Origin articleStored source

David Cole's Qualified Defense of the Supreme Court

The prominent liberal legal scholar and former ACLU leader outlines how the Court has often checked Trump, but also critiques it for going against precedent.

Reason By Ilya Somin Aug 1, 2026, 9:45 PM Captured Aug 1, 2026, 10:12 PM

Read the original Read Bold's report

Captured text

Source excerpt

11,704 extracted characters

Debate over the Supreme Court's performance in recent years has become highly polarized.

So it's worth noting that prominent left-liberal Georgetown law professor David Cole recently published a qualified defense of the Supreme Court's recent rulings in the New York Review.

He emphasizes their crucial role in constraining abuses of power by Trump.

Cole is also the former National Director of the ACLU, and thus - to understate the point - not a natural ally of the Court's conservative majority.

Bold News stores the normalized extraction for evidence and analysis. This public wrapper shows a limited excerpt; use the original link for the publisher's complete presentation.

Framing report

Origin wording grade

B 20/100 risk

Grade B reflects 20/100 framing risk from decision pressure, sweeping generalization; each finding below is tied to stored wording.

Report confidence: 86%
Content format: opinion
Evidence findings: 3
Sentences checked: 85
Method: origin-framing-v2

Outlet context is separate libertarian-right (+55, 60% confidence). This profile does not change the article grade.

Evidence behind the grade

Decision pressurebody

+5 · 82% confidence

Overall, I very much agree with Cole's point that the Court has been a crucial check on Trump's power grabs, even if it hasn't always constrained him as much as it should.

The wording urges a conclusion or action rather than only describing the reported facts. Its weight is reduced because this article is identified as opinion.

Decision pressurebody

+5 · 82% confidence

If they are convinced that the latter conflicts with the former, they should overrule, if at all possible.

The wording urges a conclusion or action rather than only describing the reported facts. Its weight is reduced because this article is identified as opinion.

Sweeping generalizationbody

+10 · 78% confidence

Overall, I very much agree with Cole's point that the Court has been a crucial check on Trump's power grabs, even if it hasn't always constrained him as much as it should.

The wording makes a broad claim that may exceed the evidence described in the sentence.

Useful context, not penalties

Opinion format 1
Argumentative wording is expected in this format, so narrator-voice and decision-pressure cues receive reduced weight.
Uncertainty qualifiers 2
Qualifiers such as may, might, or reportedly are disclosed as technique but do not add framing-risk points by themselves.

The justices may not be, as Trump called them after he lost the tariffs case, "fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats," but this is not Donald Trump's Court….
Charged wording in legal context 1
The wording was preserved as context but excluded from the grade because it appeared in an attributed quote or a legal/allegation context.

The justices may not be, as Trump called them after he lost the tariffs case, "fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats," but this is not Donald Trump's Court….

What this grade does and does not mean

This grade evaluates wording and reader-steering cues, not factual accuracy.
The outlet's general profile is separate context and does not affect this article grade.
Potential omissions require comparison with other reporting and are not graded from one article alone.