The Washington Post Mischaracterizes Constitutional Originalism as Anti-Civil Rights
Source: Shawn Fleetwood. "WaPo Thinks SCOTUS Upholding The Constitution Is A Bad Thing." April 10, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that The Washington Post wrongly attacks the Supreme Court's conservative justices for following the Constitution as it was originally written. He claims the Post calls these decisions anti-civil rights simply because they don't give liberals the outcomes they want, when actually the justices are doing their job correctly by not making up new rights.
Conclusion
The Washington Post's criticism of the Supreme Court's conservative decisions is fundamentally flawed because it misdefines civil rights and fails to recognize that originalist jurisprudence properly interprets the Constitution as written
Premises
- The Post's definition of 'civil rights' is politically biased, labeling decisions as anti-civil rights simply because they don't align with leftist preferences
- The Supreme Court's conservative justices are practicing originalism by interpreting the Constitution and laws as they were written at the time of their creation
- Previous Supreme Courts improperly invented new legal rights (like in Roe v. Wade) rather than following constitutional text
- The Post's study methodology is flawed because it categorizes cases based on desired political outcomes rather than constitutional fidelity
- Recent Supreme Court decisions protect legitimate constitutional rights including free speech, parental rights, religious freedom, and equal treatment regardless of race
- The Post's characterization of conservative jurisprudence as 'extreme' ignores that these justices are fulfilling the proper judicial role in American government
Assumptions
- Originalism is the correct method of constitutional interpretation
- The Constitution's original meaning should take precedence over evolving social preferences
- Judicial restraint is preferable to judicial activism
- The Washington Post represents a broader pattern of biased media coverage
- Republican-appointed justices are more likely to follow proper constitutional interpretation