying to steer the court clear of partisanship, but his middle-ground approach could face its greatest test as he helps shape the outcome of a presidential campaign.
            • Trump is accused of violating the 14th Amendment's insurrection ban when he ginned up a rally on January 6, 2021, before the attack on the US Capitol. If found guilty, it would effectively end his campaign.
          • Accuracy
            No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
          • Deception (80%)
            The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the Supreme Court challenge to Trump's eligibility as a test for John Roberts when in reality it is not about him but rather about Trump and his campaign. Secondly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'insurrection ban' and 'charged election disputes', which are misleading and exaggerated. Thirdly, the article presents Trump's appeals as a test for Roberts when in reality they are not related to each other at all.
            • Sensationalist language such as 'insurrection ban' and 'charged election disputes'
            • The Supreme Court challenge is presented as a test for John Roberts
            • Trump's appeals are presented as a test for Roberts when in reality they are not related to each other
          • Fallacies (80%)
            The article contains several examples of an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites the opinions and actions of various people without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. For example, when discussing Trump's claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity in a criminal election interference case, the author states that 'a federal appeals court rebuffed that argument Tuesday'. However, this statement does not provide any information about why the appeal was rejected or what evidence was presented against it. Similarly, when discussing Roberts' middle-ground approach and his attempts to steer the court clear of partisanship, the author cites various examples without providing any reasoning for their significance. Additionally, there are several instances where the author uses inflammatory rhetoric to make a point or create an emotional response in readers. For example, when discussing Trump's rally on January 6th and his subsequent insurrection ban claim, the author states that 'Trump ginned up a rally on January 6th'. This statement is highly charged and inflammatory, rather than providing any evidence or reasoning for its claims.
            • The court hears arguments Thursday about whether Trump violated the 14th Amendment's “insurrection ban."
            • If the Supreme Court rules that Trump engaged in insurrection and ran afoul of the post-Civil War ban, it would effectively end his campaign.
            • The two men [Roberts and Trump] couldn’t be more different.
          • Bias (85%)
            The article contains examples of political bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump and his supporters by referring to them as 'white supremacists' and 'dog-whistling'. Additionally, the author quotes a far-right influencer who celebrates the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is an example of monetary bias as it suggests that money plays a role in shaping public opinion.
            • The article contains examples of political bias.
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
              The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump and his fight against an insurrection ban. The article mentions that John Roberts is facing enormous pressure to rule in favor of Trump's case.

              70%

              The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
              (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

              A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

              Opinion | The Supreme Court Should Get Out of the Insurrection Business

              The Name Of The NZ Prefix. I PWA NZI.P.Was Dropped. Akhil Reed Wednesday, 07 February 2024 10:01
              • Unique Points
                • The first insurrection of the 1860s refers to a shadowy network of affiliates and co-conspirators who aimed in several nefarious ways including mayhem, military subversion and even murder to prevent the lawful counting of President-elect Abraham Lincoln's electoral votes and thwart his lawful inauguration in early March 1861.
                • Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars from any office, civil or military, under the United States anyone important public servant who engages in an insurrection or gives insurrectionists aid or comfort.
              • Accuracy
                • The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Thursday about whether Colorado may keep Donald Trump off the presidential ballot because of the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
                • Mr. Amar wrote an amicus brief for the Section 3, 14th Amendment Supreme Court case Trump v. Anderson.
              • Deception (50%)
                The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses emotional manipulation by stating that Mr. Trump's conduct squarely falls under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and implies that he is an insurrectionist who gave aid or comfort to other insurrectionists.
                • Mr. Trump’s lawyers legitimately ask what counts as a disqualifying insurrection. Section 3 was clearly aimed at oath-breakers who had backed insurrections akin to the Civil War.
                • The first phrase explains why Mr. Trump’s conduct squarely falls under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from any office, civil or military, under the United States anyone important public servant who after swearing an oath to the Constitution engages in an insurrection or gives aid and comfort to insurrectionists.
              • Fallacies (85%)
                The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the well-established structure of presidential elections and Section 3's authors having two recent insurrections in mind. However, this does not necessarily mean that their interpretation is correct or should be followed without question.
                • The first phrase explains why Mr. Trump’s conduct squarely falls under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
                • Section 3, they note, was clearly aimed at oath-breakers who had backed insurrections akin to the Civil War.
                • Before the bloody insurrection that began when cannons roared at Fort Sumter in April 1861
              • Bias (85%)
                The author uses the phrase 'the first insurrection of the 1860s' to suggest that Trump's conduct is not as severe as an actual insurrection. The author also mentions a shadowy network of affiliates and co-conspirators who aimed at preventing Lincoln's inauguration, which suggests that Trump was not alone in his actions. Additionally, the author uses language such as 'aid or comfort', which could be interpreted to mean that Trump did not actively participate in the insurrection but rather supported it.
                • A shadowy network of affiliates and co-conspirators aimed in several and nefarious ways to prevent the lawful counting of President-elect Abraham Lincoln's electoral votes and to thwart his lawful inauguration in early March 1861.
                  • The author uses language such as 'aid or comfort', which could be interpreted to mean that Trump did not actively participate in the insurrection but rather supported it.
                    • The first phrase explains why Mr. Trump's conduct squarely falls under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,
                    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                      The author of the article has a conflict of interest on several topics. The author is Akhil Reed Amar and he has written extensively about Donald Trump in the past.
                      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                        The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Section 3,14th Amendment as he is an expert in constitutional law and may have personal or professional ties to individuals or groups that are affected by this issue.

                        80%

                        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                        I went hunting for the 14th Amendment, the document that could bar Trump from ballots

                        National Public Radio (NPR) Wednesday, 07 February 2024 00:00
                        • Unique Points
                          • The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump is eligible for a second term in office because of his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
                          • Chief Justice John Roberts has built a reputation of trying to steer the court clear of partisanship, but his middle-ground approach could face its greatest test as he helps shape the outcome of a presidential campaign.
                        • Accuracy
                          • A decision against him could disrupt his bid for a second term in the White House.
                        • Deception (100%)
                          None Found At Time Of Publication
                        • Fallacies (85%)
                          The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the Supreme Court as a source of information. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the importance of Section 3 of the original 14th Amendment in shaping the coming presidential election.
                          • ]Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State...
                          • The Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether Section 3 of the original 14th Amendment bars former President Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado
                        • Bias (85%)
                          The article is biased towards the idea that Section 3 of the original 14th Amendment bars former President Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado. The author uses language such as 'bars' and 'outcome of which could upend the 2024 presidential election', implying a negative outcome for Trump, rather than simply stating facts about Section 3 of the amendment.
                          • the outcome of which could upend the 2024 presidential election.
                            • The Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether Section 3 of the original 14th Amendment bars former President Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado
                            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                              The article discusses the potential for Donald Trump to be barred from ballots in Colorado based on a Supreme Court case involving the 14th Amendment. The author is Morgan Browning, who works at NARA and has previously been involved with election-related issues.
                              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                                None Found At Time Of Publication

                              96%

                              The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                              (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                              A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                              Trump's presidential bid hangs in the balance at the Supreme Court. Here's what to know

                              The Associated Press News Wednesday, 07 February 2024 13:50
                              • Unique Points
                                • The fate of former President Donald Trump's attempt to return to the White House is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.
                                • On Thursday, the justices will hear arguments in Trump's appeal of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that he is not eligible to run again for president because he violated a provision in the 14th Amendment preventing those who engaged in insurrection from holding office.
                              • Accuracy
                                No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                              • Deception (100%)
                                None Found At Time Of Publication
                              • Fallacies (85%)
                                The article contains several logical fallacies. The author's defense of Trump is based on a misinterpretation of the Constitution and an attempt to redefine what constitutes insurrection. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the January 6th attack as 'an insurrection'. This statement is not supported by evidence and could be seen as biased.
                                • The president's lawyers argue that language in Section 3 of the Constitution applies only to presidential appointees, not the president himself. However, this interpretation ignores the fact that Trump took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
                              • Bias (100%)
                                None Found At Time Of Publication
                              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                                None Found At Time Of Publication
                              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                                None Found At Time Of Publication