Not surprisingly, Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court majority today handed down a ruling that allows the continued construction of his ballroom/military complex.
It was a 5-4 decision, with the majority ruling that it falls to Congress to not fund such projects. Right. It falls to the Congress that’s currently acceding to Trump’s every request, if and when he even bothers to ask.
The Court ruled that the preservationists from the National Trust for Historic Preservation who challenged the construction of the ballroom did not have legal grounds, or standing, to bring their lawsuit because they were not directly harmed. That doesn’t bode well for future suits from preservation groups.
Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the minority. He said the “construction is likely unlawful” because Congress never expressly approved funding for the project, as was argued in lower court decisions. (Trump didn’t bother to ask because supposedly the entire project was going to be funded by donors. Once again we taxpayers are on the hook.)
“The White House is an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture,” Roberts wrote, adding that it is critical to “ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”
Hopefully not following those rules is yet another impeachable offense.
If what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger, Trump may need that bunker in November.
They are scum, SCOTUS. And if Roberts was the exception, that means that the two normally reliable judges turned. A pox on both of them, as well as on the others,
No, he wasn’t the exception. It was a 5-4 decision. At least he sided with the good guys this time.
You’re supposed to read my mind, Colorado !! – I meant exception from the six bastards. Also, I can no longer count: I meant the three normally, etc. Further, I have ceased to understand plain English, as my extremely ancient brain simply would not pick up the clear meaning of the 5:4. Apart from those major failings but, I’m doing fine … 🙁
Hey, on any given day I couldn’t claim to know or remember this stuff unless I was looking at a creditable source in the moment. As an Aussie half a world away, you certainly aren’t expected to know such things. In fact, you constantly amaze me with what you know about our ongoing American tragedy.
SCOTUS reviewed the case on technical grounds. They had to, it’s in the Constitution that standing is required and the plaintiff has to show harm. AI says this about that:
“. . . standing is a jurisdictional requirement. If a plaintiff does not have standing—meaning they have not suffered a concrete, particularized injury—federal courts, including the Supreme Court, literally lack the constitutional power (subject-matter jurisdiction) to hear the dispute or rule on its merits.”
That said, one has to wonder about what kind of system can ignore such an unlawful situation, as Roberts acknowledged.
If a preservation organization has to show direct harm or injury, how does any such group ever have standing to file a suit to protect something? No one gets physically injured if relics are bulldozed, ancient buildings torn down, landmarks blown up, national park land given away, etc. Seems to me this ruling cuts the legs from under all preservation organizations. (Not to mention giving the Court a way to dismiss the suit without finding Trump guilty of anything.)
This time the actual illegality was failing to get approval from Congress before starting the construction, yet the suit was dismissed because the plaintiffs had no standing. If we don’t elect a Congress that will stand up to Trump and for its right to control government spending, there’s no telling what Washington will look like two years from now.
(In my nightmares, the Arc de Trump gets built, the Kennedy Center gets bulldozed one night and replaced with the Trump Amphitheater, and the restored entrance to the White House will feature garish gold columns.)
I agree, PT. Maybe it goes to the definition of “injury” as opposed to a squabble about proper bureaucratic procedure. The fact that 4 out of 9 dissented might indicate that. I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, thank goodness.
That’s my nightmare, too. But I’m sure there’s more plans afoot that we don’t even know about.
Without a doubt.
i was surprised that roberts made the right choice this time –
I was both surprised and pleased. I’ve counted on him to be the voice of reason and maybe a restraint/influence on Trump’s appointees.