On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed the independent state legislature theory in a 6-3 ruling, with as many Republican-appointed justices supporting the majority as dissenting from it. This decision comes after the Court declined to hear a case that would have potentially affected an African-American majority congressional district in Louisiana, and ruled that Alabama violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by concentrating African-American voters in a single district. In 2021, the majority, including Justice Clarence Thomas, rejected a challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The year before that, the Court determined that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender employees from discriminatory employment decisions. And several years prior to that, the Court recognized the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Despite these diverse and nonpartisan decisions by the originalist majority-Court over the years, the press continues to portray it as a partisan entity.
In an August segment, PBS expressed concerns about the “U.S. Supreme Court’s increasingly partisan divide,” raising ethical questions. Adam Serwer, writing for The Atlantic, accused the justices of “lying” when they attribute their votes to differing judicial philosophies rather than partisan affiliations. On the day of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in October 2020, the New York Times published seven consecutive opinion pieces expressing alarm about her appointment, some calling for court-packing or even replacing the Court altogether. Even after the Court’s recent decision, progressives on Twitter suspected that the ruling was part of a calculated effort to appear “surprisingly moderate.” Such conspiratorial analysis within the media’s coverage of the Court is not only embarrassing but also does a disservice to the public.
The media fails to delve into the unique judicial philosophies among the members of the originalist wing or consider the individual circumstances of each case. Instead, they attribute decisions they oppose to political allegiances and those they support to political maneuvering. This kind of thinking is misguided. In reality, the Court’s decisions result from the justices’ interpretations of the law, each bringing their own approach. Justices like Neil Gorsuch have a civil libertarian streak, while Justice Thomas is willing to challenge past precedents. Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh generally prefer narrower rulings. These distinct tendencies lead to divergent votes in different cases. Strangely, the media never questions why the Court’s liberal wing rarely finds itself divided on contentious cases that often divide the originalists. The media selectively ignores the liberal wing’s cohesion while fabricating division within the originalist wing. Partisanship and political motives are only attributed to Republican appointees, which is an unreasonable and biased perspective projected onto conservatives.
Some of the media’s antagonism towards the Court can be traced back to Senate Republicans’ perceived manipulation of the confirmation process during the appointments of Justices Garland, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. However, historical context reveals that Republicans are merely responding to Democrats’ politicization of confirmations. Garland faced considerable resistance, while all three of Trump’s nominees declined to hear his election-related case to overturn the 2020 presidential results. Preferring certain nominees over others does not make those nominees partisan actors. The media’s insistence on painting Supreme Court decisions through a partisan lens contributes more to the public’s growing mistrust of the Court than the decisions themselves. When the media constantly tells the public to question the judiciary, it’s no wonder that trust is eroding. Whether it stems from laziness, malice, or purely partisan bias, those responsible for rectifying this misleading coverage have a duty to do so.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
