MS NOW⁠95%

Justice Clarence Thomas won’t block Roy Moore’s defamation loss from taking effect ⁠12%

By Jordan Rubin⁠0%

6/29/2026, 12:02:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Negativity Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 10.4% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 414 faulty-reasoning hits from 536 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠12% (19,300 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.20% of the article peer group.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday rejected an emergency motion from Roy Moore, in litigation related to Moore’s bid to save the $8.2 million jury award he won over a campaign ad that he said falsely portrayed him as soliciting sex from a 14-year-old girl. 
An appeals court vacated the Alabama jury’s verdict, and the former state judge and failed GOP Senate candidate signaled that he will appeal that loss to the justices. 
In the meantime, his emergency application that Thomas rejected on Monday had asked to halt the appellate ruling from taking effect while Moore prepares his Supreme Court petition. 
Moore said that without high court intervention, his ability to collect would be hampered if the justices ultimately grant review of his petition and side with him. 
Moore’s application went to Thomas because he is the justice assigned to receive urgent motions from the circuit that ruled against Moore on appeal. 
The justices are each assigned to different lower court regions. 
In line with the typical practice for such rejections, Thomas did not provide any explanation. 
Justices usually refer what they see as significant matters to the full bench for consideration, so Thomas’ solo denial suggests he did not see Moore’s application as a close call. 
To be clear, the justices will still be free to take up Moore’s underlying petition after he presents it to them and the opposing party has a chance to respond. 
In this emergency litigation, the appeals court declined to halt its ruling from taking effect while Moore petitions the justices. 
The group that ran the ad, the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC, successfully argued to the appeals court that it shouldn’t halt its ruling from taking effect because, among other reasons, it said the Supreme Court is unlikely even to grant review of Moore’s forthcoming petition, much less side with him. 
As Moore noted in his failed application, Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch have urged reconsideration of the “actual malice” standard that public figures must meet to win defamation claims, a standard that stems from the court’s landmark 1964 opinion in New York Times Co. v. 
Sullivan. 
But it takes four justices to grant review of petitions, and the issue has not gained traction at the high court. 
In the latest example of that phenomenon earlier on Monday, Thomas and Gorsuch dissented from the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up a defamation petition from Alan Dershowitz in his appeal against CNN. 
Opposing Moore’s emergency high court application, Senate Majority PAC said he “entirely failed to show that such extraordinary relief is warranted here.” 
The group urged the justices to reject what it called Moore’s “rank speculation” that he would be unable to collect without the emergency relief he requested. 
The group, which said it’s the primary super PAC committed to the election of Senate Democrats, said its finances are strong and so there’s no need to worry about Moore being able to collect if he were to ultimately win a reversal at the high court. 
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 8.3%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.5%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Jordan Rubin: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic5.6%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 21.5%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Jordan Rubin: 14.8%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias9.0%This article: 8.6%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.4%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Jordan Rubin: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.5%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.6%Jordan Rubin: 4.6%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 3.4%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.1%Jordan Rubin: 7.4%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion4.1%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof9.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.2%Jordan Rubin: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal6.2%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.4%Jordan Rubin: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.4%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 8.4%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 5.5%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Jordan Rubin: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.8%

536 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers23%attributed speech415writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageRoy Moore • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageSenate Majority PAC • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSenate Majority PAC • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSenate Majority PAC • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Senate Majority PAC

100%flagged-word coverage
94 attributed words78% of attributed speech39% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%Senate Majority PAC: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.