Biased WashPost Headline: 'Justices Throw Out Texas Electoral Maps Favoring Minorities'
In an unsigned per curiam opinion issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out a federal judge's revision of Texas's congressional redistricting map, finding that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas had "substituted its own concept of 'the collective public good' for the Texas Legislature’s determination of which policies serve 'the interests of the citizens of Texas.'" The court "appears to have unnecessarily ignored the State’s plans in drawing certain individual districts," the Court added. No justice dissented and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurrence.
Yet in teasing Supreme Court correspondent Robert Barnes's story on the Washington Post's website, editors colored the decision in a way that portrayed the move as the justices having "throw[n] out... electoral maps favoring minorities." [see screencap below page break]
The headline for Barnes's story itself -- Supreme Court sides with Texas on redistricting plan -- was neutrally-worded and Barnes article was fair and substantive. But for casual visitors to the Post website, the biased front-page headline could communicate to readers that the Court set out to harm the interests of minority voters, rather than acting unanimously to arrest an instance of judicial activism.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
They were right to do so.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:17pm.
The Supreme Court was right to do this. Why should electoral maps favor anyone?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
It was the right thing to do.
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:22pm.
It was the right thing to do. The "favoring minorities" was not. It was throw out because it is the job of the legislature to draw the lines, not some judge.
The fight for representation
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:24pm.
The fight for representation has been going on for ages. We elect our reps and they should be the ones to draw up fair maps.
That they choose this wording
Submitted by ThePickle on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:26pm.
That they choose this wording speaks volumes as to the beliefs WaPo editors.
And it also puts lie to all the BS that many minority groups claim they are only seeking "equal rights"
I have yet to run into a single organized "minority group" that has not been seeking, to some effect or another, either special protections, special considerations or in many cases both.
Standard liberal talking points
Submitted by John21 on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:28pm.
It is the standard far left liberal elitist battle cry "Give us what we want or you are all Raaaccciiisssttt"
Why does anyone expect honest or fair reporting from the DNC public relations department? I don't understand why so many knowing how bad and bias the NYT reporting is and still expect honest reporting, "Wake up it is the NYT, nothing but liberal talking points"
It's actually the liberal
Submitted by Schofield Kid on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 5:28pm.
It's actually the liberal Washington Post, but same thing.
Supreme Court rules for fairness, minorities hardest hit.
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:35pm.
The assumption by the democrats, the judge in the district court and the WashPo here is that even if you live across the street your skin color means you have different needs and concerns than your neighbors. It is racism at it's worst and most insidious, masquerading as concern.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Well I guess SCOTUS is racist then!
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:34pm.
As is anyone who objects to favoring minorities.
Perhaps...
Submitted by xyzzypoofs on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:37pm.
WaPo is now in the business of attempting to incite riots? (since they have completely given up on journalism)
So Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg are raycisssss.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 4:38pm.
They must be, since it was a unanimous decision.
Those dirty rats.
That surprises me
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 5:23pm.
I had seen the headline of this, but didn't hear about the details. I admit that this surprises me very much.
If that's the case, maybe there's some hope about ObeymeCare.
Nah.
-Jon
From the WaPo piece:
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 5:18pm.
Since when does the SCOTUS rely on the White House for judicial advice?
I was doing
Submitted by Bob K on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 5:35pm.
my usual comparative reading at democratic underground. I found two threads on this story. Less than a hour later, those threads were gone. How odd. LoL But none of the comments that I read even mentioned that it was unanimous. They pretended it was done along party lines, you know, conservative justices vs nutcase justices.
But using their search function I was also able to find threads related to the judge who ruled in its favor way back. Oh, were they gloating then. They predicted that SCOTUS would never even look at it. LoL
The district court did not even listen to the legislature.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 9:08pm.
The judge involved just reflexively tossed out the redistricting plan without apparent input from the state's elected officials in the matter. The court ignored the constitutional role that the legislature had in drawing the new districts, and instead just imposed what it thought should be a resolution. It is not a complete victory, because the court still has some say and will now feel compelled to make sure its solution prevails. This is driving Obamaniacs nuts, because they expected to just sue and be done with it and the Supreme Court said the law must be followed. Once again, the liberals sought to use the court to overturn properly enacted laws they don't like, something of which this Supreme Court takes a very dim view.
I'm sure the dim-witted
Submitted by big.league.slider on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 9:17pm.
I'm sure the dim-witted editors at the WP failed to appreciate the irony in their choice of headline. Apparently, to the WP it's a big news story when the US Supreme Court doesn't ignore the US Constitution with a decision.
"Supreme Court follows Constitution in Texas electoral map decision; Women and minorities hardest hit"
Campaign slogan
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 4:35pm.
Notice how many lefties aka Messiah supporters are using the term racist or in this case (WP headline) . These are just warm-ups to Obama's campaign. Unspoken Obama campaign slogan. "Only racists will not vote for Obama."