MS NOW⁠95%

What the Amy Coney Barrett backlash reveals about being a moderate conservative woman in Trump’s America ⁠67%

By Susan Del Percio⁠0%

7/5/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 36 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 70.6% saturation with 439 hits. Analysis detected 2,160 faulty-reasoning hits from 622 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (7,070 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.60% of the article peer group.

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, an issue so important to the president that he attended oral arguments in person back in April. 
Despite the court’s conservative majority, the ruling should not have surprised the president — not really. 
For one thing, his order had been rejected by every lower court that had considered it. 
Because, as many, many legal scholars had pointed out, it seemed to clearly run counter to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. 
Following oral argument, the consensus among legal scholars was that a majority of justices did not buy the government’s argument. 
They were correct, as Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion made clear. 
Roberts, appointed by President George W. 
Bush, in 2005, has remained a solidly conservative jurist. 
But it was Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote in favor of the majority which took some court watchers by surprise. 
And it was also Barrett’s vote which seems to have enraged conservatives in a specific, and perhaps specifically revealing, way. 
It was also Barrett’s vote which seems to have enraged conservatives in a specific, and perhaps specifically revealing, way. 
Following the ruling Trump called on Congress to take action on social media. 
“Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship.” 
Right on cue, his sycophants picked up the chorus. 
Never mind the inconvenient reality that experts across the political spectrum widely believe the issue settled, or that changing the 14th Amendment would require a supermajority vote in both the House and Senate (or an even less likely constitutional convention), and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. 
Misogyny in Trump world is nothing new. 
But there’s something especially galling about watching a once trailblazing woman like former Rep. 
Nancy Mace call for Barrett to be removed from the bench in what feels like a desperate attempt to stay relevant. 
I didn’t see Mace, the first female cadet to graduate from The Citadel in South Carolina, calling for the chief justice to be removed. 
Right-wing commentator Matt Walsh’s inflammatory comments were even more inane: “The worst Supreme Court Justices of all time have all been women. 
That’s just a fact. 
Republican presidents should take the hint.” 
This is ragebait, pure and simple, designed by Walsh to monetize the moment by insulting four vastly superior legal minds. 
But the fact that we know what Walsh is doing doesn’t make it any less gross. 
As transparent as his motivations might be, they still do come at a cost. 
Barrett’s occasionally centrist legal opinions merely confirm the fact that she is, in fact, a principled and thoughtful jurist. 
But conservatives, who have spent the past decade heckling liberals about purity tests and cancel culture, are now demanding ideological subservience and judicial groupthink. 
And they are singling her out in a way they don’t seem to be doing with other conservatives on the court who sometimes side with liberals. 
Justice Neil Gorsuch, for example, joined Barrett and the liberal majority to strike down Trump’s international tariffs earlier this year. 
Meanwhile, Barrett voted to overturn Roe v. 
Wade. 
But that’s irrelevant, according to Notre Dame’s College Republicans chapter (where Barrett attended law school), who called their famous alumnus an “absolute disgrace to the Notre Dame name.” 
When Barrett is demeaned by self-serving ideologues, every conservative, liberal and moderate member of the Supreme Court is diminished. 
America’s judicial system is one of our most treasured principles, and it is all of our jobs to defend it – not just when it is convenient, but even when we disagree with its conclusions. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.1%Susan Del Percio: 8.7%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias20.1%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Susan Del Percio: 3.2%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic9.6%This article: 5.3%Susan Del Percio: 1.3%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 4.5%Susan Del Percio: 1.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias4.5%This article: 2.9%Susan Del Percio: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 8.8%Susan Del Percio: 4.8%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect8.8%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.6%Susan Del Percio: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.0%Susan Del Percio: 8.2%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias33.0%This article: 6.6%Susan Del Percio: 3.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias6.6%This article: 4.5%Susan Del Percio: 4.3%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error4.5%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Susan Del Percio: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias8.4%This article: 4.2%Susan Del Percio: 3.6%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.2%This article: 3.1%Susan Del Percio: 2.3%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.3%Susan Del Percio: 1.1%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Susan Del Percio: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias3.9%This article: 8.4%Susan Del Percio: 9.0%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem8.4%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 3.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.8%Susan Del Percio: 5.8%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority8.8%This article: 1.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma1.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.1%Susan Del Percio: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.1%This article: 15.3%Susan Del Percio: 5.7%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization15.3%This article: 4.5%Susan Del Percio: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring4.5%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 25.2%Susan Del Percio: 12.0%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion25.2%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.3%Susan Del Percio: 0.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.3%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 3.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.6%Susan Del Percio: 1.9%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof7.6%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.3%Susan Del Percio: 1.6%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division6.3%This article: 8.2%Susan Del Percio: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal8.2%This article: 3.9%Susan Del Percio: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman3.9%This article: 3.2%Susan Del Percio: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.2%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.6%Susan Del Percio: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity2.6%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.2%Susan Del Percio: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy3.2%This article: 15.8%Susan Del Percio: 4.6%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote15.8%This article: 6.1%Susan Del Percio: 2.4%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection6.1%This article: 70.6%Susan Del Percio: 28.4%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice70.6%This article: 10.8%Susan Del Percio: 7.7%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination10.8%This article: 12.7%Susan Del Percio: 5.3%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias12.7%This article: 3.2%Susan Del Percio: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Susan Del Percio: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

622 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers9.6%attributed speech562writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Walsh • 22 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Walsh • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Walsh • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNotre Dame’s College Republicans chapter • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words47% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+87.5 ptsWriter: 12.5%Notre Dame’s College Republicans chapter: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+26.9 ptsWriter: 73.1%Notre Dame’s College Republicans chapter: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B-14.1 ptsWriter: 14.1%Notre Dame’s College Republicans chapter: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Notre Dame’s College Republicans chapter: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Notre Dame’s College Republicans chapter: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Notre Dame’s College Republicans chapter: 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.