Louisiana Supreme Court to settle constitutionality of cuts to New Orleans judges 10%

By Matt Bruce37%

7/17/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Negativity Bias, and Recency Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 25.7% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 287 faulty-reasoning hits from 269 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.1% and a BS Rank of 10% (19,690 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.00% of the article peer group.

The Louisiana Supreme Court on Friday took over and fast-tracked a lawsuit challenging a new state law that reduced the number of judges in New Orleans courts. 
Criminal District Judge John Fuller sued Gov. 
Jeff Landry and other state officials, asking the courts to block the provision of Act 748 that eliminates three sections of criminal court by Jan. 
1. 
Landry signed the measure into law last month. 
State officials claim the measure didn’t need a supermajority for passage. 
They cite an exception for New Orleans municipal offices from the 1974 constitutional convention. 
The delegates made Crescent City courts “subject to change by law” with a simple majority, the state argues. 
Judge Tarvald Smith of the 19th Judicial District this week enjoined state officials from enacting any provision of Act 748 until after the qualifying period, which runs Aug. 
5-7. 
That left open a door for Fuller and the two others with seats marked for elimination  Judges Rhonda Goode-Douglas and Simone Levine  to run for re-election. 
Murrill vowed to appeal Smith’s injunction. 
Fuller’s attorney, Jerome Matthews, asked the state’s high court to step in. 
The Supreme Court halted proceedings at the lower courts and gave Murrill and others until next week to file any oppositions to Fuller’s claims. 
Matthews said he expects the court to rule before Aug. 5, given its expedited track. 
“Whoever lost at the (appeals court) would’ve just had to go to the Supreme Court anyway,” he said. 
“So  let’s just go straight to the Supreme Court to get a ruling.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.7%Matt Bruce: 6.3%nola.com: 2.4%Confirmation Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.6%nola.com: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 2.6%nola.com: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.2%nola.com: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Matt Bruce: 1.5%nola.com: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias5.6%This article: 25.7%Matt Bruce: 2.2%nola.com: 4.4%Framing Effect25.7%This article: 10.4%Matt Bruce: 0.7%nola.com: 0.8%Loss Aversion10.4%This article: 8.9%Matt Bruce: 1.7%nola.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.3%nola.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Matt Bruce: 1.9%nola.com: 3.9%Optimism Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.9%nola.com: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Matt Bruce: 5.1%nola.com: 3.7%Negativity Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 3.1%nola.com: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.4%nola.com: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.3%nola.com: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Matt Bruce: 1.5%nola.com: 1.1%Recency Bias10.0%This article: 3.0%Matt Bruce: 0.1%nola.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.3%nola.com: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.7%Matt Bruce: 3.2%nola.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority6.7%This article: 6.7%Matt Bruce: 0.9%nola.com: 1.1%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.4%nola.com: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.2%nola.com: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 2.8%nola.com: 2.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.6%nola.com: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 3.5%nola.com: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.2%nola.com: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 1.6%nola.com: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.2%Matt Bruce: 1.6%nola.com: 0.5%Burden of Proof5.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 1.8%nola.com: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 1.4%nola.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.2%nola.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 2.4%nola.com: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.3%nola.com: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 1.0%nola.com: 2.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 5.2%Matt Bruce: 0.2%nola.com: 0.4%Indoctrination5.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.7%nola.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 0.0%nola.com: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Bruce: 1.4%nola.com: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

269 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker22%attributed speech210writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJerome Matthews • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJerome Matthews • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJerome Matthews • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJerome Matthews • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jerome Matthews

80%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words100% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Indoctrination+23.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jerome Matthews: 23.7%23.7%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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