Raw Story93%

John Roberts used one 'chilling' word in new ruling that unnerved ex-prosecutor 78%

By Daniel Hampton75%

6/29/2026, 8:57:25 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Anchoring Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 54.5% saturation with 205 hits. Analysis detected 1,039 faulty-reasoning hits from 376 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69% and a BS Rank of 78% (4,977 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.30% of the article peer group.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann fixed on a single word in Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion and said it left him deeply unsettled. 
Reacting on air to Monday's 6-3 ruling in Trump v. 
Slaughter, which overturned 91 years of precedent and lets the president fire members of independent agencies without cause, Weissmann said the decision extends the theory of expansive presidential power Roberts laid out in the Trump v. 
United States immunity case. 
This time, he said, the chief justice leaned on the "vitality" and "secrecy" of the executive branch. 
"It's hard to stress enough for people the ramifications of this decision," he told MS NOW's Nicolle Wallace on her show, "Deadline: White House." 
Weissmann pointed to Roberts' language that indicates his views on sweeping presidential power. 
"Saying that it's necessary, what they ruled today, that it's necessary to have the vitality, and in a word, I found chilling, the secrecy of the executive branch. 
That was a word that was not in the immunity decision, and should think about that. 
He said the ruling "unleashes political patronage" and called it "a very ahistoric decision" with "very, very long coattails." 
"You do not want a Republican president to come in and fire every Democrat, and you do not want every Democratic president to come in and fire every Republican," he said. 
"You want career people in place with experience, who are supposed to be apolitical regardless of party." 
The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that the court handed Trump a power unknown even to the English Crown. 
Weissmann invoked Justice Robert Jackson, who returned from prosecuting Nazis at Nuremberg, to caution against expanding presidential power, and said the founders feared this outcome. 
"We did not want to, and do not want to, have a king in the White House," he said. 
He also called the majority's appeal to originalism "laughable," citing the same-day decision sparing the Federal Reserve as proof of "a result-oriented court." 
The ruling was a win for Trump even as the court dealt him losses the same day, rejecting his challenge to late-arriving mail ballots and refusing to hear his E. 
Jean Carroll appeal. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.5%Daniel Hampton: 3.8%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias12.5%This article: 16.2%Daniel Hampton: 1.6%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias16.2%This article: 13.0%Daniel Hampton: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic13.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Daniel Hampton: 11.7%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect3.2%This article: 8.2%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion8.2%This article: 4.5%Daniel Hampton: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias11.4%This article: 33.5%Daniel Hampton: 18.1%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias33.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error3.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.6%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority6.6%This article: 8.2%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma8.2%This article: 5.1%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope5.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.4%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization10.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 54.5%Daniel Hampton: 8.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion54.5%This article: 4.5%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question4.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.0%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.5%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature4.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 23.1%Daniel Hampton: 2.4%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.5%Daniel Hampton: 2.3%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote4.5%This article: 13.8%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection13.8%This article: 13.0%Daniel Hampton: 7.6%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice13.0%This article: 4.3%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination4.3%This article: 9.6%Daniel Hampton: 4.6%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

376 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker68%attributed speech121writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 17 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 28 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 16 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Andrew Weissmann

100%flagged-word coverage
255 attributed words100% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-40.5 ptsWriter: 40.5%Andrew Weissmann: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+20.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Weissmann: 20.4%20.4%Politically Left Leaning B+14.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Weissmann: 14.1%14.1%Unattributed Quote+6.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Weissmann: 6.7%6.7%Indoctrination+6.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Weissmann: 6.3%6.3%

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.