Supreme Court Justices Alito and Thomas Face Liberal Backlash over Flag and Redistricting Controversies

Liberal media pundits have criticized Justice Samuel Alito for reportedly flying the upside-down American flag after the January 6th Capitol riot, while Justice Clarence Thomas has come under fire for his concurring opinion in a recent redistricting case that took aim at the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.

Liberal media pundits have lambasted Justice Samuel Alito this week after he was reported to have flown the upside-down American flag in the weeks following Jan. 6, 2021. The upside-down flag is often seen as a distress signal or a sign of protest.

Alito's reported flag incident has drawn sharp criticism from liberal commentators, who accused him of sympathizing with the rioters who stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

In a separate controversy, Justice Clarence Thomas has come under fire for his concurring opinion in a recent redistricting case that took aim at the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.

In the case, which involved a Republican-drawn redistricting map in South Carolina, Thomas wrote that the 1954 Brown decision, which outlawed racial segregation in public schools, was an "extravagant [use] of judicial power."

Thomas, who grew up in the segregated South, has repeatedly stated that the Constitution prohibits race-based discrimination, regardless of the intent. However, he believes that the Brown decision went too far by allowing federal courts to draw voting maps.

In his concurrence, Thomas argued that the Brown decision introduced "[t]he view of equity required to justify a judicial mapdrawing power." He said that 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."

But Thomas said that "such extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design." He argued that federal courts should not be involved in drawing voting maps.

Thomas's concurrence has drawn praise from conservatives, who believe that the Court should not be involved in redistricting. However, it has been sharply criticized by liberals, who believe that it undermines the Voting Rights Act and could lead to racial discrimination in voting.

The controversies surrounding Justices Alito and Thomas highlight the deep divisions on the Supreme Court and the increasingly partisan nature of judicial appointments.