Daily Kos84%

Meet the freaks Trump may tap for the Supreme Court 91%

By Lisa Needham97%

7/3/2026, 4:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 80.4% saturation with 843 hits. Analysis detected 4,302 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,048 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.3% and a BS Rank of 91% (2,106 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.40% of the article peer group.

It’s tough to imagine a Supreme Court with justices worse than the current crop of conservatives, but the folks who are currently vying to replace whichever justice steps down first are definitively, openly, gleefully *much* more terrible. 
To be fair, sources have said that neither Justice Samuel Alito nor Justice Clarence Thomas are planning on stepping down, despite recent reporting and then retracting from NPR on Alito, but that reporting overlooks the careful verbiage Alito is using, which is that he is “not stepping down this term.” 
Notice he said this term. 
Terms end on the Sunday before the first Monday in October, so this term ends Oct. 
4. 
Alito’s statement says nothing about the upcoming term that starts the next day. 
But what we do know is that Alito is planning on dropping his no-doubt-scintillating book on his originalist philosophy on Oct. 6, and might be gearing up for a book tour rather than another year on the court. 
The fact that there might not actually be a spot to fill isn’t stopping the most craven jurists from doing everything to make sure President Donald Trump notices just how willing they are to ensure that the Supreme Court doesn’t get all caught up in stupid things like the law and precedent. 
That’s for suckers. 
Trump believes his Supreme Court appointees are not allowed to rule against him and that the only purpose of the nation’s highest court is to give him treats. 
All of these potential candidates absolutely understand that is the assignment. 
So, let’s run down the judges who are the most likely—and most awful—candidates who could ascend if Alito or Thomas steps down. 
Judge James Ho is arguably the worst judge on the worst federal appeals court, the Fifth Circuit. 
Ho has genuinely lost the plot, arguing that the Supreme Court is not there to “check the excesses of other branches.” 
Perhaps being a fancy federal appeals judge and a former clerk to Justice Thomas rots your brain and sense of civic duty, because being a check on the excesses of other branches is kind of the whole job description for the Supreme Court. 
Ho also fretted about how the current Supreme Court showed “disrespect” to Trump when it ruled that detainees had to be allowed to challenge their detentions rather than being summarily deported. 
Another Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit, Andrew Oldham, is also busy treating his current position as a way to show Trump that he has no intention of ever ruling against him. 
According to Judge Oldham, a former Alito clerk, if Trump declares that there is a terrible invasion by Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, no court can ever review it, and Trump can therefore deport all Venezuelan citizens. 
He even came right out and said that any detainees Trump says are members of Tren de Aragua also cannot challenge that, period. 
So, if Trump says that every Venezuelan in the United States is a TdA member, no matter how absurd a lie that is, the courts just have to nod and agree. 
The only recourse in this situation, said Oldham, would be to “challenge whether they are Venezuelan.” 
Imagine thinking that, much less putting it in writing. 
Just like the Fifth Circuit, the D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals boasts not one, but two, possible Trump appointees who are currently doing everything in their power to protect Trump from any adverse lower court rulings. 
Judge Neomi Rao has made sure to let her colleagues know how incandescently angry she was when they didn’t treat a Supreme Court shadow docket ruling as a permission slip for Trump to fire whoever he wants. 
There’s also Gregory Katsas, who believes that courts cannot impose any consequences on Trump or the executive branch. 
So, per Katsas, Judge James Boasberg’s order requiring the government to turn two planes full of deportees around was just somehow not clear and therefore Judge Boasberg couldn’t open an inquiry as to whether the Department of Justice lawyers who simply ignored that order should be subject to criminal contempt. 
Over in the Second Circuit, Judge Steven Menashi is showing what a loyal justice he would be by haranguing his colleagues about Trump’s attempt to throw out the jury verdict finding him liable for sexually abusing E. 
Jean Carroll. 
Katsas whined about how unfair the lower court was in not letting Trump provide evidence that he believed her lawsuit was “concocted by his political opposition” and therefore he could not have defamed her. 
Yes, how dare the rest of the Second Circuit not buy the notion that they are required to entertain Trump’s conspiracy theories. 
Emil Bove, formerly one of many personal attorneys who represented Trump in criminal cases, was rewarded for his efforts with an appointment to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 
You would think that normally, being the subject of multiple whistleblower complaints about refusing to follow court orders would be a bit of a hindrance to a lifetime seat, but for Trump, Bove’s actions were a feature, not a bug. 
And then there’s U.S. 
District Judge Aileen Cannon. 
Cannon’s efforts at protecting Trump from any criminal consequences are truly unparalleled. 
She didn’t just throw out the criminal case over Trump’s retention of top secret documents after he left office, documents which he stashed in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. 
She also came up with a very  unique theory that former Special Counsel Jack Smith could never release the report of his investigation and that even writing up the investigation was somehow illegal. 
However, Trump doesn’t seem to gush about Cannon nearly as much as one might expect, given her willingness to lend him a helping hand. 
There could be some dark horses in the crop of Trump’s second-term appointees, as they haven’t had much time to show him their absolute fealty. 
However, since it is clear that every appointee realized they were required to refuse to say Joe Biden won the 2020 election, Trump can no doubt count on their unquestioning support. 
In the end, perhaps it doesn’t matter who Trump picks. 
If Trump gets a chance to install another Supreme Court justice, every one of these choices is bad for the court and bad for democracy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.5%Lisa Needham: 11.3%Daily Kos: 5.7%Confirmation Bias9.5%This article: 0.5%Lisa Needham: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.5%This article: 3.6%Lisa Needham: 2.8%Daily Kos: 3.3%Availability Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.7%Lisa Needham: 1.0%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.7%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.8%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Lisa Needham: 2.0%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias6.6%This article: 1.0%Lisa Needham: 11.1%Daily Kos: 8.9%Framing Effect1.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.0%Lisa Needham: 0.6%Daily Kos: 1.4%Optimism Bias6.0%This article: 5.5%Lisa Needham: 2.8%Daily Kos: 2.0%Pessimism Bias5.5%This article: 65.7%Lisa Needham: 32.7%Daily Kos: 15.4%Negativity Bias65.7%This article: 2.8%Lisa Needham: 0.6%Daily Kos: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias2.8%This article: 3.1%Lisa Needham: 4.8%Daily Kos: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 2.8%Daily Kos: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.7%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.5%Daily Kos: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 2.0%Daily Kos: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Lisa Needham: 0.9%Daily Kos: 1.5%Recency Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 34.5%Lisa Needham: 17.6%Daily Kos: 5.8%Ad Hominem34.5%This article: 11.0%Lisa Needham: 4.7%Daily Kos: 1.4%Straw Man11.0%This article: 6.5%Lisa Needham: 3.6%Daily Kos: 3.2%Appeal to Authority6.5%This article: 18.3%Lisa Needham: 3.3%Daily Kos: 2.3%False Dilemma18.3%This article: 6.5%Lisa Needham: 3.6%Daily Kos: 1.3%Slippery Slope6.5%This article: 4.1%Lisa Needham: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning4.1%This article: 21.4%Lisa Needham: 15.7%Daily Kos: 9.8%Hasty Generalization21.4%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.1%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.9%Lisa Needham: 12.0%Daily Kos: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion16.9%This article: 9.3%Lisa Needham: 5.7%Daily Kos: 1.9%Begging the Question9.3%This article: 6.4%Lisa Needham: 5.9%Daily Kos: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.4%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.8%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.7%Lisa Needham: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.3%Composition/Division0.7%This article: 8.3%Lisa Needham: 1.8%Daily Kos: 2.0%Anecdotal8.3%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.8%Lisa Needham: 2.3%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.8%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.9%Lisa Needham: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.9%This article: 6.0%Lisa Needham: 0.7%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading6.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.8%Lisa Needham: 5.3%Daily Kos: 2.8%Unattributed Quote14.8%This article: 5.2%Lisa Needham: 3.1%Daily Kos: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 80.4%Lisa Needham: 59.4%Daily Kos: 23.1%Biased Writer Voice80.4%This article: 9.5%Lisa Needham: 3.7%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination9.5%This article: 31.8%Lisa Needham: 18.0%Daily Kos: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias31.8%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.0%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1048 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.3%attributed speech972writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Oldham • 37 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Oldham • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Oldham • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Andrew Oldham

100%flagged-word coverage
76 attributed words100% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Biased Writer Voice-86.7 ptsWriter: 86.7%Andrew Oldham: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+59.2 ptsWriter: 10.5%Andrew Oldham: 69.7%69.7%Politically Left Leaning B-34.3 ptsWriter: 34.3%Andrew Oldham: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Andrew Oldham: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.7 ptsWriter: 5.7%Andrew Oldham: 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.