Food Safety News Article Rating

Supreme Court finds EPA over-stepped its authority under Clean Water Act

  • Bias Rating

    38% Medium Conservative

  • Reliability

    35% ReliableFair

  • Policy Leaning

    38% Medium Conservative

  • Politician Portrayal

    -22% Negative

Bias Score Analysis

The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.

Sentiments

Overall Sentiment

N/A

  •   Liberal
  •   Conservative
SentenceSentimentBias
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan.

Bias Meter

Extremely
Liberal

Very
Liberal

Moderately
Liberal

Somewhat Liberal

Center

Somewhat Conservative

Moderately
Conservative

Very
Conservative

Extremely
Conservative

-100%
Liberal

100%
Conservative

Bias Meter

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

56% : "The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Sackett v. EPA today comes as welcome news to farmers, landowners, and state departments of agriculture who sought clarity on what has been an over-litigated issue for decades," McKinney said.
55% : Looking forward, NASDA said it will continue to work with EPA, the Corps, and NASDA members to update and implement a regulatory framework that better reflects the needs of state agriculture departments, farmers, ranchers, and all the communities they serve.
48% : In response to the decision in Sackett v. EPA.
47% : Going against volumes of stakeholder input, EPA and the Corps issued a WOTUS rulemaking before today's SCOTUS decision, which now renders portions of the agency's final WOTUS rule moot.
45% :NASDA turns to EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue a revised version of their released WOTUS rule.
43% : The 5-to-4 majority opinion found that in Sackett v. EPA that federal regulators have long overstepped their authority under the Clean Water Act.
43% : Alito opened by explaining the origins of the dispute between the Sacketts and EPA as follows:"Petitioners Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased property near Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare for building a home.
43% : The Environmental Protection Agency informed the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging pollutants into "the waters of the United States.""The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.

Copy link