Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-05-27 11:58:56 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D6DC438E9A9A81C2D3790D448806CE700291FD8F437A5D69E97B18ACFE9EA66E
Participant Details

Original Note:

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

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1662421073344823298
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - D6DC438E9A9A81C2D3790D448806CE700291FD8F437A5D69E97B18ACFE9EA66E
  • createdAtMillis - 1685188736066
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1662421073344823298D6DC438E9A9A81C2D3790D448806CE700291FD8F437A5D69E97B18ACFE9EA66E