A split Supreme Court said Friday night that the Trump administration could proceed with its plan to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds to build part of the president's wall project along the southern border.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that President Trump can indeed build the wall from already appropriated funding is a sweet one. Here's the Washington Post's report :

The court's conservatives set aside a lower-court ruling for the Sierra Club and a coalition of border communities that said reallocating Defense Department money would violate federal law.

Friday's unsigned ruling came in response to an emergency filing from the administration during the court's summer recess. The majority said the government "made a sufficient showing at this stage" that private groups may not be the proper plaintiffs to challenge the transfer of money.

At long last, one gets the sense the world is back on its axis. Suddenly, the Sierra Club's "enjoyment" of natural scenery is not quite as important as Americans' right to hold off a million-strong illegal foreign invasion. At long last, we learn there is some kind of limits to the demands of the open borders lobby, which up until now have seen continuous expansion, some kind of check and balance between justice for the citizens and the "rights" of illegal foreigners. There's some kind of acknowledgment that if you don't have borders of any kind, you don't have a country. And there's some kind of sense that the president we elected, precisely to protect us, has some kind of power to do that. Up until now, the constant series of court rulings, by unelected leftists, has left one with the sense that the entire power structure of the country was hinged on what these leftists think.

There's some kind of balance now, some kind of limit...and for that, the ruling was an immense relief.

Combined with the decent compromise accord reached with Guatemala, reducing the incentives of migrants to file phony asylum claims in order to get a few good years working here, and preserving the asylum system for those who truly need it, it's a great victory. One cannot help but feel a sense of celebration.

Because the whole thing has been blown so out of proportion from what it is, by the press, the open borders lobby, and the Democrats.

The ruling itself wasn't extraordinary. A president has some discretion about how certain already congressionally appropriated monies can be spent.

A wall is not extraordinary, either. In the face of a border surge, a wall is reasonable, if for nothing else, then to free up the Border Patrol from babysitting illegal migrants so that they can go after real drug-dealers, who've been having a field day as a result. Dozens of countries have them. It's a simple, uncompromising proxy for rule of law that favors no special interest groups.

And a president has a duty to defend the country. Any country faced with more than a million foreign invaders — all unvetted, and with plenty of criminal, terrorist, and deadly disease elements among them — has an obligation to protect its people. Using defense dollars to do it, instead of fight some country in the Middle East, makes perfect sense. This isn't rocket science. The leftist lower courts' continuous rulings in favor of all comers has reached the lunatic point, the point at which one can only see something else going on beyond mere defenses of every individual right at the expense of the whole, some different agenda.

The Democrats, of course, are unhappy, because they've made such a political stink about there never, ever being a wall to go up. The wall was President Trump's signature issue, the issue that got him unexpectedly elected. Democrats have made a huge deal about the keeping the status quo, keeping the border open, keeping the asylum loopholes in place to encourage illegals not only to abuse the system, but to keep coming, too. That's why they want no wall ever to go up, no matter what the circumstances. Never mind the will of the voters, of course. These Democrats were determined to get their will over his will and, in so doing, get him ousted.

Their tweets are revealing for their hypocrisy:

This evening’s Supreme Court ruling allowing @realDonaldTrump to steal military funds to spend on a wasteful, ineffective border wall rejected by Congress is deeply flawed. Our Founders designed a democracy governed by the people — not a monarchy. — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) July 26, 2019

Yea. How dare President Trump spend defense dollars to defend our border rather than that of some country in the Middle East. — Steph (@steph93065) July 27, 2019

Congress did not appropriate these funds for Trump's medieval vanity project. Let's be clear: Trump's wall has never been about keeping the American people safe. https://t.co/tlZ9GRp7Wd — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) July 27, 2019

Schumer: It’s a sad day when the president is cheering a decision that may allow him to steal funds from our military to pay for an ineffective and expensive wall for which he promised Mexico would foot the bill. This is a deeply regrettable and nonsensical decision — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) July 27, 2019

Since when has Nancy Pelosi ever been concerned about presidential overreach? She let President Obama walk all over her on that one. Or stealing funds — which by the way, are not being stolen? Or kingly power in the post-Obama era, the world she built? Or the biggest of all — government waste? Why would a piddly $8 billion loss due to 'waste' bother her, given the gargantuan losses she's signed off on in Obama's assorted green and welfare schemes? And if a wall is ineffective, why is she upset about it? We all know she wants the illegal migrants to flood in. Her hypocrisy is amazing.

Then there's Kamala Harris, who calls it a medieval vanity project. Really? Why are so many nations doing them now, Kamala? Medieval suggests something rather useless and behind the times. But cocaine smugglers know what a wall means and for them it's not a figment of the past. Again, if it's useless, why is she against it? As for vanity, the only vanity we see is her own. Millions of unvetted foreigners are flooding into the country in an unprecedented invasion. Democrats benefit from it, as illegals roll in with impunity, encounter no law enforcement, put down roots, have children, and then vote Democrat. She can call Trump's project as vain as she wants but the voters elected Trump for this very reason. She's effectively calling us and our voting choices vain. The vanity is hers. And the hypocrisy.

There's also Chuck Schumer, crying his crocodile tears about the military and its funding. The military's doing fine on funding, but more important, a wall is national defense, a bulwark on the border, protection of the citizens. All of this is the very thing a military is supposed to be used for. Schumer seems to think Middle Eastern wars are a better use for the military. As if Democrats have ever supported our military. Lay the hypocrisy thick on this one, too.

As for the rest of us, something is finally happening. A wall will go up. The people's will is finally getting some respect. The law is perfectly in place. And leftists are free to un-elect President Trump, get their own operatives in there, and tear it down if they can persuade enough of us.

Let's celebrate in the meantime.