Given a document and an entity the task is to select the author's sentiment towards the entity. Sentiments can be Positive, Neutral and Negative. Select Positive if the article expresses a positive view towards the given entity or praises its quality or skills. Select Neutral if the document expresses no clear view towards the entity or has equal amounts of positive and negative statements or expressing some fact/quote by someone else. Select Negative if the article expresses a negative view towards like harsh remarks, criticizing entities action/decision etc. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Susan Avery ? The clock has finally run out for an Upper East Side judge who ridiculed a lawyer with cerebral palsy and allowed cases involving tenants without heat or hot water to drag on   sources told The Post . The Manhattan Housing Court ’ s advisory council   which reviews its judges after each four - year term   recently ruled that jurist Susan Avery should get the boot — as it catalogued years of complaints against her   sources said . Avery ’ s chief - judge boss is now set to follow through on the recommendation by the end of the year   sources said . “ Considering the complaints against her   it ’ s about time for her to leave the bench  ” said Alan Flacks   a longtime local resident pushing for judicial reform . Avery   52   of East 84th Street   landed her $ 175   000 - a - year job in 2012 thanks to a political appointment by then - Chief Judge Gail Prudenti . But she started demonstrating poor judgment almost immediately from the bench   according to the 14 - member Advisory Council for the Housing Part of the Civil Court of New York City . In 2013   Avery reprimanded a lawyer with cerebral palsy for his sloppy handwriting   the panel said in its four - page finding   which called the judge “ unfeeling .’’ The incident resulted in a letter of caution being placed in Avery ’ s file   according to a court source . The council — comprised of representatives from both the real - estate industry and tenants ’ organizations appointed by the mayor and governor — also criticized Avery for “ excessive multi - week adjournments ” for cases involving lack of heat and hot water   said the letter   a copy of which was read to The Post . The advisory council said in its decision last month that the New York Law School grad showed a general “ lack of concern ” for the litigants before her . The council added it was “ disturbed further ” by conflicts of interests involving the Housing Court judge ’ s family real - estate holdings . A court source said  Avery  failed to disclose that a law firm administering a family trust also regularly represents landlords in cases before the judge . Meanwhile   the jurist garnered a “ not approved ” rating by the city Bar Association — twice . Voters also refused to back her two bids to move up to civil court . In the summer of 2016    a judge who was running against Avery for a civil - court position  lodged a complaint over her campaign tactics . Justice Sabrina Kraus   who was appointed to the bench in 2005   accused Avery ’ s boyfriend of making derogatory comments about her Iranian heritage on Facebook .  Avery  failed to disavow the remarks   showing ethnic bias   the advisory panel added . Kraus beat  Avery  to win the seat .  Avery  ran for civil court again this year but lost in the September primary .  Avery  did not respond to multiple requests for comment . The former chief judge who appointed her   Prudenti   said she had no memory of choosing her .
[A]: Negative


[Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Laura Ingraham ? Laura Ingraham  was one of the few people who saw Donald Trumpâs shocking victory coming. More importantly  as a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan who saw firsthand how viciously the Bush-aligned establishment despised Reaganâs working-class voters   Ingraham  understands how powerful the conservative-populist movement is and why the elites in the permanent political class have spent gazillions and worked overtime for three decades to thwart it.
In  her  blockbuster new book  Billionaire at the Barricades: The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump  Ingraham  the best-selling author  explains how Trump got elected and the forces heâand other economic nationalistsâwill have to battle to implement the peopleâs agenda.
Billionaire at the Barricades is a must-read because  Ingraham   who still gets chills when she sees footage of the crowd at Kemper Arena in 1976 realizing they had nominated the wrong man in Gerald Ford  takes readers on a fast-paced journey through the 2016 campaign cycle and shows how everyone who was blindsided by Trumpâs rise should have seen it coming  especially after Dave Bratâs shocking primary victory over then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in 2014.
Elites give off the impression that Trumpâs populism on the campaign trail was something they had never seen before when  in fact  every candidate who has won the presidency in the television age has been the one who was the most populist. As  Ingraham  writes  âpresidential candidates invoke the populist style because it connects with working people.â
Conservatism and populism  according to  Ingraham   âoverlap in their opposition to âbig thingsââbig government  big international organizations  big media  big business cronyism.â
Reagan understood that âthese distant  uncaring entities rob people of decision making and ignore their interests â and  Ingraham  notes that âPat Buchanan and Donald Trump summarized conservative populism best when each vowed to put âAmerica first.ââ
âConservative populists tend to support a policy of economic nationalismâpeople-centered economic policies that put the nation and its workers first. They oppose a massive national debt because it weakens America and makes its citizens beholden to lenders â  she  continues. âThey also believe high taxes are bad because they sap workersâ wages and economic freedom. Similarly  they are against huge trade deals and international organizations like the World Trade Organization because they take power out of the hands of voters and give it to a far-away and often hostile global elite.â
When it comes to foreign policy   Ingraham  explains that âconservative populists oppose broad military interventionism and believe military force should only be used when American interests are threatened.â  She  slams populismâs critics who foolishly toss around âthe term âisolationismâ to dismiss populist foreign policy â even though that label does not describe any populist  she  has ever known.
 Ingraham  points out that âthroughout the Cold War  populists were among the strongest voices opposing Soviet communism.â In addition  populists have always believed that âsquandering the nationâs wealth and blood on un-winnable wars and nation-building is unwise. Instead  they support a pragmatic foreign policy based on achieving âpeace through strengthâ by maintaining a strong military and using it prudently.â
Unfortunately  as  Ingraham  details  âsome conservatives took a dangerous detourâ and âthrust us into a bizarre world of globalization  wars based on idealism and nation-building  and intense hatred toward the very voters who accounted for the Reagan coalition in the first place.â
The betrayal started almost immediately after George H.W. Bush won Reaganâs third term. The Bush administration purged Reaganites  and  Ingraham  recalls that Margaret Tutwiler told Reaganite Ed Rollins at a party that âthere are a lot of us who had to suffer during the eight years of Reagan  and now itâs our turn.â
âWe were Reagan people. They were Bush people. We all knew what the differences were â  Ingraham  writes. âMany of the GOP Establishment types who behind closed doors scoffed at Reagan as a dim-witted former actor with anââultraconservativeâ outlook were now working in the Bush administration. They thought it was time to return the Republican Party to what they believed was its more genteel  respectable roots. In effect  it meant the return to power of the Rockefeller Republicans who had worked to deny Reagan the presidency in 1976.â
Bushâs Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman convinced Bush to infamously abandon his âread my lipsâ pledge not to raise taxes  and  in the end   Ingraham  argues that âGeorge H. W. Bush stalled the conservative-populist engine that powered Reaganism.â As Rollins said  âGeorge Bush was the beneficiary of the greatest baton pass in presidential history in 1988  and he and his people tossed it away.â
âGlobalism is fundamentally anti-American because it aims to raze American sovereignty by atrophying our ability to take independent actions that are in our nationâs best interests â  Ingraham  writes  pointing out that globalists do not understand that âbecause of the enormous anti-American sentiment around the world  itâs almost impossible to create a multinational organization where U.S. interests donât become compromised or harmed.â
Just like his father  George W. Bush campaigned as a populist but governed as a globalist.  Ingraham  blames âBushâs decision to aggressively pursue amnesty after his unpopular warâ for insulting the âmillions of conservative-populists who had worked so hard to put him in power.â
âBecause of Bush  conservatives lost everything â  she  continues. âWe lost the House. We lost the Senate. And we lost the White House.â
[A]: Positive


[Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Brendan Dassey ? Making a Murderer subject  Brendan Dassey  will remain behind bars after a federal appeals court in Chicago narrowly overturned a 2016 ruling that would have allowed  Dassey  to go free.
Related 'Making a Murderer' One Year Later: Everything You Need to Know Inside what's happened with Steven Avery   Brendan Dassey  and the case that's fascinated America since Nexflix debuted its true-crime hit
In August 2016  a judge ruled that  the then-16-year-old Dassey  was coerced into confessing his role in the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach;  Dassey  and his uncle Steven Avery were both sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of Halbach's murder. In June 2017  the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed that August 2016 ruling by a 2-to-1 count  but the state of Wisconsin requested that seven members of that court hear the appeal.
On Friday  the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled  by a 4-to-3 margin  that  Dassey 's confession was not coerced. "The state courts' finding that  Dassey 's confession was voluntary was not beyond fair debate  but we conclude it was reasonable " the court's decision stated.
However  the appeals court judges were not unanimous in the decision  with Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner saying of  Dassey  in her dissent  "His confession was not voluntary and his conviction should not stand  and yet an impaired teenager has been sentenced to life in prison. I view this as a profound miscarriage of justice " the Associated Press reports.
Avery's former lawyer Jerome Buting tweeted of the Dassey decision  "The Illusion of Justice continues  with the horrific decision of 4 judges on 7th Cir. to uphold Brendan Dassey's conviction. Dissenting Judge Wood proclaims: " Dassey  will spend the rest of  his  life in prison because of the injustice this court has decided to leave unredressed. Two strong dissents in 4-3 Dassey decision strengthen chance for SCOTUS review. Judge Wood details majority opinion flaws which 'essentially read habeas corpus relief out of the books.' SCOTUS in 2011: habeas still stands as 'guard against extreme malfunctions' in state justice."
[A]:
Neutral