Townhall87%

Wait, Ketanji Brown Jackson Really Said That…on This Podcast? 90%

By Matt Vespa76%

7/31/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Ad Hominem, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 24.3% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 467 faulty-reasoning hits from 218 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.7% and a BS Rank of 90% (2,472 of 22,840 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.20% of the article peer group.

There’s not much to add here, except if you thought Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was out of her depth with her opinions, you’re in for a treat with this clip. 
Jackson has been a source of comedy and concern: the conservative side is losing patience with her inability to understand the law, and that frustration has also reached the court’s liberal side. 
Some don’t even join her dissents; they file separate ones. 
Justice Jackson said she’s very careful about which public engagements she participates in to avoid appearing partisan. 
It’s a classic lack of self-awareness that’s frankly remarkable. 
She wants to seem impartial, which is fine, but she made these remarks on Michelle Obama’s podcast. 
You cannot make this up: 
Like, you can’t be that dense, right? 
But we’re talking about the American liberal, and even worse, someone from their supposed academic circles, where nuance is also dead. 
Justice Jackson just doesn’t understand her role, so it’s not shocking that she self-immolated here. 
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? 
Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Confirmation Bias
11.5%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
7.8%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
4.1%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
24.3%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
9.6%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
18.8%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
3.2%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
22%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
7.8%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
24.3%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
21.6%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
14.7%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
24.3%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
20.2%

218 words analyzed.

Analysis

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