Leftists don’t like the current makeup of the Supreme Court because it has proven to be a constitutional bulwark against their anti-American globalist socialist new world order.

Consequently, whenever the Court delivers a ruling that doesn’t align with the leftist agenda, they resort to a barrage of baseless and malicious accusations. Their aim? To tarnish the Court’s reputation by portraying it as irreparably tainted by conservative bias.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP that the Palmetto State’s Republican-dominated legislature did not engage in racial gerrymandering in redrawing a congressional map. Then came the predicted Leftmedia attacks against the Court’s conservative justices.

Justice Samuel Alito was smeared as a January 6 sympathizer and an “insurrectionist” due to flying at his home both an upside-down American flag and the historic Revolutionary War-era “Appeal to Heaven” flag. The claims that these flag-flying incidents were connected to the J6 Capitol riot were so thoroughly strained and tenuous that even The Washington Post was unwilling to give them any print space. Of course, that didn’t stop The New York Times from running the story and, in doing so, beclowning itself like a grocery store tabloid.

But Alito wasn’t the only target of the Leftmedia. They also took aim at the one black man they hate more than any other: Justice Clarence Thomas. This time, it was at the hands of the usually more sensible Leftmedia outlet Axios.

Axios’s headline reads, “Clarence Thomas attacks Brown v. Board ruling amid 70th anniversary.” The article is written by Axios “Justice and Race reporter” Russell Contreras, and it serves as little other than a hit piece that expresses an embarrassing degree of ignorance of the law and a misunderstanding of Thomas’s actual opinion.

Did Justice Thomas actually attack the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, the famous ruling that desegregated public schools? The simple answer is “No.”

Thomas, in his concurring opinion with the majority, which concluded that the NAACP’s charge of race-based gerrymandering lacked any compelling evidence, pointed out that the Brown ruling, and specifically the second lesser-known ruling known as Brown II, has been used to set a dangerous justification for broadening the Court’s powers beyond constitutional limits.

He concluded his short opinion note by writing, “Federal courts have the power to grant only the equitable relief ‘traditionally accorded by courts of equity,’ not the flexible power to invent whatever new remedies may seem useful at the time.”

Thomas was in no way stating or even suggesting that the Brown decision was wrong. Rather, and ironically, given the Left’s handwringing over the Supreme Court’s conservative composition, Thomas is expressing concern about judicial activism and the politicization of the Court, which needs to be bound by the Constitution and kept in its lane. Expanding the power of the Court beyond the Founders’ framework and justifying such actions to “right wrongs” is out of order and sets a dangerous precedent for judicial abuse.

A more honest and thoughtful observation of Thomas’s opinion would have concluded that he was warning against judicial activism and advocating limits on the Supreme Court’s ability to force cultural change. However, that would not have garnered the type of anti-Thomas outrage the Left wants. Nor would it have helped the Left achieve its goal of a High Court packed with activist justices.