Birdwatch Note
2023-05-27 11:30:44 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING
The court agreed unanimously that CWA did not apply to Sackett property, but split 5-4 on the opinion. The majority opinion reversed five decades of EPA rule making and limited the scope of the CWA's authority to regulate waters of the US, which 4 judges disapproved of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency_(2023) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Written by 4E5743C652F3801F461FE559BEEE741F7F016098F206E963AA11A47F6BFE437F
Participant Details
Original Tweet
Tweet embedding is no longer reliably available, due to the platform's instability (in terms of both technology and policy). If the Tweet still exists, you can view it here: https://twitter.com/foo_bar/status/1662186843826438144
Please note, though, that you may need to have your own Twitter account to access that page. I am currently exploring options for archiving Tweet data in a post-API context.
All Information
- ID - 1662421073344823298
- noteId - 1662421073344823298
- participantId -
- noteAuthorParticipantId - 4E5743C652F3801F461FE559BEEE741F7F016098F206E963AA11A47F6BFE437F Participant Details
- createdAtMillis - 1685187044834
- tweetId - 1662186843826438144
- classification - NOT_MISLEADING
- believable -
- harmful -
- validationDifficulty -
- misleadingOther - 0
- misleadingFactualError - 0
- misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
- misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
- misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
- misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
- misleadingSatire - 0
- notMisleadingOther - 0
- notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 1
- notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
- notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
- notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
- trustworthySources - 1
- summary
- The court agreed unanimously that CWA did not apply to Sackett property, but split 5-4 on the opinion. The majority opinion reversed five decades of EPA rule making and limited the scope of the CWA's authority to regulate waters of the US, which 4 judges disapproved of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency_(2023) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Note Status History
| createdAt | timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus | firstNonNMRStatus | timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus | currentStatus | timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus | mostRecentNonNMRStatus | participantId |
| 2023-05-27 11:30:44 UTC (1685187044834) |
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC (-1) |
2023-05-31 02:39:52 UTC (1685500792003) |
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC (-1) |
Note Ratings
| rated at | rated by | |
| 2023-05-27 11:45:27 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 09:28:05 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 07:41:23 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 07:37:28 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 07:36:52 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 07:35:24 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 07:29:00 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 07:16:36 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 07:03:37 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 06:58:56 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 06:53:18 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 06:51:09 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 06:50:57 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-05-27 06:42:05 -0500 | Rating Details |