Home › Topics › Government › Government ethics › Public office and private gain › Public office should not be usable for priv… › Barring members of Congress and the preside… › Claim: 131 federal judges heard 685 cases involving companies in w…
Claim
131 federal judges heard 685 cases involving companies in which they or their families held stock, over 2010 to 2018. 0.95 Agree Disagree
If you disagree, this page has a column for you. A reason to disagree that answers: “Matched financial disclosures against case dockets, and the paper published the case list”.
Argument TreesHow arguments are scored →
Reasons to agree
| # | Argument | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Matched financial disclosures against case dockets, and the paper published the case list. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
| 2 | Congress responded within a year with the Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act, which suggests the finding was accepted as accurate. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
Reasons to disagree
| # | Argument | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Judges are bound by a recusal statute Congress is not, so what it shows is that disclosure without a holding rule fails in a different institution. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | -0.00 |
Weight for 0.00 · weight against 0.00 · net +0.00
Each reason is a claim with its own page. Score = sign x (2 x Truth - 1) x Conf x Link x Imp x Uniq, and every column is here so the row can be multiplied out and checked. A reason argued false scores negative and counts against the side it is filed on; a reason nobody has argued yet scores exactly 0, and so does one whose own page has no work behind it.
Where This Page Is Used
| Page | Table | As | Its truth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barring members of Congress and the president from owning or trading individual stocks would reduce the use of public office for private gain. | evidence | a row | 0.50 |
Every page that reads this one. One claim, one home, every use visible.
Not filled in yet
| What Would Change the Answer | nothing sits beneath this page yet for the answer to rest on |
| Evidence Ledger | no findings cited yet |
| Falsifiability Test | nothing named that would strengthen or weaken this claim if it turned up |
| Testable Predictions | nothing stated that we should observe if this claim is true or false |
| Objective Criteria | no yardstick both sides would accept in advance has been proposed |
| What Acting On This Would Cost and Gain | no costs or benefits priced yet |
| Logical Anatomy | the claim has not been split into its component parts |
| Interests, Not Positions | nobody has mapped who wants what, or why |
| Media Resources | no books, studies or films weighed |
| Legal Framework | no laws or rulings cited |
| General to Specific | not linked to broader or narrower beliefs |
Parts of the template nobody has filled in here. They are named rather than shown, because an empty table is not a finding, and each one is a reason the confidence above is not higher. A part that takes rows has a form for its first one.
What this page needs right now
| # | The gap | Where it goes | Who is best placed to fill it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A reason to disagree that answers: “Matched financial disclosures against case dockets, and the paper published the case list” | Argument Trees, Reasons to disagree | someone who holds the opposing position |
| 2 | A study, record or dataset that bears on this belief directly | Evidence Ledger | anyone with the source |
| 3 | A measurement both sides would accept in advance, with the reading each side predicts | Objective Criteria | anyone who can name a yardstick the other side would sign |
Named gaps, read off the tables above, so a newcomer can see exactly where a contribution goes. None of them requires agreeing with the page, and each one links to the form it goes in.
What the numbers are made of
- Share on the agree side
- no scored weight either way
- What this rests on
- Statistics and data, with the source cited, no independent replication recorded, starts at 0.95 with weight 1.00
- Confidence
- 58%. Weakest parts: depth 0% · scrutiny 0%
- Depended on
- ReasonRank 0.0000, 1896 of 2173 · beneath 1 of 162 beliefs · read by 1 page
- Strongest reason for
- Matched financial disclosures against case dockets, and the paper published the case list. +0.00
- Strongest reason against
- Judges are bound by a recusal statute Congress is not, so what it shows is that disclosure without a holding rule fails in a different institution. -0.00
- Coverage
- Of 3 scored rows, 3 have no linkage page, 3 have no importance page, 3 have no uniqueness page. This page reads no other page, so nothing beneath it can move it.
- Bottom line
- Strong evidence about disclosure regimes generally; one institution removed from the belief.
Scoring EngineTruth scores →
| Quantity | Value | How |
|---|---|---|
| Argument score | +0.00 | argument rows: weight for minus weight against |
| Evidence score | +0.00 | evidence rows: weight for minus weight against |
| Prediction contribution | +0.00 | prediction rows, same signed formula as every other row |
| Belief score | +0.00 | the three lines above added together |
| Positive total | 0.00 | every row whose signed contribution came out positive, from either side |
| Negative total | 0.00 | every row whose signed contribution came out negative, as a magnitude |
| Starting point | 0.95 | where this claim starts before any of its own rows count: Statistics and data, with the source cited, no independent replication recorded, starts at 0.95 with weight 1.00 |
| Weight of the starting point | 1.00 | k x a bounded reward for independent replication, k = 1, capped at 2.0 x k |
| Truth score, argued | 0.95 | (positive + weight x starting point) / (positive + negative + weight) |
| Truth score | 0.95 | argued truth, capped by the weakest load-bearing component that has its own page |
| ReasonRank | 0.0000 | how much of the site depends on this page: rank 1896 of 2173. The share of a walk that starts at the 162 beliefs and steps to the pages they read, with a 0.85 chance of stepping on each time |
| Work value | 0.0000 | ReasonRank x (1 - confidence): how much settling this page would be worth to everything above it |
| Completeness | yes | at least one scored reason on each side (an importance page: at least one interest; an interest page: both readings filled) |
Cite this page 131 federal judges heard 685 cases involving companies in which they or their families held stock, over 2010 to 2018. Idea Stock Exchange, claim page 131-federal-judges-heard, truth 0.95, confidence 58%, revision 42c8344 of 2026-10-04. The revision is what makes this quotable: these numbers move as the argument is worked on, and rebuilding that revision reproduces them exactly.
Every number on this page as data: 131-federal-judges-heard.json. Constants: K = 1 · UNARG = 0.5 · DEFLINK = 1 · DEFIMP = 0.5 · DEFUNIQ = 1. A reason placed under a conclusion is presumed relevant until a linkage page says otherwise; the burden is on the challenger. The neutral start for importance, the wiki's own rule.
Every value here is computed from the tables above at build time. Nothing is typed.