Unknown Joan Biskupic

Joan Biskupic is a renowned journalist and legal analyst with over twenty-five years of experience covering the Supreme Court. She currently serves as CNN's Chief Supreme Court analyst and has authored several books on the judiciary, including Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences, The Chief (about Chief Justice John Roberts), Sandra Day O'Connor, American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and Breaking In: The Rise of Sonia Sotomayor and the Politics of Justice. Prior to her role at CNN, Biskupic was an editor-in-charge for Legal Affairs at Reuters, Supreme Court correspondent for the Washington Post, and USA Today. A graduate of Georgetown University law school, she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in explanatory journalism in 2015.

Biography:  https://www.cnn.com/profiles/joan-biskupic

83%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermines the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
Analysis.OverallConflictOfInterestScore * 0.3F + Analysis.OverallBiasScore * 0.3F + Analysis.DeceptivenessScore * 0.3F + Analysis.ReadabilityScore * 0.1F

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

The Daily's Verdict

This author has a mixed reputation for journalistic standards. It is advisable to fact-check, scrutinize for bias, and check for conflicts of interest before relying on the author's reporting.

Bias

86%

Examples:

  • Biskupic admonishes the court's three liberal justices in unusually biting terms.
  • 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.
  • The chief justice, now 69 and about to begin his 20th term, appears to have abandoned his usual institutional concerns.

Conflicts of Interest

90%

Examples:

  • Joan Biskupic uses language that depicts Neil Gorsuch as an extreme figure who is hostile towards federal agencies, such as 'defiant', 'anti-regulatory fervor', and 'led calls on the court for reversal of a 1984 Supreme Court decision'.

Contradictions

86%

Examples:

  • The Supreme Court's decision on former President Donald Trump's immunity from prosecution was a 6-3 split.

Deceptions

75%

Examples:

  • The article portrays Neil Gorsuch as a defiant figure who has shown his own brand of anti-regulatory fervor. However, there is no context or evidence provided in the article to support these claims.

Recent Articles

Supreme Court Rulings on Presidential Immunity: Trump and CIA Cases Reveal Concerns for American Democracy

Supreme Court Rulings on Presidential Immunity: Trump and CIA Cases Reveal Concerns for American Democracy

Broke On: Monday, 29 July 2024 In a pair of landmark rulings, the Supreme Court has set precedents for presidential immunity, sparking debate over accountability and power. In June 2024, the Court granted former President Trump absolute immunity from criminal prosecution while in office. Critics warn this could shield future presidents from accountability. In July 2024, Justice Sotomayor dissented against a ruling on CIA involvement in rendition and interrogation programs during the Bush administration, expressing concerns about unchecked presidential power.
Supreme Court Rules Against States Barring Trump from Ballot

Supreme Court Rules Against States Barring Trump from Ballot

Broke On: Tuesday, 05 March 2024 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.
Supreme Court Cases Threaten Federal Agencies' Power to Enforce Laws

Supreme Court Cases Threaten Federal Agencies' Power to Enforce Laws

Broke On: Wednesday, 17 January 2024 The Supreme Court is considering two cases that could weaken the power of federal agencies to interpret and enforce laws. The first case involves Atlantic herring fishermen challenging a regulation requiring them to pay for regulatory monitors on their boats, while the second case concerns fishing fleets and business groups fighting against this rule. In both cases, conservative justices have pressed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress rather than judges. If the court rules in favor of these challenges, it could lead to a reduction in executive agency power and make it harder for future presidents to defend their regulatory agendas.