It's shorthand. Rawls is certainly compatible with whatever moral philosophy is prevalent throughout American media/legal discourse.

Edit: The reason I chose Rawls is because no one will agree on what moral framework modern society operates under but Rawls is compatible with most such proposals.

Edit 2: I am interested in what you would propose as an alternative, however.

> I am interested in what you would propose as an alternative, however.

I would, rather than suggest a candidate for the prevalent moral framework under which modern society operates, reject as fairly obviously false the notion that such a thing exists; modern society is characterized (even, say, in the US on isolation) by conflict between multiple competing mutually-incompatible moral frameworks, with temporarily dominant coalitions characterized by groups coming together against others that the see as a greater current threat than their current transitory partners.

I agree with that on a micro-level, but zooming out I think there is commonality among all the views present in post-war Europe and USA, in the same way that Greek philosophy has a coherency when seen today despite the incompatibility of its various philosophers teachings.