A 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court ruled Monday that construction on a new $400 million White House ballroom can proceed, reversing lower court orders that had temporarily halted aboveground work on the project.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the decision, writing that the ongoing construction was “likely unlawful.”

Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices in opposition, arguing that work on the facility had moved forward unchecked for nearly a year despite significant legal flaws.

“Construction of the ballroom has proceeded apace for the better part of a year,” Roberts wrote. “That construction is likely unlawful.”

Despite Roberts’ warning, the majority threw out the challenge against the Trump administration on procedural grounds. The court concluded that the plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, lacked the legal standing required to pursue a federal lawsuit.

Thrown out b/c a lack of standing. Hard to imagine who would have standing beyond Congress, but we know the party in charge doesn't care. Feels like we're just going to have to take it.

Hey, that's probably what a rape victim thinks half way through being raped. Wow, Republicans are very pro-rape: of children, especially it seems.

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 76 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Hey 5 court justices, please fucking tell me how the non-profit organization founded by a act of Congress with the express mission to preserve historic buildings in the US doesn't have standing in a case regarding the destruction of a historic building in the US?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    "Likely unlawful?" Isn't it literally your job to have the final say on whether it's unlawful? If you found it unlawful, then say so!

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    That's him saying so as part of the Dissenting minority. He was outvoted by the rest of Trump's sycophants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I know. The point is he should have said it is unlawful, not "likely unlawful". Or if he's so afraid of hurting their feelings, he could say "I find it to be unlawful".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    They didn't hear the merits of the case, and as a Supreme Court justice he shouldn't make a determination before the hearing.

    And it doesn't matter here. What he said was appropriate and enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago*

    It is his job to have the final say, after the lower appeals courts have had their final say. That hasn't happened yet. This case is still being litigated in the district court.

    That's why Roberts said "likely unlawful." Because the only question under consideration right now is which way to go until the lawsuit ends. The standard for that is "likely (un)lawful" because you can't decide if it's lawful until you decide if it's lawful. (If that makes any sense).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    He did. He’s also acknowledging how little it matters by adding “likely”. That does seem to be the people’s stance: “yeah, that’s probably illegal ¯_(ツ)_/¯”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Look at Roberts "moderating" the court.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    If it wasn't clear already, these creatures don't recognize the concept of consent. They do not accept the idea that we are all equal as humans.

    Everyone in the hierarchy is naturally entitled to do whatever they please to those below them, who are naturally obligated to "just take it". That's the entire point of the hierarchy. Any illusion of agency only exists at the pleasure and convenience of those at the top.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    This supreme court is a farce. But my understanding of history is that that's actually the norm.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago*

    'probably' Trump's a pedophile, and he's definitely a rapist lying coward treasonous traitor felon.
    But, c'est la vie!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    I used to believe that we should expand SCOTUS to 13 seats. I no longer believe that. Now I believe that we should expand it to 29 seats, with rolling term limits. That way, each president could appoint a few, but they could never appoint enough to rig the entire court.

    SCOTUS should be the most stable of our three branches. It should never be manipulated and subverted like the other branches.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago
    [–] 4 points 2 months ago
    [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    If we manage to kick them out of the Whitehouse, we should (after the Epstein files get released) turn the demolished wing into a memorial to the victims.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Are we still talking about this? This might be the longest he's cared about anything.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    He’s such a chicken sh#%. Stand your ground and uphold the law or step aside ffs.

  • source
  • 8 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    We know the law does not mater any more.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Just bulldoze the whole thing. Any meaning it had is gone.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I don't get how anyone could not have legal standing if they are legal within the country.

  • source
  • [+] -10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    I can't understand why the ballroom is such a big deal. Is it because it's Trump doing it?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 2 months ago

    One issue is that he had no authorization from Congress or anyone to tear down the building that was there previously. Then, he said it was going to be paid for by $300 million from private donors, which I don’t think is legal. Then he said it’s going to require an additional 300 or 400 million, maybe up to 1 billion, from taxpayers. And you ask, is it because Trump is doing it? Well, no president can actually do this. Construction like this is supposed to be done through Congress.

    And then yes, the fact that this is being done by this deranged orange-painted criminal piece of shit while he’s claiming that the country doesn’t have money for so many other things (besides war) is a problem. You’d expect a president to be focused on things that actually help the public, but he’s focused on his idiotic ballroom while also claiming that it is necessary for security, which makes no sense.

    And, apparently it’s supposed to include a bunker and other defense/military aspect, though the White House already has a bunker. Probably not enough ostentatious gold shit in there for him. Maybe he needs a bunker for when he starts a civil war or refuses to leave office.

    So “is it because of Trump”? Yes, basically everything he does is a problem due to how he does things. This will probably involve a lot of cut corners, inflated costs, cronyism, and no bid contracts given to incompetent people to basically steal the public money. Also, the “privately funded” part equates to bribery. So you might mean it like “ they’re just objecting because it’s Trump!“ and no, absolutely fucking not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago*

    Trump initially indicated that he wanted to build a ballroom, but that none of the East Wing would've been touched. As with any significant government building, there's a good amount of history and significance to the East wing. It's also where guests would enter and hosted the First Lady's office/staff.

    Trump then proceeded to ignore the standard rules/requirements for making changes to the building, which he doesn't have unilateral authority to do. He leveled the East Wing, and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the project during a government shutdown, money which was essentially pilfered from other allocations IIRC.

    Despite various attempts to check his illegal construction efforts, he has continued unabated. Some of the funding has also come from "private donors" which has pretty transparently been influence bribery from important figures and CEOs and stuff.

    There's been a lot to it over time, but that's some of the broad strokes.

  • source
  • parent
  • 3 comments in c/politics@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    If I got a dollar every time some lazy liberal wannabe-journalist assumed the term "unlawful" was in any way relevant to any US regime I'd be set for life.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Motherfucker it's your job to handle that

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Laws only apply to the poors

  • source