SC judges tell US Congress their safety is at risk and more be spent on security 64%

By Agencies22%

7/15/2026, 3:47:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Biased Writer Voice, and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 35.5% saturation with 116 hits. Analysis detected 730 faulty-reasoning hits from 327 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.4% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,774 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.30% of the article peer group.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett laid out in personal terms on Tuesday the reasons she said Congress should approve a roughly 10% annual budget increase for the US Supreme Court to bolster security, telling lawmakers about threats that she and her family have recently faced. 
The appearance by Barrett, along with Justice Elena Kagan before the appropriations subcommittee of the House of Representatives, was the first by sitting justices before Congress since 2019, excluding Senate confirmation hearings for nominees. 
The Supreme Court police department expects a “substantial 38% annual increase in threats this year, which follows a 25% increase last year,” Kagan told lawmakers in an opening statement. 
“For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialise,” she said. 
Barrett told lawmakers about some of the threats she and her family have encountered. 
She said that when threats intensified after the leak in 2022 of a draft of the court’s ruling overturning Roe vs Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that guaranteed the right to abortion nationwide, her security detail sent her home with a bulletproof vest, prompting her then 12-yearold son to ask what it was. 
“I didn’t expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why Ihad to wear one.” 
In one of the most highprofile incidents, a California resident appeared near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland home in 2022 armed with a handgun. 
Sophie Roske pleaded guilty to attempted assassination. 
According to data from the US marshals service, nearly 400 judges faced threats last year and 276 have been targeted this year as of July 1. 
Barrett and Kagan defended the court’s nearly $230 million request for the next fiscal year, a roughly 10% increase from this year. 
Report by Reuters 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.8%agencies: 1.4%The Times of India: 4.4%Confirmation Bias16.8%This article: 0.0%agencies: 1.1%The Times of India: 1.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%agencies: 2.4%The Times of India: 5.1%Availability Heuristic21.1%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.5%The Times of India: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.3%The Times of India: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.5%The Times of India: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%agencies: 8.0%The Times of India: 5.8%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 1.9%The Times of India: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.1%The Times of India: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%agencies: 5.6%The Times of India: 6.1%Negativity Bias14.7%This article: 20.2%agencies: 1.6%The Times of India: 2.8%Self-Serving Bias20.2%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.5%The Times of India: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 1.4%The Times of India: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.5%The Times of India: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 1.4%The Times of India: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.4%The Times of India: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.2%The Times of India: 1.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 1.1%The Times of India: 2.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.8%agencies: 4.6%The Times of India: 4.3%Appeal to Authority16.8%This article: 4.9%agencies: 0.5%The Times of India: 1.5%False Dilemma4.9%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 1.4%The Times of India: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 35.5%agencies: 7.1%The Times of India: 17.5%Appeal to Emotion35.5%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.6%The Times of India: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 16.2%agencies: 2.8%The Times of India: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.2%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.5%The Times of India: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.4%The Times of India: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.8%agencies: 2.2%The Times of India: 7.0%Anecdotal20.8%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.2%The Times of India: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.2%The Times of India: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.2%The Times of India: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.8%The Times of India: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.8%agencies: 1.4%The Times of India: 3.2%Unattributed Quote16.8%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.9%The Times of India: 3.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 21.1%agencies: 2.8%The Times of India: 3.4%Biased Writer Voice21.1%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.1%The Times of India: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%agencies: 0.0%The Times of India: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%agencies: 0.7%The Times of India: 3.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.5%

327 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers78%attributed speech73writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageElena Kagan • 29 words • 100.0% coverageElena Kagan • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 53 words • 100.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSophie Roske • 7 words • 0.0% coverageUS marshals service • 26 words • 100.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 22 words • 0.0% coverageReuters • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

US marshals service

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words10% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%US marshals service: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-21.9 ptsWriter: 21.9%US marshals service: 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.