There are no Supreme Court vacancies, but some judges are acting like there might be ⁠24%

By Julian Mark⁠0%

5/30/2026, 10:00:01 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Quote-first Misdirection, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 64.6% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 238 faulty-reasoning hits from 82 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠24% (16,644 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.00% of the article peer group.

One judge appears to have dropped his long-standing support for birthright citizenship. 
Another wrote that the federal judiciary should not demand President Donald Trump’s “homework.” 
A third opened a recent dissent with a crude term for male genitalia. 
COMPOSITE IMAGE: From left: Lawrence VanDyke, James C. 
Ho and Andrew Oldham. 
(From left: 9th U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals/Reuters; Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post; Shuran Huang/For The Washington Post) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 2.3%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.8%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 2.4%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.2%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 14.6%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.3%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Julian Mark: 19.6%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect18.3%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.1%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.9%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 2.5%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 64.6%Julian Mark: 9.8%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias64.6%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 2.8%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.6%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.9%Julian Mark: 2.7%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias15.9%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Julian Mark: 2.1%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem15.9%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.7%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.6%Julian Mark: 2.8%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization14.6%This article: 15.9%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring15.9%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 31.7%Julian Mark: 6.6%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion31.7%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.8%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 14.6%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof14.6%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.3%Julian Mark: 3.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.3%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.9%Julian Mark: 2.1%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote15.9%This article: 31.7%Julian Mark: 1.8%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection31.7%This article: 18.3%Julian Mark: 17.8%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice18.3%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.9%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 4.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 5.4%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

82 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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