Supreme Court rules Trump can use funds to build wall; NPR and media sneer "This isn't over!"

When any court, at any level, blocks a Trump proposal to increase border security, every Lying Mainstream Media outlet crows with glee.  "Yay, we defeated da OrangeMan!!!"

By contrast, when Trump wins in the f'n Supreme Court, the Lying Mainstream media does its best to write stories that camouflage the victory, often emphasizing that "appeals against this disastrous decision continue," or even spinning the story as a defeat for Trump.

In the latest example:  Trump had proposed to use $2.5 Billion in "uncommitted" funds from the Defense Department to build more border wall.  A lower court judge had ruled that he couldn't do that--and the Mainstream Media crowed with glee. 

Of course the Constitution specifies that in an emergency the president can take whatever action he deems necessary to secure our borders against an invasion.  And sure enough, last Friday the Supreme Court--acknowledging the clear provision of the Constitution--overturned the lower court ruling, saying the president could indeed use the $2.5 Billion to build more border wall.

Predictably, the Left and Mainstream Media went nuts.  Here's how the leftists at NPR described it:

Supreme Court Lets Trump Border Wall Move Forward, But Legal Fight Still Looms

Got that?  According to NPR the SC "lets Trump wall move forward."  Not a word about the Constitutionality of the decision, cuz, reasons.  Also, to show their Democrat readers/listeners that this fight isn't over--by a LONG shot--the headline adds "the legal fight still looms."

Cuz, see, the Supreme Court saying "yes" don't mean squat to the Left.  NPR is convinced that there's a higher court than the Supremes--like maybe Hawaii or the 9th Circus--where this terrible decision that cruelly punishes all the innocent women and children in the world--can be put right.

Yeh, go wit' dat.  NPR continues:

The debate over the funding began earlier this year when Trump declared a national emergency along the country's southern border after Congress refused to appropriate enough money for him to build the massive structure along the U.S.-Mexico border, which Trump frequently touted he would do during the 2016 campaign if elected — though back then he proclaimed that Mexico would pay for it.

"Enough" money?  Think again, cupcake:  Congress didn't appropriate a single dollar for wall.  But we wouldn't expect to hear that from NPR.  Cuz to them "any" is a synonym for "enough."  Well, for now at least. 

Almost a month ago a federal judge ruled against Trump and sided with liberal groups...[including] the Sierra Club, California and 19 other states. In an earlier ruling over the issue, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam said the Trump administration's plans were "unlawful" and that such a re-appropriation of funds by the executive branch after a denial from the legislative branch "does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic."

And yet the Supreme f'n Court disagreed.  Hmm...who's right, eh?  Well to hear NPR tell it, the lower court is right.  And the only reason the SC reversed that court is cuz da eeeebil OrangeMan has packed the court with conservatives.  Ooooh, bad!!!

Following the Supreme Court's stay on Friday, the ACLU said it will now try to expedite the hearing before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals over the legality of Trump's actions.

"This is not over. We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump's border wall," Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said in a statement. "Border communities, the environment, and our Constitution's separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied."

How...interesting.  So did the ACLU sue congress when congress--with a huge vote from Democrats--including Hilliary--who voted to build a wall on the southern border back in 2006?  Why no, no they didn't.  Cuz the ACLU knew the Dems never intended to build the wall, and that their vote was simply to avoid losing votes from Americans who recognized we needed one.

But it's all good, citizen:  NPR and PBS and CNN and MSNBC and Rachel Maddow and Chrissie Matthews and Don Lemon and Chris Hayes and Chris Cuomo and the rest of the "elites" have reassured you--endlessly--that we need open borders and unlimited immigration from third-world thugs, murderers and drug dealers.

Cuz, "diversity is our greatest strength," eh?