PROTECT THIS MAN!

Anytime leftist media outlets like Axios are vexxed, it's a good thing.

Axios wants you to think that Thomas is the "black face" of racism - that he's doing the bidding of his white supremacist overlords (the guys who wear red hats).

In actuality, Thomas is the last man standing between the woke revolution and the Constitution.

Let's look at what Thomas said, shall we?

The case being heard was Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, which looks at the issue of re-drawing voter districts. The NAACP said the GOP-drawn district was designed to disenfranchise black voters.

If you've been paying attention, you'll know the NAACP has been captured by neo-commies who want to destroy America, and that skin color is just an excuse for them to redraw the districts in their own favor so Dems outnumber conservatives in every little congressional pocket.

In their 6-3 decision today, SCOTUS ruled against the NAACP, saying there was no evidence that these district lines were drawn with skin color/ethnicity in mind.

From the Washington Examiner:

In January, federal judges ordered South Carolina lawmakers to redraw the congressional map, ruling the coastal 1st District was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that diminished black voters' influence under the Constitution's 14th and 15th amendments.

In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Democratic Party must "disentangle race and politics if it wishes to prove that the legislature was motivated by race as opposed to partisanship," and that otherwise, they must presume "that the legislature acted in good faith" (innocent until proven guilty).

In short: "Y'all can't scream rAciSm for everything and then expect us to take you seriously in a court of law."

The Left responded very maturely, by which I mean they are trying to pin Alito as an extremist:

ALITO IS FLYING A 250-YEAR-OLD FLAG OWNED AND FLOWN BY GEORGE WASHINGTON?

The horror!!!

Anyway, that campaign led to "Appeal to Heaven" merch selling out within hours across the nation, so the Left is pivoting to take aim at Clarence Thomas instead.

In his concurring opinion, Thomas referenced the landmark 1954 case Brown v Board of Education as an example of how seeing things through a Marxist lens that divides everyone by skin color is anti-freedom and unmanageable.

First, my man referenced the proper sphere of authority and jurisdiction, claiming rightly that this is a matter for the legislature to decide itself, not the courts.

[F]ederal courts lack 'the power to create remedies previously unknown to equity jurisprudence.‘ And, there is no 'indication that the Framers had ever heard of courts‘ playing any role in resolving electoral districting problems. The power to redraw a States' electoral districts therefore exceeds 'the jurisdiction in equity exercised by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act.'

Thomas then activated his laser eyes on Brown v. Board.

The view of equity required to justify a judicial mapdrawing power emerged only in the 1950s. The Court's 'impatience with the pace of desegregation" caused by resistance to Brown v. Board of Education' led us to approve ... extraordinary remedial measures. In the follow-on case to Brown, the Court considered 'the manner in which relief [was] to be accorded' for vindication of 'the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.'

In doing so, the Court took a boundless view of equitable remedies, describing equity as being 'characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs.‘ That understanding may have justified temporary measures to 'overcome the widespread resistance to the dictates of the Constitution‘ prevalent at that time, but, as a general matter, '[s]uch extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers' design.'

In short, Thomas is arguing that the Court overstepped its constitutional bounds by saying racial segregation was unconstitutional, which itself was unconstitutional.

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.

Discrimination based on skin color is bad. Morally wicked to the core. But seeking to defeat it with unconstitutional power plays has gutted the actual protections the Constitution gave us. Congress and the states ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 through the proper channels, but in the peak of irony, by invoking the 14th Amendment in their justification for overstepping their authority, the courts have actually gutted the 14th Amendment.

No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The idea that this still exists is laughable! We all know we have a two-tiered justice system now.

Brown v. Board was a can of worms that paved the way for the "Second Founding," or the Civil Rights era of the '60s, where there were good intentions that got hijacked by people who wanted to use civil rights law to run roughshod over the Constitution.

And they have.

It started with "you can't bar someone from a school for being black." It turned into "you have to bake a demon-phallus cake for my transgender orgy festival" and "whiteness needs to be decentered." In most places, it is the courts legislating these laws from the bench based on wild interpretations of federal civil rights law, not legislatures passing law in accordance with the Constitution and/or the will of the people.

The long and short of it? We'd be in a much better place today if we all shamed and trolled the racists into oblivion instead of allowing the courts to overstep their authority to "solve" the matter.

Anyway, I'm off to buy myself an "Appeal to Heaven" flag if there are any left!

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇