Court Rules In Favor Of Texas’ Razor Border Wall

The best part is that come January 20th the Trump administration will drop any Biden-Harris admin appeal of this ruling and move to help Texas

Appeals court rules Texas has right to build razor wire border wall to deter illegal immigration: ‘Huge win’

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that Texas has the right to build a razor wire border wall to deter illegal immigration into the Lone Star State.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced the ruling on X, saying President Biden was “wrong to cut our razor wire.”

“We continue adding more razor wire border barrier,” the Republican leader wrote.

Wednesday’s 2-1 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals clears the way for Texas to pursue a lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of trespassing without having to remove the fencing. (snip)

Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee during the president-elect’s first term, wrote for Wednesday’s majority that Texas was trying only to safeguard its own property, not “regulate” U.S. Border Patrol, and was likely to succeed in its trespass claims.

Los Federales have primacy on immigration per the Constitution, but, do States not have the right to protect their own statehood? Don’t forget, the original mean of “state” was “nation.” It was 13 former colonies now considering themselves to be almost their own nations brought together as the United States Of America, with a central federal government for certain functions. And a need to protect their land. It’s a novel argument.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Court Rules In Favor Of Texas’ Razor Border Wall”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Releasing alligators into the Rio Grande is still the most economical solution.

  2. Elwood P Dowd says:

    Nov 27 (Reuters) – A federal judge in Texas known for frequently ruling in favor of conservative litigants has handed Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration and Special Counsel Jack Smith a pair of victories in lawsuits steered to his courthouse in Amarillo.

    U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who President-elect Donald Trump appointed during his first term in office, on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by a conservative think tank challenging the U.S. Department of Energy’s energy-efficiency requirements for household clothes washers and dishwashers.

    Kacsmaryk did so a day after he rejected what he called an “unserious” effort by Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block Jack Smith from potentially destroying records related to his criminal investigations into Trump without plausible allegations he was doing so.

    Judge Kacsmaryk had been a ‘go-to’ venue for judge-shopping far-right litigants. WTF happened in these cases? Who pissed him off?

    A large part of the Heritage Foundation objectives hax been to insert judges based on their far-rightness, not their judicial temperament. Hence we get justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, liars all.

    • Dana says:

      Hopefully, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts will retire by the end of the October 2025 session — around the end of June 2026 — so that President Trump can appoint replacements for them, replacements in their 40s. It would be nice if the “wise Latina”, a bad diabetic, also retired due to her health, and we could add a seventh conservative to the court.

      I, of course, would never fantasize about a terrible accident in which Justices Kagan and Jackson went untimely to their eternal rewards.

      • Elwood P Dowd says:

        Eventually, the Democrats will add more justices. Nine is just not enough. Perhaps 13 or 17. We need our Supreme Court to be apolitical AND not corrupt.

        • CarolAnn says:

          Funny, nine have been enough for 248 years but suddenly when the leftists don’t get their way “Nine is just not enough. Perhaps 13 or 17.” Seems a precursor to revolution. Or Treason.

          And why will democrats add more justices? If we actually “needed” more wouldn’t Republicans want them too? Or do you believe more justices will somehow benefit dems and harm reps?

          • Elwood P Dowd says:

            Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family, Carol Ann!

            Back when now ex-president Trump was president he appointed far-right wing justices as dictated by the Heritage Foundation. Clearly, the Supreme Court has never been perfect, e.g., Judge Taney who delivered the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), ruling that African Americans could not be considered U.S. citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the U.S. territories, but in general it has tried to adhere to legal principles not political ones.

            It’s clear also that today’s far right will happily sacrifice Constitutional rights to preserve their power. When Congress passes and Trump signs a national abortion law, will the SC declare it unConstitutional and send it back to the states? LOL, that’s rhetorical. This SC declared that US Presidents have immunity from being held accountable for crimes committed while in office. Would you support the SC reversing the decision on same-sex marriage?

        • Dana says:

          There are 13 circuit Courts of Appeals in the United States, so it would make sense to expand the Supreme Court to thirteen Justices . . . if such is done within the next year, so that President Trump can appoint and get confirmed the four new Justices!

  3. Jl says:

    Oh, my-it’s the liberal SC justices that always vote in lockstep, not the supposed conservative ones. And thanks for the detailed, well thought-out accusation “liars all”.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    So? The Biden/Harris/God-knows-who administration never cared what the courts think. They justify their rebellion as “Trump appointed courts so we don’t have to obey” or something similar. Meanwhile, Trump obeyed every court ruling, especially the judges who were appointed specifically to harm him. Who is really the threat to democracy? Democrats in places like NYC, DC, California and Chicago have been ignoring court decisions for decades when it comes to gun laws. They know that most people cannot afford to take every case to the supreme court to get justice so they punish them with the unaffordable justice process.

  5. James Lewis says:

    Chicken Little Hamas Karen Man (??)

    dismissed a lawsuit by a conservative think tank challenging the U.S. Department of Energy’s energy-efficiency requirements for household clothes washers and dishwashers.

    You ever heard of the USSC and Chevron?

  6. CarolAnn says:

    Elwood, back when now president elect Trump was president #45 he appointed far-right wing justices as dictated by the Heritage Foundation. That is not true simply because he “nominated” judges subject to Congressional approval non of whom were “far right” except perhaps from the view of a radical leftist. indeed they were conservatives would you expect him to nominate Ketanji Brown? Would you expect Obama to nominate Clarence Thomas? All presidents are going to nominate the closest to their own political philosophy they believe they can get confirmed. So don’t make the obvious some sort of conservative collusion.

    It’s clear also that today’s far right will happily sacrifice Constitutional rights to preserve their power.

    Show one occasion when that occurred. Again, there is no “far right” there is only radical left like you and the right which has remained philosophically static for years. If anything the right has moved slightly left as per gay marriage.

    When Congress passes and Trump signs a national abortion law,

    There is no reason for a “national” abortion law. The Court has already found abortion to be the purview of the states and the people. Your hypothetical holds no water.

    This SC declared that US Presidents have immunity from being held accountable for crimes committed while in office.

    Not true. Certain crimes only. Or do you believe in lawfare against the president?

    Would you support the SC reversing the decision on same-sex marriage?

    Yes, I would. Marriage is the purview of the states and the only decision the SC needs is to say that. You do understand the Constitutional phrase ” any Powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people”? Same sex marriage is not given to the feds therefore it follows……

  7. Dan says:

    LOL! As if the left gives a rats ass about court rulings they don’t like or agee with.

Pirate's Cove