Socialists generally do not support border fencing until after they’re in control of a government.
No, this isn’t about a chapter from Through the Looking Glass, although it could be. There’s a Reuters report over at IJR about yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court denying the appeal by the Center for Biological Diversity of a District Court’s ruling that President Trump can use the provisions of a 1996 immigration law to bypass certain environmental reviews of his border wall project. The report quotes the losing side’s lawyer expressing his disappointment.
Brian Segee, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said he was disappointed that the court would not hear the case.
“Trump has abused his power to wreak havoc along the border to score political points,” Segee said. “He’s illegally sweeping aside bedrock environmental and public-health laws. We’ll continue to fight Trump’s dangerous wall in the courts and in Congress.”
IANAL, but that point of view appears to be disconnected from how the law works in America. A court ruled that the President’s actions were legal. The ruling survived the appeal. The statement that the President is acting illegally is not only false, it is so removed from the facts of the matter that it’s wronger than wrong.
This is where Humpty Dumpty comes in. When Alice challenged him about the meanings of words, he replied that they meant what he meant them to mean. When Alice asked, “whether you can make words mean so many different things,” he replied, “The question is which is to be master—that’s all.”
So it is with Lawfare Liberals. From a living constitution on down, they presume that the laws should mean what they say they mean because they should be the masters.