Supreme Court Vote Gives Trump The Wall

Supreme Court Vote Gives Trump The Wall

Supreme Court Vote Gives Trump The Wall

A Supreme Court vote gave President Trump a victory yesterday in his fight for a wall along the Mexican border by allowing the administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction.

Conservative justices on the court ruled in favor of the administration. Liberal justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented and Justice Stephen Breyer issued a split opinion, agreeing in part with both sides.

The funds will be used to build roughly 100 miles of border wall. Cue Speaker of the House:

Shouldn’t she be focusing on keeping The Squad in check? Oh, yes, we forgot. She’s on “recess” for 6 WEEKS! Actually, Nancy, our founders designed a republic governed by the people. And since when does having a wall make us a monarchy? Meanwhile, the rest of the left has become unhinged…

Actually, Mexico is partially paying for the wall, George-or at least paying for additional securityalong the border. And, yes, military funds can be allocated for the wall if illegals breaching the border poses a national security risk, which it does.

I can just see the arguments that will arise over the next few days. Celebrities with large garden gates and walls around their expansive compounds will talk about what a racist clod our President is. Others will continue to point at anything BUT the problem itself. Upper middle-class white kids will whine how we call free college for all “communism” while we agree with building a wall at our southern border (we’ll get called racist clods as well). The situation and stats surrounding the border crisis will be ignored.

I am extremely concerned about the growing risks to our nation’s public safety, national security, and rule of law, due to illegal and uncontrolled immigration. The crisis extends well beyond a single border — from Central America, through Mexico, to our southern border, and throughout every major metropolitan city in the United States.”-Mark Morgan, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, 2016-2017

In the first six months of this fiscal year, Border Patrol apprehended over 175,000 family unit aliens and over 33,000 unaccompanied children, according to this. Of 22 defendants in the Southern California MS-13 machete murders, 19 of these gang members were reported to be illegals. 19 of them! These gang members get deported and because of our weakened borders, re-enter our country with ease. Pile on top of this an increasing crisis with our homeless citizens of this country in some of our cities and increasing stress on us as a country to provide free healthcare, food and shelter for unvetted individuals who have circumvented the system while immigrants who went through the appropriate process work hard and ultimately foot the bill.

We also live in a cultural climate where ICE agents are treated with increasingly intense disrespect, making it increasingly difficult to carry out their duties. Between nut jobs attacking ICE detention centers, protestors outside of the facilities trashing the place and making the climate generally unsafe for workers and training kids to “hit the ICE officer pinata”, I’d say they’ve got their work cut out for them.

A sad day, Chuck? Our President is not stealing the funds, first of all. SCOTUS voted to give the funds over to the project. Is the wall expensive? You bet. Will it be ineffective? Hey, anything has GOT to be better than what we are dealing with now. You know what is sad? Children willingly being abandoned by their families in their quest to hop the fence. Innocent citizens who work hard and got to this country through the proper channels living in fear of drug-dealing, violent gang members who are not supposed to be here going after their loved ones with machetes. Honestly, if a big wall keeps our citizens safe from thugs and provides enough of a deterrent to prevent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from opening her mouth (no more overcrowded “concentration camps”), go for it. If the wall is enough of a deterrent to prevent families who think they can swim across the Rio Grande (and can’t) with their small, innocent child, I’d say bring it on.

Photo Credit: FlickR/Creative Commons/Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)/Cropped

Written by

  • I want to see the wall being built before I can believe it, because I fully expect Dems to throw plenty of obstacles, every bit they can. But this is a fantastic start!

  • Scott says:

    The only point they have at all in this is that the President “did” promise that Mexico would pay for it. I sure would like to see him get that part figured out as well (or use funds seized from El Chapo)…

    That being said, it’s good to the SCOTUS follow the rule of law, and give this win to the President.

  • Harlan says:


  • GWB says:

    steal military funds
    steal funds from our military
    Ummmm, no. He’s repurposing – as laws that you passed allow him to do (within limits). SCOTUS says they think he’s within those limits. Sorta (see below).

    a wasteful, ineffective border wall
    an ineffective and expensive wall
    Well, no. There you’re just flat out wrong, Nancy & Chuck. (I guess the talking points memo went out pretty fast, huh?)
    And a wall to prevent invasions of foreigners would be well within the purview of the US military. (It is NOT “domestic policing” to intercept and capture – or even kill, as necessary – foreigners invading our borders.)

    And since when does having a wall make us a monarchy?
    She’s not saying that. She’s saying that repurposing funds that have been budgeted by the legislature is the act of a monarch. Except she keeps forgetting to mention that Congress passed a law to allow a President to do exactly that. She might be right if they hadn’t passed that law.

    if illegals breaching the border poses a national security risk
    Yeah, that’s actually a given, a definite no-brainer.

    SCOTUS voted to give the funds over to the project.
    Not in so many words. The decision was NOT specifically to allow him to repurpose the funds. It was that those suing had no standing. From Legal Insurrection (always a good go-to for legal stuff, along with Instapundit):
    The majority said that the plaintiffs, assorted environmental groups, likely had no cause of action to bring the case. In other words, they were not legally entitled to sue.
    It lets things go forward, but it doesn’t stop some other group (or the same ones with a different ’cause of action’) from stopping it with their flavor of judicial activism.

    (As an aside, when can we finally start impeaching Ninth Circus judges? They’re overturned so often, and mostly on the basis of basic legal or Constitutional doctrines that they really can’t be said to be effective, or upholding the Constitution and the law.)

  • Roger says:

    I don’t put much credibility in George Takei.
    The man supports the political party of a President the put he and his family PERSONALLY on a detention camp.
    I stopped paying any attention to Mr Takei when he started advertising continuously his lifestyle choice.
    I see from his tweet George is now unfit for civilized society.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner