Philip Allen

Philip Allen is a legal analyst who has written extensively about the Supreme Court and its justices. He has a particular focus on issues related to impartiality, conflicts of interest, and deceptiveness in judicial decision-making.

Biography:  https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-case-for-justice-samuel-alito-recusal

82%

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

85%

Examples:

  • The author argues that Alito's impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to his wife's display of flags and recorded statements, which align with conservative causes.
  • The author expresses clear disapproval and bias towards Justice Samuel Alito's decision not to recuse himself from cases involving former President Trump.

Conflicts of Interest

85%

Examples:

  • The author argues that Justice Alito's wife's interests and actions could be substantially affected by the outcome of cases involving former President Trump, making it necessary for Alito to recuse himself.

Contradictions

0%

Examples:

No current examples available.

Deceptions

70%

Examples:

  • The author uses phrases like 'reasonable person' and 'governing law' to make their argument seem objective and factual, but the interpretation of these terms is subjective.

Recent Articles

Supreme Court Grants Broad Immunity to Presidents in Trump Cases and Overturns Federal Regulator Deference Doctrine

Supreme Court Grants Broad Immunity to Presidents in Trump Cases and Overturns Federal Regulator Deference Doctrine

Broke On: Monday, 08 July 2024 The Supreme Court granted broad immunity to presidents from criminal prosecution in two recent rulings, which could impact ongoing legal cases involving former President Donald Trump and the presidential contest between him and Joe Biden. The first ruling shielded Trump from prosecution in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, while the second ended a 40-year doctrine that gave deference to federal regulators in legal disputes. These decisions have significant implications for ongoing investigations into Trump's business records and election interference.