Washington Post Frames Constitutional Rulings As Civil Rights Setbacks

By Shawn Fleetwood | Commentary, The Federalist

The unspoken competition among legacy media outlets to see who can produce the most asinine propaganda is pretty fierce this week. On top of a debunked hatchet job involving the Pentagon and Vatican, The Washington Post decided to throw its hat in the ring with a particularly dumb hit piece of its own — this time, against the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a Thursday article titled, “Supreme Court remade by Trump ushers in historic defeats for civil rights,” Post reporter Justin Jouvenal attempted to convince readers that the court’s conservative justices have waged an all-out war on “civil rights” in “cases involving women and minorities.” Naturally, he attributed this to “President Donald Trump’s three appointees” — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — who he said have “remade” the court to be “sharply conservative.”

“The court has also entered a new era of extreme partisanship. None over the past seven decades has been as starkly polarized,” Jouvenal wrote in melodramatic fashion.

The entire premise of the piece is based on an “analysis” by Washington University and Penn State professors, who, after reportedly examining 270 of the court’s decisions from 2020-2024 and a Supreme Court database they maintain themselves, concluded that “the share of cases won by the side advocating an expansion of civil rights fell to 44 percent” since Trump’s appointees joined the court. “In all the other time periods going back to the early 1950s,” Jouvenal wrote, “the Supreme Court issued rulings in favor of expanding civil rights in a majority of such cases.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT THE FEDERALIST

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.