The Supreme Court Declares That Texas Has No Right To Defend Its Own Borders

At this point you don’t need to be an avid court-watcher to know that the right of self-defense — one of the most fundamental rights that exists — has effectively been suspended in major cities in this country. The cases of Kyle Rittenhouse, the McCloskeys, George Zimmerman, Daniel Penny, George Allan Kelly, Jose Alba, Daniel Perry, and so on all make it clear that defending yourself generally means that the government will try to destroy your life. 

At the behest of wealthy foreigners — billionaires like George Soros, who don’t live anywhere near the carnage they’re inflicting on American cities — prosecutors now seek to make an example out of anyone who takes action to defend their life or property. And they have the full support of Joe Biden’s DOJ as they do it. This is the reality of living in any jurisdiction controlled by Leftists, who can easily select sympathetic juries and secure a conviction. Defend yourself, and you’ll be accused of breaking the law. Most people are aware of that now.

What most people probably don’t know is that conservatives are now helping the Left neutralize the right of self-defense. But yesterday’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is proof that’s exactly what’s happening. It’s undeniable. By a 5-4 vote, with two supposedly conservative justices in the majority, the Supreme Court gave the Biden administration the green-light to terminate the right of self-defense along the southern border with Mexico. This ruling is maybe the single most significant attack on your right to defend yourself and your property that we’ve seen in the last decade, and it’s happening because of the “conservative majority” on the Supreme Court that we’re supposed to be so grateful for.

Here’s the upshot of the ruling: The Supreme Court allowed the Biden administration to remove razor-wire fencing placed by the state of Texas on private property, with the consent of private property owners, in order to keep hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants from flooding across the border every single month. To restate: the Supreme Court is letting the Border Patrol destroy border fencing set up by Texas.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

This is the kind of ruling that’s so incompatible with the fundamental principles of self-defense, self-determination, and common sense that it defies explanation, really. And appropriately enough, the Supreme Court didn’t provide one. There was no majority opinion explaining the reasoning here. But if you look at the docket from the lower courts, it’s not hard to see what might have convinced the justices. In one filing, the Biden administration’s solicitor general argued that the razor-wire fencing endangered the lives of foreign criminals who are swimming in the water and trying to sneak into this country. Here’s what Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court. She said that the fencing prevents agents from, “accessing or getting near the border along this 2.5-mile stretch of the river” and therefore “effectively prevented [agents] … from monitoring the border to determine whether a migrant requires … emergency aid.”

What was left unexplained in the solicitor general’s filing is why anyone in the United States has any obligation to provide “emergency aid” to foreign criminals who are trying to invade this country. You won’t find that requirement in the Constitution or in any federal or state law. It’s just invented out of thin air. We’re now responsible for making sure that Mexicans and Haitians and Guatemalans get top-notch medical care as they swim across the Rio Grande, apparently. Which is to say, it is our responsibility to provide medical care to non-citizens who are injured while in the process of attempting to break our laws. But if it’s anyone’s responsibility, why isn’t it Mexico’s or Haiti’s or Guatemala’s? Why don’t we simply tell them to take care of their own people?

These are all good questions that the Supreme Court decided are irrelevant, somehow.

It goes without saying that this is the inverse of the right of self-defense. The Biden administration — and now the Supreme Court— is saying that you don’t have the right to protect yourself from foreign criminals. Instead, you have an obligation to protect these foreign criminals from themselves. It’s obscene. But obviously Joe Biden’s solicitor general doesn’t mean anything she’s saying. It’s been clear for months now that the Biden administration wants to tear down the razor-wire fencing so that it can import as many foreigners into this country as possible. This is not about “emergency medical aid.”

Back in October, the outlet Border Hawk captured live footage of federal border patrol agents using heavy machinery to lift the razor-wire fencing — installed by Texas authorities at Eagle Pass Texas — so that hundreds of migrants could stream across.

Watch this footage and you will notice a distinct absence of illegal aliens in need of “emergency aid”:

????BOMBSHELL BORDER HAWK EXCLUSIVE????

Biden Regime Deploys Heavy Machinery to LIFT Razor Wire for Massive Mob of Illegals at Rio Grande

Border Hawk cameras captured the moment Border Patrol used heavy machinery to raise concertina wire erected by Texas authorities – just as a… pic.twitter.com/61wQEXJFDS

— Border Hawk (@BorderHawkNews) October 31, 2023

As the reporter with Border Hawk notes, “Somehow, these large groups of migrants are informed about the place and time when the forklifts raise the barbed wire to cross in groups.” It’s almost like the solicitor general was lying. But we all knew that. We all know that the Biden administration wants to destroy the razor wire for the same reason it sued Arizona for building a makeshift wall out of shipping containers along the border. They want to transform the population. They want to lead all these people into the country with fake asylum claims, give them court dates ten years into the future and forget all about them. That’s obvious. What’s less clear, by contrast, is why Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts — two justices we were once told were conservative — would go along with this fraud.

It’s important to clarify that this case is still making its way through the court system. On February 7th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (based in New Orleans) is going to hear arguments on the issue of whether the Biden administration has the legal authority to cut razor-wire along the southern border. So this is still a live issue. Before it heard those arguments, however, the Fifth Circuit entered a temporary injunction prohibiting the Biden administration from cutting any more wire while the case was proceeding. The Biden administration filed an emergency appeal of that injunction, because they really want to cut the wire as quickly as possible. And the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, lifted the injunction, and allowed the fence-cutting to continue.

Three of those five votes were always in the bag for the Biden administration. That’s because, unlike Republicans, Democrats know how to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will faithfully carry out the political objectives of their party. But Republicans are incapable of doing that. So John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett — who we were told was a major win for conservatives when Trump appointed her — voted with Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

We all know why John Roberts would do that. He’s openly admitted that he’s preoccupied with making sure the court appears nonpartisan, rather than applying the law. But why would Amy Coney Barrett join the Leftist judges?

Whatever the explanation — and I’ll get into one theory in a moment — this is becoming something of a pattern. An analysis by the Washington Examiner found that “in 2020 and 2021, Barrett voted similarly with liberal justices in just over half of the cases heard.” And she’s continued to side with them since. Last year, for example, Barrett and John Roberts sided with the court’s Leftists to ban the sale of so-called “ghost guns,” which is an invented term that’s intended to criminalize the transportation of firearms parts. Just a few weeks ago, Barrett rejected a challenge to Illinois’ ban on so-called assault weapons, which is a category of firearms that doesn’t actually exist. She also blocked a challenge to Indiana University’s requirement that all students and employees take the COVID shot. And, as Daniel Horowitz pointed out, during COVID, Barrett had no problem with the state of Illinois locking down its own citizens. She indicated that, under the constitutional police power, states can close businesses and schools to protect the public health. 

What’s odd about Amy Coney Barrett’s reasoning is that it apparently doesn’t apply to the state of Texas, or any citizens living there. They don’t have a right to invoke the police power to…