Supremes live up to their name in affirming the border wall
Sometimes, the Court gets it right.
The Supreme Court made exactly the right call in telling the Sierra Club to go pound sand in its bid to halt President Trump's border wall. At issue was the re-direction of $2.5 billion in military funds for border wall construction, based on President Trump's declaration of an emergency at the border, which the Sierra Club really had a problem with.
According to Vox:
The Supreme Court ruled Friday evening, in a 5-4 decision along partisan lines, that President Donald Trump may move forward with his plans to build a multi-billion dollar wall along the US-Mexico border.
The Court’s order marks the second time Trump v. Sierra Club has come before the justices, and the Friday decision says as much about the unusual deference this Court gives to Trump as it does about the wall itself.
The case first reached the Court in late July 2019, after a lower federal court blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to transfer $2.5 billion that Congress appropriated for military pay, training, and similar personnel-related matters to wall construction. The administration claims it was allowed to do under a statute permitting the Secretary of Defense to transfer military funds “for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements.”
Chief leftist Justice Stephen Breyer sighed in frustration. According to The Hill:
Justice Stephen Breyer, in dissent, said he feared the majority’s ruling “may operate, in effect, as a final judgment.”
The whole thing was an amazingly frustrating waste of time and money and it's natural to be satisfied that the Sierra Club will have to eat those costs.
But the ruling itself was extremely sound. What better use of defense, repeat, defense, funds than to defend the U.S.? That's what defense funds are for. That's what Trump's decision to halt the chaos at the border was about. A recent surge of angry noises from the deep-staters embedded at the Pentagon and assorted defense establishments, stating that they don't want to be border guards or do border functions, calls into question what their purpose actually is. They seem so attached to the useless, futile wars of the Middle East they have lost sight of their original mission, which is to defend the U.S. Leave that to the low-class border guards, the pampered princes of the Pentagon telegraph.
Yet defense is to defend the country, and with a lawless border surge, led by drug cartels that profit from human misery and human misery's smuggling fees, a criminal group was essentially taking over the border. There's no such thing as an unguarded border in the real world. If the U.S. won't guard its border, rest assured the cartels will be happy to take that job. The result of that is untold killer drugs coming across the border, terrorist passage, millions of unvetted, uneducated illegal immigrants entering the country, the rise of cross-border sex trafficking and kidnappings, the strengthening of criminal networks in the states (just ask Chicago where that violence is coming from) and complete chaos.
Those factors are bona fide defense issues, the very mission of the armed forces, and a perfect instance of assymetrical, unconventional warfare their smart set is always talking about.
The voters understand this, even if they don't. Voters elected Trump based on their concerns for this smouldering problem. Trump took action. That's called representative democracy. Already we are beginning to see results as the wall goes up and Border Patrol agents don't have to play constant whack-a-mole with smugglers across thousands of miles of unguarded territory, instead focusing on just particular problem areas for security. Using defense funds for this purpose is highly appropriate.
Bottom line, the wall is defense. Breyer's complaint that this might just become the status quo is preposterous. It's not the status quo, it's the original mission.
Image credit: Pixabay public domain