Row 15611

Row ID: 15611 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 15611 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

This is propaganda created intentionally by one of the conservative justices (I believe Roberts, but it's been a while since I read the article about it) to create the illusion the rest of the court is in support of his agenda. They wrote up a very standard affirmation of support for the code of ethics, and had everyone sign *that,* showing unanimous support *only* for the existence of a code of ethics and their willingness to follow it.

They then *attached* this to a statement saying the current code of ethics was enough and no oversight or modifications were necessary. This created the illusion of unanimous support for *that* position, when in reality the court came nowhere near such unanimous conclusion, and in fact was not even posed the question in the statement they signed.

Basically, if you know what a Motte and Bailey argument is, he had them sign the Motte and attached it to the Bailey.

The Supreme Court is absolutely the most corrupt institution in our government, but as in most cases the right-wing is creating the illusion that "both sides are the same," when in reality if an actual question of revised ethics rules and increased oversight was proposed a lot of the Supreme Court, especially those who lean... less far right, would *likely* support it. (We can't know for sure, of course, because unlike what this stunt was designed to get you to believe, they have not been posed such a question and have not provided a direct and official answer to it.)

FieldValue
text This is propaganda created intentionally by one of the conservative justices (I believe Roberts, but it's been a while since I read the article about it) to create the illusion the rest of the court is in support of his agenda. They wrote up a very standard affirmation of support for the code of ethics, and had everyone sign *that,* showing unanimous support *only* for the existence of a code of ethics and their willingness to follow it. They then *attached* this to a statement saying the curre…
label r/politics
dataType comment
communityName r/politics
datetime 2024-05-20
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lakw4R2M2dG5Hd2JpMElHaEMzVnIySFJ2alhwSkNhMlRUSF9jUzlMWVZYT3JNdXI0dFd5alVlY0E2bUN3WDB3Q0VISndZZ3N5RkN3b2ZFNkV3WWdLSVY4MkE9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9MUndtejJYTkFrM0VQaVpSaEppcUVrVVNXZDVWcEZBTWZjSEFxLVBiQklvcU9Od1ZmSk1kalNoLVJrTUgwOWE1c0EyaUc3YnFNTlRLc1N2Wlg0MzZYcno3anl4cDlqbmp0NG1yQzM4dUdCaEZ4TmJ0Q01WYVgzMERDUzZSR2dXVnliQnRFalg4RHNiNk1ESTZ4YXJ3ZVpvMHM0ejg4ZUpDQjJMU0ZYcmRodklHaWVEc1ZfbF9aRDZPR2E2RkRKODVXY1BONDdxVkZ4MGR2d2NBWlhEdVpvQT09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "This is propaganda created intentionally by one of the conservative justices (I believe Roberts, but it's been a while since I read the article about it) to create the illusion the rest of the court is in support of his agenda. They wrote up a very standard affirmation of support for the code of ethics, and had everyone sign *that,* showing unanimous support *only* for the existence of a code of ethics and their willingness to follow it.\n\nThey then *attached* this to a statement saying the current code of ethics was enough and no oversight or modifications were necessary. This created the illusion of unanimous support for *that* position, when in reality the court came nowhere near such unanimous conclusion, and in fact was not even posed the question in the statement they signed.\n\nBasically, if you know what a Motte and Bailey argument is, he had them sign the Motte and attached it to the Bailey.\n\nThe Supreme Court is absolutely the most corrupt institution in our government, but as in most cases the right-wing is creating the illusion that \"both sides are the same,\" when in reality if an actual question of revised ethics rules and increased oversight was proposed a lot of the Supreme Court, especially those who lean... less far right, would *likely* support it. (We can't know for sure, of course, because unlike what this stunt was designed to get you to believe, they have not been posed such a question and have not provided a direct and official answer to it.)",
  "label": "r/politics",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/politics",
  "datetime": "2024-05-20",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lakw4R2M2dG5Hd2JpMElHaEMzVnIySFJ2alhwSkNhMlRUSF9jUzlMWVZYT3JNdXI0dFd5alVlY0E2bUN3WDB3Q0VISndZZ3N5RkN3b2ZFNkV3WWdLSVY4MkE9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9MUndtejJYTkFrM0VQaVpSaEppcUVrVVNXZDVWcEZBTWZjSEFxLVBiQklvcU9Od1ZmSk1kalNoLVJrTUgwOWE1c0EyaUc3YnFNTlRLc1N2Wlg0MzZYcno3anl4cDlqbmp0NG1yQzM4dUdCaEZ4TmJ0Q01WYVgzMERDUzZSR2dXVnliQnRFalg4RHNiNk1ESTZ4YXJ3ZVpvMHM0ejg4ZUpDQjJMU0ZYcmRodklHaWVEc1ZfbF9aRDZPR2E2RkRKODVXY1BONDdxVkZ4MGR2d2NBWlhEdVpvQT09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information