Alaska v. a Charter Plane and a Six-Pack of Beer ⁠2%

By Sarah Isgur⁠0% David French⁠0%

7/23/2026, 7:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 22.2% saturation with 30 hits. Analysis detected 53 faulty-reasoning hits from 135 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 13.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠2% (20,053 of 20,472 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.00% of the article peer group.

Sarah Isgur and David French explain a case in which an Alaskan charter plane was seized over a six-pack of beer and discuss Title IX due-process rights on college campuses. 
Sarah and David are then joined by Harvard Law professor Richard Re to break down his column arguing that Chief Justice John Roberts is moderating from the front. 
<strong>The Agenda:</strong> 
—<a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-whether-airplane-was-improperly-seized-s/">Alaskan charter plane seized over a six-pack</a> 
—<a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl? 
Submit=Display&amp;Path=Y2026/D07-20/C:22-2454:J:Kirsch:aut:T:fnOp:N:3576025:S:0">Title IX and due process</a> 
—Antisemitism and Title VI 
—<a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/is-chief-justice-roberts-moderating-from-the-front/">Is Chief Justice Roberts moderating from the front? 
</a> 
—<a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/335a95a6-d130-4c00-8b09-3c2a9995e042/content">Alexander Bickel and passive virtues</a> 
—The left and court-packing 
<strong>Show notes:</strong> 
—<a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S. 
_Currency"><em>United States v. $124,700 in U.S. 
Currency</em></a> 
Confirmation Bias
8.9%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
8.1%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
22.2%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
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
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

135 words analyzed.

Analysis

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