Topic summary

⁠0%1 analyzed article/video4,169 analyzed words

BS Summary: These Judicial Philosophy results contain 45 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Ad Hominem, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 17.4% saturation with 2,897 hits. Analysis detected 16,520 faulty-reasoning hits from 16,676 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠31% (11,505 of 16,562 topics). This Judicial Philosophy is better (less manipulative) than 69.50% of the peer group.

Judicial Philosophy

Topic ranking list

Percentile	Topic	BS Score
⁠0%	Uber	1%
⁠0%	Pittsburgh Pirates	1%
⁠0%	Opera	1%
⁠0%	Holocaust	1%
⁠0%	Privacy Policy	1%
⁠31%	Judicial Philosophy (selected)	3%
⁠100%	Radio Roundup / Week In Review	60%
⁠100%	E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes	60%
⁠100%	E Bikes Rad Power Bikes	60%
⁠100%	The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell	69%
⁠100%	The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell	69%

Topic details

Total words: 16,676

Article count: 1

Authors

Ian Millhiser

Loading chart...

Attribute Prevalence (Top 48)

Judicial Philosophy attribute prevalence percentages (biases/fallacies), sorted highest to lowest.

Loading chart...

Judicial Philosophy vs sitewide

Judicial Philosophy attribute percentages, with an overlaid sitewide baseline for those same attributes.

Analyzed articles and videos

Sort by

The Supreme Court can no longer explain itself⁠^46%

Vox⁠^50%By Ian Millhiser⁠^56%7/3/2026, 3:45:00 AM