The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration CAN cut Texas’ razor wire at the southern border. But why would Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett side with Biden on this issue? Senator Mike Lee joins Glenn to give his thoughts: Is this all a political game? Sen. Lee also reminds listeners that this SCOTUS decision doesn’t stop Texas from doing anything — it only allows the White House to thwart Gov. Abbott’s actions. “Is the Biden administration really, seriously, with a straight face going to say, ‘cut the wires?’” Sen. Lee asks. And how should Texas and Americans react if they had to decide between securing the border and defying the rule of law?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Senator Mike Lee.

Because I will lead and not follow.

I believe and not doubt. I will create, not destroy.

Because I'm a force for good. I'm a force for God.

I'm a leader. And we can defy the odds.

I need your help today.

In understanding the news, and where we go from here.

Because if it's -- if it's not this, it will be something, because we're facing constitutional crisis, after constitutional crisis.

And I am -- I am not sure how to react.

But I know there's a lot of people saying, this is out of line. We should ignore the Supreme Court.

But that makes us them. But what else are you going to do.

First, let's go over what the Supreme Court decided yesterday, Mike.

MIKE: Okay. So yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an order, not an opinion. Just a very brief order, undoing an order that was released by the US Court of Appeals, for the Fifth Circuit, on December 19th.

Now, remember, the Courts of Appeals are -- are numbered throughout the company.

The Fifth Circuit includes the state of Texas.

And the -- the Fifth Circuit, on December 19th. Had issued an order, enjoining the widen administration.

From taking down barriers, put in place, by the state of Texas.

The state of Texas wanted to make sure that -- that they restore some semblance of the rule of law in their state. So put up barriers along the border. Say, we don't want to do this. The Biden administration started taking actions indicating its plans to take down the concertina wire and the other barriers.

So Texas brought suit against the Department of Homeland Security.

And others in the Biden administration.

And said, we want an injunction, telling them, telling the Biden administration, that they may not take down these barriers. The Fifth Circuit Court of appeals, on December 19th, issued such an injunction.

And immediately, the Biden administration, went to the Supreme Court.

And filed an emergency application, to vacate that injunction.

In other words, to undo it.

And they offered a portion of the order from yesterday.

Is just found in a sentence.

It's inclusive of a total of four sentences.

But this one is the operative language.
The December 19th, 2023, order of appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated. That's it!

And there's a separate line that says, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would have denied the application to vacate the junction.

So with that, the Supreme Court of the United States undid this.

What this tells this. It was chief justice Roberts, along with Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Jackson, who was in the majority on this.

And that's all we know about their rationale. All we know about what happened.

So all of a sudden, Texas, having won this litigation.

The previous round of litigation in the Court of Appeals.

Is back to square one. Being told, you lose.

And yet, we don't have the analysis as to why, and what this means.

And everything is in a state of disorder.

GLENN: So, first of all, can you explain Barrett's joining the other side.

I mean, any guess to what she was thinking.

MIKE: Yeah. So all I can do is guess. All I can do is offer conjecture. Because there's no analysis.

If I were to guess.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Before you go on. Is that up usual. That there was no analysis?

MIKE: It's not unusual. Given the procedural posture in which they find themselves.

In other words, this side of the court's docket. The emergency application court's docket. Is itself something that the justices have to do. As they're doing their other ordinary business. If they're writing opinions in other cases. And they -- they -- because the nature of it. It's a yes or no, up or down thing, most of the time.

So that part is not surprising.

But it's surprising, given the nature of this dispute. And the complexity, and urgency of this. That we would have this.

It's at least difficult to figure out what to do.

So if I had to guess, as to what her analysis might have been. And that of Chief Justice Roberts, it would be that they reached some kind of conclusion. That, you know, we don't want the courts to be weaponized.

We don't want to be perceived certainly as justices as playing only on the team of the political party of the presence who appointed us. And therefore, I, we, speaking, you know, either as justice -- either as chief justice Roberts, or justice Barrett, or both of them.

We're going to decide to side with the Democrats on this one. So that we don't overpoliticize this. But I really find that difficult. To grasp. That they would do it in that circumstance.

And yet, I don't see a good reason. I don't see an explanation, that makes a lot of sense.

It goes much beyond that.

Because I don't understand why it's a bad thing, to have the state of Texas, trying to protect the people of Texas from these swarms of people, who are pouring from across their borders.

Without documentation.

And destroying property along the way. Converting property. As if it were their own.

And destroying it, as they -- as they cross in illegally.

I don't understand what the compelling need is.

Or what principle of law would be violated, by the state of Texas.

Trying to protect the people of Texas.

GLENN: Let me ask you something, the Constitution says that it is the -- the federal government's job to protect the borders.

But they're not doing their job, obviously.

In fact, they're enabling those people trying to come in. And they are enabling drug cartels. Drugs coming over. Killing our citizens.

Criminals coming over. We know terrorists have come over now.

They're enabling those who rape and sell into sex slavery.

I mean, it's -- it's bad stuff. It's not even close.

And what the justices are saying is, Texas, you don't have the right to protect your own borders. That's our job.

Let me -- let me ask you: If a military came over. Let's say these 10 million people all had military uniforms.

But, you know, only a few of them had guns.

Examine it was clear this was an invasion by an army.

And the federal government decided to say, eh. No. They can keep crossing in.

Would they have the right, to say to Texas, or anybody else, you don't have the right to have a militia, or, you know, call up your National Guard. And push these people back?

Is the Constitution a suicide pact?

MIKE: Certainly not. And specifically, in that kind of circumstance, it wouldn't be. There are two separate provisions of the Constitution, to tell us this.

One is found in article four, section four.

Which says, that the United States shall guarantee every state or Republican form of government

And on application of a state, typically the legislature.

Shall protect each of them from invasion.

So that's an affirmative obligation by the United States.

To protect each state from invasion.

Now, if there's also a -- something that defends in the Constitution. Separate right of the state. To stand up for itself. Upon being invaded.

And that's found in article one, section ten. Clause three.

Once in the provision, that tells the states, a bunch of stuff, that they can't do on their own, without the consent of Congress.

But then contains a carve-out for circumstances in which a state is actually invaded.

GLENN: Yeah. But the only the difference in one scenario -- the only -- the only difference is, in these two scenarios, is 10 million people are coming over.

Not in uniform.

But that's it. I mean, it's an invasion.

MIKE: Right. That's right. And it's no less of an invasion simply because they're not organized formerly, as a military or we don't think of them. They were not a military.

But it's an invasion, nonetheless.

Throughout history, there have been instances of invasions of many countries, around the world. Some are armed, organized invasions. Others are not.

But it's an invasion nonetheless. They are being invaded by people who don't belong there.

And people who have threatened to subvert the order of things.

And the rule of law. As they enter. So the fact that there is an invasion, and the fact that the state of Texas feels the need to protect its own citizens from this. Puts Texas, in my view, in a very solid position.

Now, I assume, that for the four justices who dissented, that is, for Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, that was their rationale. We are all still grasping to understand what the rationale of the majority is.

Other than as you say, immigration is the thing, that is done by the federal government. And it's not done by the state of Texas.

Therefore, case closed. But that doesn't answer the question. That doesn't answer the article one, section ten. Or the article four, section four question, that we just discussed. And as a practical matter, it leaves the state of Texas, in an untenable position.

GLENN: Okay. So now, Mike, I -- I -- we have to have a serious adult conversation.

And we have to start modeling these conversations, and having these conversations.

And have them as rationale, reasonable citizens of a republic. And as adults.

And if you as a listener can't handle that, then you should go away. Because I think some questions need to be asked. And if not now, very soon on whatever the next topic might be.

You know, Mike, there was a guy named Martin Luther King. I know you know.

And he -- he taught people how to resist peacefully.

And nobody is teaching that. Nobody is pushing for that. Pastors are all out to lunch.

But there are people now, who are saying, we need to go. In fact, could you read Tucker Carlson's tweet? From yesterday.

STU: I don't have that handy, but --

GLENN: Look for it. Basically, he says, where are the men of Texas, standing up.

Well, the men of Texas standing up, I don't know exactly what that means, Tucker.

Because many of us are standing up, and we're speaking out.

At what point do people, are people justified at all to say, yeah. It makes me kind of like them. But we have to stop this.

So, in other words, defying the Supreme Court, and just doing it anyway.

I don't like that.

MIKE: No. But look, the rule of law is important to us.

It's the whole reason why Texas is trying to take this action to begin with. Is to preserve the rule of law.

And for that reason, everything possible needs to be done to comply with the rule of law. And if it means going along with a court order, that one doesn't like, and finding other ways to be persuasive to get something done.

But keep in mind something, Glenn. The Supreme Court's order from yesterday, does not order the state of Texas to do anything.

As I read it. All it says, is that they vacate, the fifth circuit's order, from the 19th of December.

Which had itself, enjoined, the Biden administration from taking down the barricades.

So there's nothing affirmatively that the state of Texas has to do in order to comply with this order from the Supreme Court.

It just lifts the legal impediment from the Biden administration.

That previously told them, don't take down the barricades.

GLENN: Right.

MIKE: So one interesting question is, what exactly will the Biden administration do now?

Is the Biden administration really, seriously, with a straight face. Are they going to say, yes. Cut the wires. Remove all the concertina wire and do all that?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

MIKE: Glenn, remember something. We have seen in the last month, more people pouring across our border, unlawfully.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MIKE: Than has ever been observed.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MIKE: In our nearly two and a half centuries of existence as a nation.

And our Border Patrol agents, and everybody else, who works with them, on this. They're all overwhelmed.

I've been down at the border. Just in the last few weeks alone.

I've lived down at the border. For two years.

I know this area well.

Are they really going to say, this is where we want our efforts focused to be going New Testament, removing barricades. Whose sole purpose is to protect people in the state of Texas. And, frankly, even people who are being human traffic along the border.

Are they really going to say, that's where they are. Bring up the wire cutters. Stop everything else. Stop everything that you're doing.

GLENN: They've already done that, Mike. They've already done that. They were cutting the wires in Texas.

What makes you think they won't do that.

MIKE: They were cutting them. They had to stop for three weeks. In the meantime, Texas put down a whole lot more wire.

And they've got more wire now.

I mean, this really would be a massive undertaking.

And if after -- after the month of December, 2023. Just last month. Are they really going to go back in, and undertake that huge effort again?

If so, this raises all kinds of other questions.

And if so, I think this could end up being the very best thing that a single greatest momentum of producing exercise for the Donald Trump campaign.

Because this is a president of the United States, who loves lawlessness, if this is true the way he wants to do it. And we have to make that point loud and clear.