Media in frenzy as liberal Supreme Court justices side with Trump
Mainstream Media Turns on Liberal Supreme Court Justices
The liberal Supreme Court justices have always been adored by the mainstream media. However, this week, something changed. The justices prioritized the law over their resistance to former president Donald Trump, and suddenly they were no longer seen as superior to the rest of the Court.
In a unanimous ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court sided with Trump in his challenge to Colorado’s attempt to remove him from the 2024 GOP primary ballot. Surprisingly, the Court’s three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined their conservative colleagues in the 9-0 decision, stating that a state cannot bar Trump from running for another term.
Reporters and pundits, who had previously praised the trio, quickly abandoned their reverence and attacked the Court as a tool of the MAGA movement.
Media’s Previous Praise for the Liberal Justices
FLASHBACK: For years, the media have held up the Supreme Court’s liberal justices as righteous women trailblazers who might just save the institution.
“She showed up and told America how qualified she is.”
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) shares what was going through his mind during his impassioned speech to Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearings. #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/6qTFKFJDps
— CNN (@CNN) March 27, 2022
.@JoyAnnReid on #SCOTUS nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: “…I can personally attest that she is brilliant, focused, studious, and kind.” #TheReidOut pic.twitter.com/I6BHhNBCOF
— The ReidOut (@thereidout) March 19, 2022
“In Her First Term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Came to Play,'” New York Times, July 7, 2023:
From her first week on the Supreme Court bench in October to the final day of the term that ended last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did something remarkable for a junior justice: She established herself as a distinctive voice on the court.
“Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Bold Debut and Independent Streak,” Washington Post, July 2, 2023:
Jackson on Friday completed her rookie term as the first Black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court, making a forceful debut from the bench and in writing while showing signs of an independent streak.
“The Many Joys of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Historic Confirmation,” CNN, April 7, 2022:
What follows are reflections from a diverse group of Americans who also feel joy in this historic moment. These stories make clear that Jackson is a bottomless source of inspiration to so many, from a former classmate who’s been in awe of the judge since the two met in a seventh-grade civics class, to a hairdresser who understands that Jackson breaks the mold in sometimes overlooked ways.
“All-Female Liberal Wing To Change Supreme Court Dynamics,” Bloomberg Law, Feb. 1, 2022:
Adding the court’s first Black woman to replace the retiring Stephen Breyer, as Biden has said he intends to do, could prompt conservative justices to adjust how they approach cases involving race and gender.
“Opinion: The Truth Teller of the Supreme Court,” New York Times, June 17, 2021:
Clearly, after 12 years on the court, Justice Sotomayor has entered cultural icon territory, reminiscent of the status Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg achieved before her death last September. But I want to emphasize another, perhaps underappreciated source of Justice Sotomayor’s distinction. She has become the Supreme Court’s truth teller.
“Is the Supreme Court’s Fate in Elena Kagan’s Hands?” New Yorker, Nov. 11, 2019:
Yet Kagan, who has long been admired by legal scholars for the brilliance of her opinion writing and the incisiveness of her questioning in oral arguments, is emerging as one of the most influential Justices on the court—and, without question, the most influential of the liberals.
“‘The People’s Justice’: After Decade on Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor Is Most Outspoken on Bench and Off,” USA Today, Aug. 8, 2019:
After 10 years on the Supreme Court, Sotomayor, 65, is not only its most outspoken questioner–succeeding the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who inspired today’s “hot bench”–but its most frequent public speaker and most prolific author. Her voice, in all its forms, has become the liberal conscience on a conservative court, one that speaks out in defense of minorities, immigrants, criminal defendants and death row inmates.
FLASH-FORWARD: Some journalists sought to downplay the liberal justices’ concurrence with the majority opinion—playing up relatively minor disagreements.
“Opinion: What’s Behind the Supreme Court’s Furious Agreement on Trump in Colorado,” Washington Post, March 4:
Those quotations, which bookend the concurring opinion released on Monday by three liberal justices on whether former president Donald Trump can be removed from the ballot in Colorado, amount to the judicial equivalent of fighting words. They constitute a two-part slap across the face of their supposedly conservative colleagues, accusing them of outrageous judicial activism in shielding Trump from being disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
“The Key Disagreement in the Liberal Justices’ Concurrence on the Trump Ballot Ruling,” HuffPost, March 4:
But while all nine justices put their names to that decision, a bitter 5-4 divide lurked underneath.
“The Supreme Court’s ‘Unanimous’ Trump Ballot Ruling Is Actually a 5-4 Disaster,” Slate, March 4:
As the three liberal justices pointed out, in a separate opinion that glows white-hot with indignation, the majority’s overreach “attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.” They are, of course, correct.
However, many others failed to distinguish between the justices and accused them all of interfering in the election on behalf of Trump. Some even singled out the liberal justices for criticism.
“The Court’s Colorado Decision Wasn’t About the Law,” The Atlantic, March 5:
What the Court did—and I’m referring to all nine justices here, including the ones who wrote concurrences—was make up a holding utterly unmoored from the text or history of the provision it was interpreting, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. …
The Court’s decision wasn’t about law. It was about fear.
“Stephen Colbert Scoffs at Supreme Court’s Ruling on Trump,” New York Times, March 5:
Stephen Colbert said the justices were “once again shoving their gavels up the election.”
“US Supreme Court ‘Erred Badly’ With Trump Ruling, Leading US Historian Says,” The Guardian, March 5:
[University of Connecticut professor Manisha] Sinha said: “It seems to me that [the court] fast track[s] all the decisions in all the cases that let Trump off the hook and they’re slow-pedaling all the decisions that don’t let Trump off the hook.“This is primary season and I think it’s going to have an effect politically. Trump is going to seal the deal” with the Colorado decision.
“Opinion: SCOTUS Found Its 14A Loophole for Trump. Congress Will Follow Suit,” MSNBC, March 5:
It’s a ruling that will likely live in infamy as one that under the aegis of consensus paved the way for countless more violations of the Constitution.
“The Institutions of Government Aren’t Going To Protect Democracy,” Washington Post, March 4:
The superficial agreement on the decision erodes in the details, which isn’t uncommon. The result, though, is that the institution of the Supreme Court has decided that the institution of Congress is the only element of the American system that can apply the 14th Amendment to a candidate. And Congress, very obviously, won’t do so for Trump.
“Keith Olbermann Rips Supreme Court, Calls Liberal Justices ‘Inept,'” The Hill, March 4:
“The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension,” [Keith Olbermann] said, referring to Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
“The Supreme Court Once Again Reveals the Fraud of Originalism,” The Atlantic, March 4:
This case reveals originalism as practiced by the justices for the fraud it actually is: a framework for justifying the results that the jurists handpicked by the conservative legal movement wish to reach. Americans should keep that in mind the next time the justices invoke originalism to impose their austere, selective vision of liberty on a public they insist must remain gratefully silent.
“Opinion: How the Supreme Court Got Things So Wrong on Trump Ruling,” CNN, March 4:
Of course, the Supreme Court has a sorry history of political meddling even as it has sought to wrap around itself the robes of impartial jurisprudence. From the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which sought to outlaw the platform of the newly formed antislavery Republican Party and declare African Americans non-citizens, to Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which facilitated racial apartheid in the South, the Supreme Court has played an especially abysmal role in undermining democratic governance and equal justice for Black Americans in the 19th century.
It’s not the first time the media have turned on a liberal hero who failed to put the law aside to go after Trump.
#Mueller has spoken. Is there still a point in having a prayer candle with his image on it? https://t.co/Wj8BQKnLrg?
— The Washington Post Magazine (@wpmagazine) May 29, 2019
What is the importance of upholding an independent judiciary and evaluating Supreme Court decisions based on legal reasoning rather than political affiliations
Ent/677679/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>The Atlantic, March 5:
Linda Greenhouse concluded: “So much for originalism, you might say, but it was always a scam. When push comes to shove, when their friends and fellow partisans are on the line, the conservative justices don’t hesitate to legislate.”-
These reactions showcased a sudden shift in the mainstream media sentiment towards the liberal Supreme Court justices. No longer were they hailed as progressive heroes, but rather they were criticized and accused of political bias for siding with Trump in this particular case.
The media’s change of heart may be attributed to their expectation that the liberal justices would consistently side against Trump regardless of the legal merits of the case. This expectation was shattered when the liberal justices placed the law above their personal reservations or political inclinations. The fact that they unanimously agreed with their conservative colleagues in this matter demonstrates their commitment to the impartial application of justice.
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court’s decision does not favor Trump, but rather affirms the principle that states cannot unilaterally bar a candidate from running without legal justifications. The ruling demonstrates the Court’s commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of all individuals, regardless of their political affiliations.
While it is understandable that some individuals may disagree with the Court’s decision, it is crucial to remember that the justices, including the liberal ones, have a duty to interpret the law and act in accordance with the Constitution. They should not be subjected to personal attacks or labeled as tools of any political movement simply because their rulings do not align with certain expectations.
The mainstream media’s reaction to the liberal justices’ decision reveals a concerning trend of characterizing justices based on their perceived political leanings rather than their commitment to the law. The politicization of the judiciary undermines the principle of an independent judiciary, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the legal system.
This incident serves as a timely reminder that justices should not be judged based on their political affiliation or perceived alignment with certain political ideologies. Rather, their rulings must be evaluated based on their legal reasoning, adherence to the Constitution, and commitment to protecting individual rights and liberties.
It is imperative for the media and the public to approach Supreme Court decisions with objectivity and respect for the institution. The Court’s role is to interpret the law, not to advance any political agenda or favor any particular individual or group. By criticizing the liberal justices for their decision in this case, the media risks further eroding public trust in the judiciary and perpetuating the dangerous narrative that the Court is merely an extension of partisan politics.
As we navigate a complex and polarized political landscape, it is essential to uphold the principles of an independent judiciary and the rule of law. The media has an important role to play in fostering a better understanding of the judiciary’s functions and responsibilities, and in promoting informed discussions about the legal implications of Supreme Court decisions.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in favor of Trump should serve as a reminder that justices are not beholden to any political agenda, but rather to the Constitution and the rule of law. The media should strive to acknowledge and appreciate the complexities of judicial decision-making, rather than reducing it to partisan politics.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
