Supreme Court Allows Federal Agents to Cut Razor Wire Texas Installed on US-Mexico Border - Breitbart
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol agents to cut razor wire that Texas installed on the U.S.-Mexico border, while a lawsuit over the wire continues.
What a disappointment Amy Coney Barrett has been... her double last name should have clued me in that she was a fake conservative-
I never trust a woman (or man) with a hyphenated last name, at least not initially. It's just something I've learned from experience. I can't fully explain the correlation, but it's near 100% so I find it a useful filter.
Never trust a guy with a "man-bun" or a pony tail tied with a rubber band.
I wear my long hair with a head sock hate me lol
I agree 💯%
These women are almost always liberals. Not sure if they have daddy issues or something. Trying to buy their dad's love by keeping his name when marrying. It's weird but there is nearly a 100 percent correlation to these women being evil.
I've seen it many times and avoid two last name women every chance I can.
In addition to life, I noticed many of the corrupt election officials were women with two last names. I should have kept a list for comment threads like these.
Some women choose to keep the maiden name for legit reasons. It is not uncommon for a woman to keep a maiden name for professional reasons, based on a family business reputation, for example.
But, I do agree that the double-name thing was promoted largely as part of the fem-lib (empowered women) movement, which was also used as a social wedge (useful idiots) in American society by communist insurgents.
My late wife did this.
She had established a very prominent reputation in her field under her first husband's name so when we got married she hyphenated her name for anything work related.
But legally she had my last name only.
So, riding the coat-tails of your dad's name? That again is very liberal.. so yeah, I stand by my statement.. hyphenated names are normally Libs...
Don’t men get to do that automatically by keeping their father’s last name?
I wouldn’t say all are evil but all my friends who hyphenated their last names after getting married are now divorced.
You are right, not all are evil. It's just an axiom I've learned to trust.
Not surprised at all that they are divorced. To me, not taking the man's last name is a sign of lack of commitment to the new life that is marriage.
Two become one (but I'm keeping my daddy's last name!).
Yes, lack of commitment.
A friend of mine pointed this out about a year ago to me and so far it's proven to be pretty correct.
I’ll say the quiet part out loud. Women should not hold political office. And whether they should have the vote is questionable. There are the few that would do fine, of course. But most women, and I’ve known MANY in my life, would not. Even the New Testament makes this clear. Look at all the left/liberal protests — mostly women. Even George Orwell warned against this in 1984.
My wife actually agrees with this. She admits that women are too emotionally driven and shouldn’t vote or hold office.
My wife agrees and she's one of the few that actually does deserve to vote.
Thank your for your comment and testimony to your wife’s grace and wisdom. You are a blessed man.
LOL. Are you like 100 years old?
a big part of me is about 2000 years old 😉
Giving up their last name for their man's is an act of submission and strong independent feminists don't submit to no man.
I was just thinking the same. We knew Roberts was a cabal puppet, but she is the turd in the punch bowl that no one suspected.
Should have known just from her virtue signaling adoptions.
Yes the adoptions sealed it for me .
Yes. When I saw the trophy adoptions I knew she was trash. All those kids and a high level job that keeps you too busy. Bad.
walnut sauce
Amy Phoney-Parrot.
Barrett was picked because she's a she, and the republican party wanted to polish up it's image with women voters by appointing a she. Trump was coerced into picking her. She was not a merit based pick, and Trump himself is quoted as stating (prior to announcing Barret) that he wasn't sure who his next SCOTUS pick would be, but "it's going to be woman." Party image over merit- this is what we earn for having the traitorous "republican" party as allies.
It's perfectly possible to pick a meritorious woman for the role. The fact Trump didn't suggests that wasn't his goal, or that he actually fucked up. Take your pick.
Picking a candidate based on identity only becomes a problem when merit isn't considered at all, as the left does it, or when there actually isn't a good person to pick at all because the identity criteria are too strict, as the left also does it (i.e. black trans woman that's gay and is married to an Asian man).
cue misheard lyric: "Secret Aaaasian man, secret Aaaasian man..." Your description in parentheses is spot on fren!!!
She was picked for her stance on Roe v Wade.
Im gonna wait until this plays out before I make assinine assertions like Trump was coerced.
There is nothing asinine about stating facts. I do understand how one could [wrongly] assume such a statement to be so, if they do not understand the role of congress in what we errantly refer to as "presidential appointments," and the US senate confirmation process.
Too many people wrongly assume that these appointments are all a presidents doing, but they are not. It is technically a political misnomer to call any appointments made by a president a "presidential appointment," if that appointment requires senate confirmation. <~~~The US senate has the ultimate authority for who actually gets appointed, not the president.
It is very important to understand that all president's have one hand tied behind their back by the senate confirmation process before they ever even announce a nomination. A president cannot "pick" anyone who the senate will not confirm; the senate has as much say in the "pick" process as the president.
All of those SCOTUS turds that Trump "appointed" were in fact confirmed by Mitch McConnell and the senate establishment, and they hold at least an equal share of the credit for those "presidential" appointments as the president does.
TL;DR A president cannot, and does not "pick" a candidate without the US senate approving of that pick, before it is even made.
She lives in a Communist Commune for goodness sakes. She's left of Chairman Mao.
I realize you are right about that statement, but it makes me feel like doing a Homer Simpson face smack and saying, "DOH!"
All they did was refuse to leave an injunction in place while the case is heard by the 5th Circuit.
Right. Theres has been no rulings made about any Constitutional questions. It was purely about whether the injunction should remain in place.
This is all leading to a ruling on what Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution means.
Please explain.
Injunctive relief is asking the court to make someone to refrain from doing something, or to do something they don't want to do. In order for injunctive relief to be granted on an emergency basis while the matter is being debated, the court has to find both that there is a "strong likelihood of success on the merits" AND that there would be "irreparable harm" to the party to whom the thing is being done (or not done). Irreparable harm is usually a pretty high bar. In other words, there is a strong bias in favor of leaving whatever the "status quo" is while the matter is being decided by the court.
I haven't been following this one closely but the Fifth Circuit apparently ordered the Feds to stop cutting the razor wire - i.e., found that Texas would likely win on the merits of the case AND that there would be irreparable harm to Texas if the Feds were not "enjoined" from continuing to cut the wire.
According to this article. the SCOTUS justices didn't give a reason for their respective votes. However it is possible, for example, that some of the justices voting with the majority have simply found that regardless of whether Texas would likely prevail on the merits, the harm in the Feds cutting the wire is not "irreparable." If I had to guess the liberals think that Texas will/should lose on the merits and that there is no irreparable harm, and Roberts and Barrett just think there's no irreparable harm and that there shouldn't be court action until the case is fully decided.
I am somewhat curious to read the arguments and if I have time and can find them readily I may do so. I suspect that the administration is saying immigration matters are solely within the jurisdiction of the executive branch and that Texas is going lose on the merits.
Thanks for the explanation.
Getting the sinking feeling that we are being gaslit into getting our panties in a bunch over what might be a nothing-burger. Whenever GAW goes completely bananas (and stop being the thinkers they need to be per their mission statement), we become blind to the facts.
Me? I am applying the 48 hour rule for news here, and keeping an eye on Trump's Truth Social account. If he does not make a stink about this, then maybe it is a nothing-burger that we are getting way too worked up on.
GAW needs to work on emotion discipline, or else become no better than PDW.
GAW will be better than PDW (I'm guessing), but the need for work on the collective emotional discipline is apparent and obvious. IMO.
This should be top comment.
Understanding is better than reacting, and lots of folks react because they didn't get the result they wanted, without actually understanding anything about the law and how it operates.
It's not very Q-ish. Your comment here, however, is very Q-ish. Or at least, based anonish.
High praise indeed. Thanks! EDIT: Can't remember if I saw it here but Draino had a Twitter post about how the fact that the executive branch has authority to handle all aspects of immigration could be a huge boomerang when Trump has to go into the states and deport the illegal immigrants. Here's a link:
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1749555630841508006
Understandably, there is a lot of talk going around about Coney Barrett, that's she's owned, that she's pedo stuff.
We have to be careful. We know the phenomena (which will play out more and more in the end) about the 'left' (by which we really mean the satanically controlled and motivated globo-marxists) eating themselves.
In the Awakening Sphere, some people seem to react more than research, and attack anyone or anything that even seems not maga, not awakening, or not conservative, etc.
I see it as a similar form of the reactionism that evil uses to control and manipulate their lower minions on the 'left', and prevent them from thinking, understanding and recognizing the truth.
I'm not saying this out of defense for Barrett (honestly, I have no real idea of what her real character is, except that she was appointed by DJT); rather, out of defense for us and the movement towards freedom.
We have to constantly be vigilant against those things, those character traits, attitudes and behaviors that the Enemy would happily use to get us offside or manipulate us.
I say Texas should just ignore the ruling.
FJB has ignored the SCOTUS ruling about student loan forgiveness so he set the standard.
SCOTUS rulings can be ignored if you don't like the ruling.
Since the barricades in question seem to be in the Eagle Pass area, all Texas has to do is continue what they are doing. The ball is in BP court, especially the boots on the ground. When the NG showed up they received vocal support from the BP agents. We will see what they do now.
This is all leading to a showdown at SCOTUS over Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution and a clarifying of the Feds responsibilities to protect the States sovereignty and the what the States may do if the Feds dont.
Removing this injunction is just shining a bright spotlight on this issue.
the 4 bitches and the Trannie!
Texas should just ignore it.
Precedent has been set that the fed essentially has complete control over immigration. Trump can now mass deport (he already said he will) and sanctuary cities can’t say shit
They will have no legal leg to stand on but you can bet these sanctuary cities will definitely not cooperate with the Feds.
They will refuse to hold illegals on deportation detainers and will refuse to provide information to Federal authorities.
I just wish red states had the balls to do the same thing to Commie Democrat administration's when it comes to unconstitutional gun laws.
You tell them the plane is going to New York, but actually send them to Nigeria.
I will just leave this here.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17s5thfUzm/protect-our-borders/c/
Texas homeowner is arrested after firing his gun to 'scare off' illegal immigrants who ran onto his property after crossing the border https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6358591/Texas-man-arrested-firing-gun-scare-illegal-immigrants.html
So illegal immigrants are above the law?
They want them to enter legally, i think Texas has a case with the 10th amendment
How is it that "opinion" matters?
Some say yes, some say no.
It either is or it isn't.
Ambiguity is not reality.
My wife told me the day Trump had Amy up on the podium that she was no good just by the way she was looking at Trump. I didn't see it but my wife is like Sherlock, she sees everything! Amy was looking at Trump the way he looked at Vivek!
What I'm wondering is... what happens with the cases involving Trump being on the ballot? Will we get another shock verdict with those?
Wondering what the problem is with the catholic cunt?? We know roberts is compromised.
look at those walnut sauce adoptees she likes to flaunt
Coney Barrett and Roberts compromised
So what, block them anyway - laws are only recommendations.
Also, I’ll volunteer to protect our border
It’s Texas. Let the rifle talk.
Complicity with Treason does not equate with being a SC Justice.
An Anti-Defamation lawyer called John Roberts a pedophile and now I believe it
Then maybe the states need to take the fed govt to SCOTUS over their LACK of border protection
They want you divided.
It is a little sad to me that the average anon view of the border issue is that of the average pede.
Then make the supreme court send troops to enforce there decision.
Hell is waiting for these 5.
Trump what where you thinking?
Is there a constitutional basis for this? AFAIK, all powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the states and the people.
So was there something that gave the fed the power to come into a sovereign state to do this kind of thing, or are the NWO SCOTUS members just statists saying the fed can do what they want?
So the rumor Amy C Barrett's adoption involved Jeffery Epstein is true...
Both traitors had illegaly adopted. Both compromised.
I’m speechless.
Feds=aliens.
The STATES have power over the government, when the government fails to protect the safety & sovereignty of the people they have the right and the duty to take the power they delegated to the LESSER POWER.
The Sheriff's need to stand with the National Guard.
Roberts is compromised. Other than that, you need more proof we are ruled by women and not by law?
Current Supreme Court Justices and Who Appointed Them May 03, 2022 at 5:56 AM EDT By Jack Dutton https://www.newsweek.com/current-supreme-court-justices-who-appointed-them-1702856 On Monday, an initial draft majority opinion of the Supreme Court was leaked to the public, showing the court intends to vote to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which guaranteed broad access to abortion in every state.
The final decision from the court is expected in roughly two months, but the leaked majority opinion suggests that anti-abortion activists will be declaring a victory, overturning the 1973 legislation. The leaked draft, revealed and obtained by Politico, said that abortion rights should be determined individually by each state.
The court has become increasingly partisan since October 2020, when in the final weeks of Donald Trump's presidency, it gained a six-three supermajority of conservative over liberal judges.
Here are the Supreme Court Justices and the presidents that appointed them:
John Roberts, chief justice of the United States Sign up for Newsletter NEWSLETTER The Bulletin Your daily briefing of everything you need to know Email address
By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use & Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time. Robert is a conservative judge who was appointed by George W. Bush as chief justice of the court in 2005, taking his seat on September 29 that year.
The New York-born judge was previously United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2003, and formerly served as an associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan and in the White House. Later, between 1989 and 1993, he was the principal deputy solicitor general at the U.S Department of Justice.
His track record suggests he supports some abortion restrictions, but it is not yet clear how he will vote on whether to uphold Roe v. Wade.
READ MORE Roe v. Wade Protest as Furious Abortion Activists Swarm Supreme Court Twitter Reacts to Roe v. Wade News Breaking During the Met Gala Marjorie Taylor Greene Gloats Over Roe v. Wade Ruling: 'Our God is Bigger' Clarence Thomas, associate justice Sign up for Newsweek’s daily headlines President George Bush nominated Thomas as an associate justice and he took his seat on October 23, 1991.
The Georgia native worked as assistant secretary for civil rights, U.S. Department of Education and chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the 1980s. Between 1990 and 1991, he served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Thomas has previously tried to say that abortion rights were opened by the eugenics movement —a debunked theory from the early 1900s that said white Caucasians had superior genes. However, an author of one of the main works that Thomas cited about abortion discredited the judge's claims in an article for The Atlantic.
Supreme Court Breyer and Roberts U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (L) speaks to US Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer ahead of US President Joe Biden delivering the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the U.S. Capitol House Chamber on March 1, 2022 in Washington, DC. SAUL LOEB/GETTY Stephen Breyer, associate justice President Bill Clinton nominated Breyer as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat on August 3, 1994.
Breyer has experience serving as a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals, as well as lecturing in places such as Harvard Law School and the universities of Sydney and Rome.
Breyer has announced his intention to return at the end of the 2021-2022 term and will be succeeded by Kentaji Brown Jackson, who will be the first Black woman to serve as a justice in the court.
Unlike Thomas and Roberts, Breyer has demonstrated his commitment to protecting sexual and reproductive rights, including abortion.
Samuel A. Alito, associate justice George W. Bush nominated Alito as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat on January 31, 2006.
Alito was previously appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990. He also has previous stints working for the U.S. Department of Justice.
The leaked majority opinions to strike back Roe v. Wade was written by Alito, who said it was "egregiously wrong from the start."
Sonia Sotomayor, associate justice Bronx-born Sotomayor attended Princeton University and Yale Law School, before going on to work as assistant district attorney for the New York County District Attorney's Office between 1979 and 1984. After going into commercial law at Pavia & Harcourt between 1984 and 1992, President George H.W. Bush nominated her to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
President Barack Obama nominated Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, and she took her seat on August 8, 2009.
Sotomayor, along with the other two Democratic-appointed justices, are working on one or more dissents to overturn Roe v. Wade, a person familiar with the court's deliberations told Politico.
Elena Kagan, associate justice Obama nominated Kagan as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 10, 2010. She took her seat on August 7, 2010. She has repeatedly voted in favor of abortion rights.
Prior to that, she was Solicitor General of the United States and served for four years in the Clinton Administration.
Neil M. Gorsuch, associate justice Gorsuch was nominated to the court by President Donald Trump, assuming his seat on April 10, 2017. He previously taught at the University of Colorado Law school, and on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In his 10 year-tenure on Colorado's 10th Circuit, he never ruled on abortion rights.
Brett M. Kavanaugh, associate justice Trump nominated Kavanaugh as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat on October 6, 2018.
He was previously Associate Counsel and then Senior Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush, and Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary for Bush. In 2006, he was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Kavanaugh has consistently supported abortion restrictions.
Amy Coney Barrett, associate justice Barrett was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, and was nominated by Trump as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. She took her seat on October 27, 2020.
She was previously a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and before that she was a law professor at Notre Dame Law School, Indiana.
Barrett has previously argued that abortions aren't necessary because women can always give their babies up for adoption.
Although she was praised by Republicans for being the first anti-abortion female judge appointed to the bench and is outspoken about her Catholic faith, Barrett so far has not revealed much about her views on Roe v. Wade.