Fox News⁠97%

Jonathan Turley: This is MADDENING ⁠92%

4/2/2026, 11:00:02 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Emotion, and Overconfidence Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 74.4% saturation with 485 hits. Analysis detected 3,640 faulty-reasoning hits from 652 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (1,492 of 16,813 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 91.10% of the video peer group.

here with his own analysis, Jonathan Turley, Fox News contributor and George Washington University law professor. Um, 
Jonathan, I was just thinking all morning long, the president has not sat through an oral argument before, I don't believe, and this one was for the ages. 
But what do you think he probably thought? Where's the common sense here? 
Well, that was the second great question, whether the president could sit absolutely silently as an argument went on that he felt strongly about. So, uh, we answered that question. He was able to do that, but it must have been hard at points, uh, because I'm sure some of these questions were maddening. 
The fact is the policy is maddening. 
It's perfectly insane. That's why very few countries accept birthright citizenship. Uh and so the the difficulty with this case is that it's hard to really justify the policy when you look at what's happening uh with you know in in China alone hundreds of of of these tourism uh sites are are sending people over for the sole purpose of having children here. O only a moronic nation would allow that type of industry to flourish. None of our allies do in Europe. 
Europe. But these these justices really uh were grappling with over a hundred years of precedent. I the hilarious aspect of this Laura and I'm sure you felt the same way was to hear the liberal justices who rarely allow the language of the constitution to stand in the way of a pre a preferred interpretation. Uh but they seem to be channeling Scalia today. you know, talking about, you know, we really have to go back to that original intent and and you know, it's pretty clear this is the English rule. Uh, and that obviously played to the conservative justices, but you know, I in my Supreme Court class and we we talked about this case, we presented it, I often ask my students and predicting the outcome um whether we have a default case. Sometimes you have a default case. Sometimes you have a case where everything's in equipoise for justices and the question is where do they run home to? 
And for conservatives, they tend to run home uh to this place. They tend to follow the president. They they tend not to read too much into the language and that's benefiting the left here. 
>> Well, one thing that was interesting I thought was this question of doicile, not to get too wonky, but what actually constitutes a a current eligible person to have an American child, give birth to an American child. So the original president from 1898 were two green essentially green card holders. I don't think they called it green card back then but they were lawfully president in the United States. Totally different from illegally in the United States or coming here for the sole purpose of giving birth which that family was not doing. 
That's right. And in fact the administration feels that that case uh one can mark supports them. The problem is the justices I was most looking at were not seemingly buying that. Roberts, Kavanaaugh, uh, Gorsuch, Kavanaaugh was openly talking about ways that you could to finish off this case easily uh, against the government. So, it was a gulp moment for for the government today. 
>> Well, they were swinging for the fences over there in the SG's office, Jonathan, but not sure that I'm not sure that's going to pan out. Don't hold your breath for Congress to do anything on this. That's never happening either. Jonathan, I was wish wishing I could just watch President Trump during that whole argument. 
argument. Thank you so much. Be sure to like and subscribe for all the Fox News latest on YouTube and catch full shows streaming now on Fox 
Confirmation Bias
25.2%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
31.7%
Representativeness Heuristic
18.3%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
40.5%
Framing Effect
1.8%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
15%
Negativity Bias
74.4%
Self-Serving Bias
8.3%
Fundamental Attribution Error
35.3%
Actor-Observer Bias
10.1%
In-Group Bias
5.4%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
12.9%
Primacy Effect
2.6%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
27.8%
False Dilemma
36.2%
Slippery Slope
8.7%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
62.3%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
4.1%
Appeal to Emotion
48.2%
Begging the Question
1.1%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
12.1%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
30.5%
Anecdotal
31.3%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
14.6%
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%

652 words analyzed.

Analysis

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