President Trump DEMOLISHES Left with Border Wall Court Victory

There is an interesting twist to this story of how President Trump won his latest battle on the Southern border.

While the Supreme Court appears to be where the battle occurred, it wasn’t.

The president tweeted back in Feb of this year:

Big legal win today. U.S. judge sided with the Trump Administration and rejected the attempt to stop the government from building a great Border Wall on the Southern Border. Now this important project can go forward!

President Trump’s efforts to build a wall had been thwarted by environmentalists. Clearly, these people bought land along the border in an attempt to prevent a wall from ever being built.

According to CNBC:

The groups asked the court to reject a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton that provides the executive branch with authority to waive environmental laws if those laws impede construction of barriers and roads near the border.

Then the law was expanded by Congress in 2005 to give the Department of Homeland Security authority to waive “all legal requirements” that could stand in the way of border construction.

The environmental groups said that government’s ability to waive the laws is unconstitutional. The justices did not issue a ruling on that matter.

That’s only part of the story.

Because the SCOTUS would not hear the case, the earlier ruling by a federal judge in San Diego remains in place. That judge has an interesting past with President Trump.

During the 2016 presidential primaries, Democrats attacked Trump University. Their claim was most of the students of the course didn’t get what they pay for.

The New Yorker opined in an article, “Trump University: it’s worse than you think”:

Will one of the world’s leading democracies elect as its President a businessman who founded and operated a for-profit learning annex that some of its own employees regarded as a giant ripoff, and that the highest legal officer in New York State has described as a classic bait-and-switch scheme?

As if things were any better for students at government-funded colleges and universities. At the time, far too many of them languished in their parents’ basements, unable to find jobs.

NeverTrumpers at National Review wrote:

Many people believe that higher education is a de facto scam. Trump University, Donald Trump’s real-estate institution, was a de jure one.

First thing first, Trump University was never a university. When the “school” was established in 2005, the New York State Education Department warned that it was in violation of state law for operating without a NYSED license. Trump ignored the warnings. (The institution is now called, ahem, “Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.”) Cue lawsuits.

Really? As if anybody taking one of these “Tony Robbinseque” courses doesn’t realize they aren’t attending a real university?

Note that National Review echoes my sentiments that higher ed is a de facto scam. Update: higher ed is a de jure one, to use their words.

Back to the judge

In retrospect this story looks like a Kavanaugh lynching except for a “university”. Yet, it’s OK; because no other universities were hurt in the making of this farce.

The Democrats got what they wanted and Trump University, ergo Trump was sued. As CNN reported:

Judge Gonzalo Curiel in the Southern District of California approved the settlement in March 2017, but it was delayed because one woman wanted to opt out and sue Donald Trump separately.

President Trump went after the judge in 2016. At the time, he stated that the judge’s ‘Mexican’ heritage kept him from being impartial during the case.

In fitting irony, Judge Curiel made the decision regarding the border wall that the SCOTUS court essentially upheld by not hearing it.

The Left say that Trump didn’t win. But, indeed he did. And these incremental wins count. They also demoralize the lunatics on the wrong side of this issue.

I bet most Americans had no idea the uphill climb the President of the United States would face in trying to protect our borders. It’s incredible to believe anybody would disagree with having people enter a country legally.


Back to top button