r/politics • u/theindependentonline The Independent • 23h ago
No Paywall Trump’s ballroom construction ‘likely unlawful,’ John Roberts says, but Supreme Court will allow it anyway
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-ballroom-construction-unlawful-john-roberts-b3042329.html7.4k
u/MadAstrid 23h ago
Highest court in the land - This is against the law, but because we are utterly corrupt, we are not going to do a damned thing to stop it.
1.3k
u/AndreLeGeant88 23h ago
And by the time they rule it'll be done
780
u/Rodgertheshrubber 23h ago
Then it will be found it's of the same quality as the pool was and require a complete rebuild
380
u/homerjaythompson 23h ago
It would be hilarious if his security bunker underneath was made to such terrible standards that it collapses
150
u/Serainas 22h ago
Poetic Justice, and more than he deserves
37
u/386U0Kh24i1cx89qpFB1 20h ago
Nah tax papers will foot the eventual rebuild.
13
u/homerjaythompson 19h ago
Oh, they will 100% pay for it, but he'll still go with a grifter buddy and it will be as shitty as anything else he's done. At least we can hope. This is one of those rare times I'm actually hoping for taxpayer money to fund something sub-par.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)9
15
u/boxen 19h ago
They're gonna end up pulling him out of a hole in the ground like Saddam Hussein. Only he'll get stuck like Winnie the Pooh.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (30)56
u/c-park 21h ago
It'll be just like the ending of the Watchmen series, all the awful racists dying together. (spoiler alert)
→ More replies (2)15
47
u/Mistrblank 21h ago
Worse, they're going to have to tear the white house apart just to clear it for listening devices. Once they started I knew the White House is compromised.
It's like a house that's over infested with generations of roaches and rats, the only real option is to burn it to the ground.
→ More replies (2)15
78
u/MarvelousVanGlorious 22h ago
We can only hope it’s that shoddy. He and his administration are going to hideout in it and refuse to leave when they get blown out in 2028.
65
u/auriem 22h ago edited 21h ago
That would be the perfect opportunity to fill it up with concrete to seal the hate, ignorance and criminality in.
→ More replies (4)24
u/Karinka_LI 22h ago
Hopefully we can remotely lock them in with no food or communication for 9 months.
24
11
9
9
21
18
u/Socratesticles Tennessee 22h ago
But that’ll only come out if the democrats take power and they’ll be blamed for skimping on materials and trying to ruin trumps greatness
23
u/Makenshine 21h ago
Remember when a significant portion of the GOP was angry at Obama for failing to act to stop the 9/11 terrorist attacks as President.
The playbook has been "throw all the mud possible, then roll with anything that gains even a little traction."
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (8)40
u/Ralf_K 23h ago
Hey, trump will only use the highest quality paper machine and sawdust!
→ More replies (2)8
82
u/cadium 22h ago
But if someone, besides Trump or a Republican, tries to remove it they'll block it immediately pending their ruling which will probably block it indefinitely using the opposite logic they used to protect Trump/Republicans.
39
u/mjlp716 21h ago
Don’t ask, just tear it down like he did with the east wing before they even have the chance to do anything. What are they going to do if it’s already destroyed like it should be by the next democratic administration.
→ More replies (2)12
u/lonnie123 19h ago
Yeah I don’t really think they understand the precedent this admin is setting. Literally destroy first, asks for permission after… but since it’s already destroyed you basically get permission by default
5
→ More replies (10)40
u/Witty-Entertainer524 22h ago
The court is worthless
33
11
u/thefocusissharp 20h ago
We The People have the ability to vote in a favorable Congress this Midterms, starting the path towards reform. Just like how MAGAts won by actually showing up to vote, it's time for everyone to do the same. Will you let a Republican be smarter than you?
250
u/aaronhayes26 23h ago
If they can’t give Trump a win on the facts they’ll do it on standing.
These people are hopelessly corrupt and need to be removed.
→ More replies (2)201
u/ToadP America 23h ago
This is the same way my neighbor illegally built an addition. Court said no, but was already 1/2 done didn't quit and was then finished, Court then said well the local inspectors never stopped it so pay this fine of $500 and keep your addition. Yeah I learned that if you want to build something or remove something just do it.
80
u/ianjm 21h ago
That's not even what they said here. They simply don't think the National Trust for Historic Preservation has standing to sue. Which might be true or might be nonsense, but by the time anyone finds a plaintiff with standing it'll probably be 90% complete and too late, just like you're saying.
That plaintiff might need to be Congress, and they're not gonna do anything until the Republican majorities get gone.
26
u/Intelligent-Half-620 21h ago
Could like… the average American sue? It’s their White House.
15
u/LostWoodsInTheField Pennsylvania 19h ago
Courts typically require specific standing rather than 'general' standing. So it has to directly impact you, rather than impact you in a general way. for things like this it's absolutely bullshit.
19
u/relikter Virginia 18h ago
In a just system "we're the taxpayers, we're funding it, so that impacts us" would be enough for standing.
We are being harmed because we're paying for this "likely illegal" work and we'll have to pay for any remediation as well. I don't mind paying my taxes; I understand they'll often be used for things I disagree with, but when they're being used for something the Chief Justice says is "likely illegal" then I have a huge problem with it.
16
u/TJKbird 17h ago
In a just system "we're the taxpayers, we're funding it, so that impacts us" would be enough for standing.
I get what you're saying but this would then allow any individual to sue any kind of government program using tax dollars to hold it up.
The problem we are currently facing is a republican controlled congress that is sitting on its hands letting Trump do whatever the fuck he wants. Congress could absolutely stop this but Republicans won't because they don't give a shit.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Moleculor Texas 15h ago
When it comes to cases involving the government or government officials, a court should be required to name a person or group that does have standing, as an example of who has standing and give that party (or others in similar condition) opportunity to 'take over' the case (and, by default, automatically having standing), if they want to dismiss a case due to the current party having no standing.
If they cannot name such a party, then claiming 'no standing' must be disallowed and any citizen should be able to sue.
4
u/cIumsythumbs 15h ago
This makes perfect sense. If no one has standing against the government -- then everyone does. Courts can't have it both ways.
11
u/Locke66 20h ago
Crazy that it works like this in the US. In the UK there have been a couple of times where entire historical buildings have been knocked down for new development without permission and then those responsible have been forced to rebuild it and pay a fine.
→ More replies (3)10
u/ZebraImaginary9412 20h ago
Doesn't the bunker need to completed first? The bunker looks very incomplete.
There could be time for a Democratic Congressman to sue after the midterms if/when the House flips.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Seayont 19h ago
Isn't it pretty easy to determine the National Trust for Historical Preservation does have standing,? He completely skipped that step. Lied about who now is paying for it and built whatever the fuck he wanted. Now since we are paying for it the new cost will probably be 600-800 million.
→ More replies (2)39
u/paiute 22h ago
Permission/foregiveness
59
81
u/PDXCarpetBagger 23h ago
When the shoe is on the other foot. Watch how quick these cowards act.
→ More replies (2)53
u/OddFirefighter547 22h ago
Oh yes, in the next Democratic administration the SC will find all kinds of courage.
→ More replies (1)23
u/GrassyNoob 22h ago
The next Supreme Court should be packed with young idealistic lawyers.
→ More replies (2)7
46
u/lexm 23h ago
And they claimed that the group that sued has no legal ground. That blows my mind.
→ More replies (8)37
u/Ketzeph I voted 22h ago
These feckless Republican villains on SCOTUS should be in prison. They are supreme examples of unAmerican traitors
→ More replies (1)14
11
u/Memitim America 21h ago
As we continue to discover, it's easier for those who are supposed to be the caretakers of US law to come up with excuses for not abiding by or enforcing US law. Republicans had one: immigration law violations. Republicans then immediately shit all over that lie by throwing in due process violations, lies about the identities of the victims, and military occupations of Americans cities, and that was before spending a military-sized budget on their private army.
Republicans have no actual reason to persecute Americans, because that would require that crimes had been committed by those Americans, and yet every day the resources of the US government are used to target the political enemies of Republicans. Meanwhile, courts release findings of yet more crimes by Republicans. Yet another court ruled on yet another Constitutional violation a couple days back.
Every single day, Republicans prove that they are not an American political party, since that would require supporting the Constitution and not treating it as a constant inconvenience to joke about. The Republican Party is a criminal organization using the offices of governments at the federal, state, and local levels to betray America. That's not governance, that's treason, and we Americans are supporting it.
Tens of thousands of lives have been ruined. Multiple illegal acts of war have been waged, one that is still going on eight months later. The future planning capabilities of the nation are massively degraded. The Republican betrayal, failure, and evil rolls on, and the former (?) child sex trafficker gets to play with his ballroom.
At least the Republican that pulled magical crime immunity out of his ass for the felon handling the Republican coordination in the Executive Branch got a chance to brag about his success in an official finding. I wonder if the RNC gives bonus checks for inserting extra fuck-yous into the historic record.
→ More replies (89)39
u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 23h ago
It's not quite like that though. I always hate it when the news says, "The Supreme Court ruled X," or "Congress passed X," because it suggests that the entire group agreed, rather than it typically being divided along ideological lines.
This was a 5-4 decision. John Roberts joined the 3 liberal justices in saying it's illegal, so it wasn't "the highest court in the land said it was illegal but allowed it," it was five conservative justices saying they'll allow it for now because the suing party lacked standing against four justices that said it is illegal and shouldn't be allowed.
Sure, effectively as we stand, the building continues. But I'm certain a new lawsuit will be filed shortly.
46
u/MadAstrid 22h ago
Sorry. “The majority of the corrupt Supreme Court has opted to allow Trump to break laws with impunity until later, when they will get around to admitting it was illegal, but decide that since he already did it, their hands are tied.”
Better?
→ More replies (19)9
u/wordsonascreen Washington 21h ago
Well, clearly the plaintiff should have assumed the identity of a hypothetical cake decorator
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)5
u/viper3 18h ago
Fair comment, but how did Missouri have standing in the Biden student loan case when the State was essentially asserting another entity's (MOHELA's) financial injury? The Court was significantly more generous in tracing Missouri's injury through MOHELA in Biden v. Nebraska than it was with the Trust and the government.
It's bullshit that they continue to act like the law matters when they bend it the way they want to interpret it.
I'm not a fan of Roberts because he plays the same game, but at least he exercised some intellectual abilities in his dissent.
2.6k
u/gfh110 Pennsylvania 23h ago
'likely unlawful,' John Roberts says, but Supreme Court will allow it anyway
Concise summary of both Trump admins.
581
u/CobraPony67 Washington 23h ago
Summary of Trump in general. It seems like he gets a pass on everything he does his entire life. Break all sorts of laws and he gets a slap on the wrist and just keeps going. As long as you have lots of money, a team of lawyers, and pay off the right people, you can get away with anything in this country.
218
u/Flopdo California 22h ago
Is there a better example of someone failing upward their entire life?
Trump is a fkn enigma to me. I don't get why he got where he is. Seems any reasonable person should have shut him down decades ago.
127
u/MollyRolls 21h ago
It’s a real challenge to be a parent this last decade. Literally any life lesson or moral guideline I try to impart has an unspoken “Except Trump, I fucking guess” at the end of it.
22
u/Big_Truck 20h ago
I have a 14-week old, and I shudder to think what the world will look like 8-10 years from now when she starts noticing things and asking these types of questions.
23
u/superxpro12 19h ago
Imagine all the minds corrupted by Andrew Tate... It's fucking awful out here bro. I hope my daughters turn out to be lesbians because idfk what to do.
I'm gonna. Have like an SAT test for potential boyfriends or some shit
→ More replies (1)24
u/lordraiden007 20h ago
You too could have trump's way of life, it just requires doing this one simple trick: being born into a family with lots of money.
7
u/bogglingsnog 19h ago
And then extorting inheritance from your family members when the patriarch passes away
12
u/ScepticalReciptical 20h ago
There are time I believe hes the single greatest argument I've ever seen in favour of this reality being a simulation.
And then there are other times I think he's simply an inevitable consequence of the global slide towards oligarchy. He's a puppet for a cartel of techno feudalists.
16
u/americabot420 20h ago
He made it ok again for americans to be openly racist. That’s literally it.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Salmon-of-Wizdom 19h ago
It's because he's very good at pretending he had no idea what was going on, and he's very good at marketing. Most of his "brands" aren't run by him, they just license his name. He's a terrible businessman, but he knows how to confuse the situation, profit off illegal behaviour, blame others for his own bad behavior, engage in lawfare, market himself and his brand, avoid paying his contractors, and leave other people with the check.
It's been well known what a flim-flam artist he is for over 20 years....but people still manage to forget it.
7
u/drdoom52 13h ago
Trump is a fkn enigma to me. I don't get why he got where he is. Seems any reasonable person should have shut him down decades ago.
He's not that much of an enigma.
Here's a few basic concepts that have been thrown around a lot.
"Conservatism consists of exactly two propositions, that there is an in group that the law protects but does not bind, and an out group that the law binds but does not protect"
And...
"If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, that's your problem. If you owe the bank a million dollars, that's the banks problem".
Conservatism in my life time has basically been a consistent trend of closing ranks to protect your own at all costs, as long as the people in question are serving your larger objectives (in this case the dismantling of American democracy in favor of a Russian style oligopoly). And its primary avatars have been people like Trump and Bush, who got where they are through a combination of "good ol boy" enabled corruption, and a knack for gambling with other peoples money in such a way those people would rather double down than cut their losses.
Basically it all goes back to the American Civil War. We let the south keep it's institutions intact, which was basically an aristocratic class of plantation owners that had previously decided that destroying the country was better than losing their ability to profit from slavery (mind you, they were still wealthy plantation owners, the still profited with the share cropping system for decades after the war), and now their descendants are gleefully finishing the work their great grandfathers couldn't do.
→ More replies (3)21
u/Black_Dumbledore America 20h ago
It is uncanny. How has this particular guy with his laundry list of seemingly catastrophic character flaws gotten so far?
→ More replies (1)13
u/jgoble15 19h ago
Because he doesn’t care or feel shame. Anyone who has messed up before admitted they messed up and tried to redeem themselves somehow. Trump just doubles down and people let him get away with it.
37
u/cadium 22h ago
I wonder why they sent Martha Stewart to prison for what most rich people do on days ending in Y.
22
u/Jabberwoockie Michigan 22h ago
Interesting you bring that up that specific example.
That case was prosecuted by James Comey.
20
u/Consistent_Sector_19 21h ago
I wonder why they sent Martha Stewart to prison
They targeted Martha Stewart because she was both the poorest person involved and famous so by putting her in jail for trying to protect her broker from getting fired they were able to avoid jailing any of the actual billionaires who committed more serious crimes.
55
u/MoarSocks 23h ago
And kompromat. I'm convinced the only way any of this is happening is because he's built the largest repository of kompromat ever known using tools from the first admin.
26
u/findtheclue 22h ago edited 22h ago
I’m not even sure he has most of it, possible mostly held by Israel. They tell him what to do and prop him up, they get control of our government and now intelligence and military…
→ More replies (15)35
u/Offsets 22h ago
Trump is possibly the luckiest POTUS in US history.
1.) Term 1: 2 years of complete Republican control (executive, legislative, judicial branches), free to do anything he desired.
2.) Appointed 3/9 SCOTUS justices
3.) Left office just as COVID was ramping up, leaving Biden to navigate the pandemic
4.) Reelected after Dems completely bungled their election strategy, effectively giving the Republican candidate a boost by their own incompetence
5.) Term 2: 2 more years of complete Republican control, possibly more if Dems don't win the House these upcoming midterms
6.) Inherited a miracle economy that somehow survived the pandemic and actually saw growth
7.) Inherited the golden age of AI, where AI and tech gains are single handedly carrying the market (discounting AI/tech stocks, the S&P500 is actually stagnant or down under Trump after years of growth under Biden), thus making his economy look far better than it should look
There are more, but these 7 points are all MASSIVELY beneficial to Trump and are caused by things completely or near-completely out of his control (in other words, he got lucky). I'm pretty sure he's just an insanely lucky individual.
→ More replies (3)20
u/PrometheusLiberatus 21h ago
99% of that 'luck' was rich people and foreign interference, which America clearly lacks adequate defenses against manipulating our electoral systems.
→ More replies (6)7
79
u/wyvernx02 22h ago
Just a note, Roberts joined the liberals in dissenting. The other 5 conservatives are allowing it. The way the headline is written makes it seem like he's on board with allowing it to continue, but he's not.
→ More replies (1)47
u/blackwrensniper 21h ago
It's his turn to pretend he is against it to seem more reasonable. It's performative bullshit. Fuck him and fuck every other conservative.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)31
u/ShrimpieAC 23h ago
So since people are clearly above the law an impoverished single mom is allowed to go steal baby formula from Wal-Mart, right?
Oh, my bad, I didn’t realize the exception was for fat greedy man-babies only.
1.8k
u/BigMax 23h ago
For those that didn't read it, this was basically thrown out on a technicality.
Three liberals and Roberts all said "this is illegal, it should be stopped."
Five of them almost certainly agreed that it's not legal! So they said "uh... the person suing to stop this... doesn't have the right to sue. So... this is illegal, but... no one can stop it."
It's wild that Trump can literally break the law and there's literally no way to stop him, even when the Supreme Court itself says what he's doing is illegal.
Wild.
367
u/xXxKittenx 23h ago
I mean that explanation just hurts my brain. It's the people's White House. I feel like any tax paying citizen has a right to sue. Like if what he's doing can't be suable, but it's illegal shouldn't he be arrested or be facing some kind of criminal charges. Nobody can bring that up?
To me, if that was their response, that opens a bigger legal discussion than what the Supreme Court just offered. With the shadow docket bullshit They don't need to really like write these long, big pieces anymore on how they came to the decision. They're just your regular desk jockey judges, the judges that are supposed to rule and if you find it unacceptable, it's for greater review at the HIGHEST court and taken considerably seriously. Hearing from the judges that ruled it unconstitutional that he's doing this.
Remember when a case that was important enough to make it to the Supreme Court and they treated it like it was important and not a rush to judgment. Now we really don't even get any information from the White House, so fucking transparency, my ass. I feel like the Supreme Court should consider the big thing that apparently nobody can sue something that's illegal, but what other measurements must be taken to stop unlawful behavior. Even the message they're sending is horrible.
But I bet if someone graffiti on the White House, they would be facing the upmost charges for desiccating it. Probably face something like even years in jail.
103
u/Darx117 22h ago
The misconception is twofold: 1) they didn’t rule on the legality of the construction, only on procedural grounds (this is different than the actual merits of the case) and 2) as a court of appeal, they do not have jurisdiction to convict or ‘punish’ someone. They can’t take/ hear evidence, this is reserved for a trial court. The Supreme Court only reviews legal decisions not evidentiary matters. This is why, even if they opined that they think it’s illegal, it’s purely dicta and not binding—which a trial court can use as a very persuasive reason to impose an injunction or a prosecutor if charges were indicted by a Grand Jury.
66
u/pilgermann 21h ago
Right, and the comment before yours is wondering why literally any American citizen doesn't have standing on procedural grounds. Or conversely, who would have standing.
→ More replies (2)41
u/Darx117 21h ago
Because the White House belongs to the U.S. government, despite being maintained by taxpayer money. There’s a reason why you can’t just waltz into the White House despite being “the people’s house”. It just happens to be occupied by a terrible person who was democratically elected.
Paying taxes doesn’t entitle the citizenry to have ownership (or say) over government property. It’s a Constitutional function of Congress to take taxes and appropriate that money as it sees fit. Whether they are doing that correctly or not, is another discussion entirely. The immediate solution to this chaos? Go out and vote in November, and then again in 2028.
23
u/SnooPuppers8698 20h ago
voting is NOT the only immediate solution
→ More replies (2)22
u/ElliotNess Florida 18h ago
It isn't a solution at all. There is not one person whom we could vote in that could fix this mess. Because the person voted in would have to follow the system to fix the system, and there is no road within the system that leads to a solution. Everything wrong with the system has already been systematized.
→ More replies (8)6
u/BravestWabbit 18h ago
You still didnt answer who can stop the Executive from destroying government property.
→ More replies (4)21
u/oliversurpless Massachusetts 21h ago edited 21h ago
Proceduralism is a long stain on this country, as per?
https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/the-caging-of-america
“The trouble with the Bill of Rights, he argues, is that it emphasizes process and procedure rather than principles. The Declaration of the Rights of Man says, Be just! The Bill of Rights says, Be fair! Instead of announcing general principles—no one should be accused of something that wasn’t a crime when he did it; cruel punishments are always wrong; the goal of justice is, above all, that justice be done—it talks procedurally.”
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (6)5
u/PrometheusLiberatus 19h ago
If the supreme court chief justice thinks it's illegal he should be using his influence among his peers to insure that's the interpretation. That he didn't shows how weak he is.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Affectionate-Heat-51 21h ago
It's a failure of Congress to check him. They are supposed to represent US and represent our interest in the people's house. I don't think under the case law there's anyone else with standing (a close enough interest in the alleged harm). It essentially becomes a political question. We have to vote.
Trump people are corrupt and act in bad faith.. The aren't all stupid though - they are exploiting these weaknesses in the system
→ More replies (8)43
u/aravarth 22h ago
>dessicating it
*desecrating it. To dessicate something is to remove all moisture from it, like in a food dehydrator or through the process of mummification.
→ More replies (8)117
u/Horoika 23h ago
Yeah, Roberts gave the clue that the Legislature has to sue
So that'll be something for a Dem controlled chamber to do next year (if they win)
→ More replies (1)53
u/lexm 22h ago
I don’t want to be Debbie downer but then what. That ugly ass ballroom will be done by then and it’s not like anyone will ask for it to be torn down.
The only hope is that he used dumbass contractors and that it’ll crumble on itself.40
u/cogman10 Idaho 22h ago
LMAO, no it won't. It's a huge grift to Trump ally construction companies. It's going to still be a giant hole in the ground by the time he leaves office.
34
u/inkcannerygirl 22h ago
I'm damn well going to be asking for it to be torn down. F that thing
31
u/gameryamen 22h ago
Restoration back to how it was, on Trump's dime.
→ More replies (3)12
u/AndrewCoja Texas 22h ago
He's renting it from the American people, we have a right to demand he leave it in the same state he got it in. I can't rent a house, sloppily build an huge addition to it, and then tell the property owner I did them a favor because tenants had been asking for that addition for years.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Radiant_Jedi 22h ago
No way it will be done. You can't even get a contracter to build a moderate sized residential house in less than 6 months.
→ More replies (7)10
u/nittanyvalley 22h ago
Tear it down. For security reasons. In the middle of the night. Sue Trump, the donors, and the contractors to recoup costs.
25
u/splycedaddy Pennsylvania 22h ago
Whats even more wild is that when the next dem prez tears it down, the court will rule whichever maga sues DOES have the legal standing to sue. What I dont get is this is such a common playbook, why dont dems throw multiple chances out?
→ More replies (1)14
u/alternativepuffin 21h ago
Oh the court wants to talk about "standing" now? WE CARE ABOUT "STANDING" NOW?
They didnt seem to care about standing in 303 Creative v Elenis where the plantiff was never asked by anyone to make a website for a same sex couple. They were perfectly fine ruling on a hypothetical then.
This court is a corrupt partisan group masquerading as being above politics.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (30)5
u/ShadowTacoTuesday 20h ago
Can they or anyone then explain who would have the right to sue? And how such a person would know and why such a person still hasn’t? It seems like enforcing the law against flippant Whitehouse destruction should have a process that… exists.
→ More replies (1)
591
u/fuzzy_dice_99 23h ago
It’s not his house. It’s the people’s house. And every president before him knows this and respects it and takes care of it.
He literally destroys everything he touches and it makes me angry how much hate I have.
122
u/RazzzMcFrazzz Michigan 22h ago
I brought this up to a coworker of mine and he just said “yeah but what has the white house ever mattered anyway?”. I fucking hate how deep under his nuts they are. Nothing is sacred.
61
u/fuzzy_dice_99 21h ago
Same coworker probably gets upset about tearing down Civil War statues honoring the south
17
u/smitherenesar 20h ago
“These monuments were intended to serve as tributes to valor, sacrifice and community heritage during a difficult chapter in American history”
That kinda shit is crazy. Valor and sacrifice to desecrating the United States. Difficult chapter? it was 2 years
7
u/sniper91 Minnesota 19h ago
A lot of those statues went up in the 1960s as a “fuck you” to the Civil Rights movement
They aren’t even worth putting in a museum
→ More replies (2)16
u/ahnonamis 20h ago
Same people lost their mind when Obama paid to have a basketball court made outside.
8
u/Mataelio 17h ago
And all they did was make some adjustments to an existing tennis court so it could serve both purposes
36
u/Moveyourbloominass 23h ago
Exactly why members of Congress need to file the suit, not Historical Preservation group because they have no legal standing, but Congress does. Perhaps, Beatty will take this on, like she did with the Kennedy Center.
→ More replies (2)23
108
u/Relzin Illinois 23h ago
"standing" is the death of American Justice. Write a law that's illegal as all hell and just be explicit in the law that nobody at all has standing to challenge it. It's bulletproof under the current SCOTUS adoration of power over democracy.
52
u/CelestialFury Minnesota 21h ago
Oh, but it's worse that that. The SCOTUS allows right-wing activists to sue others without having standing and they allow it anyway, so it's, again, Republicans being hypocritical.
21
u/Konman72 Oregon 19h ago
Sometimes they even let them sue for imaginary harms, like the non-existent gay couple asking for a wedding cake.
Rules for thee, but not for me is the only true Republican policy.
5
u/crazunggoy47 15h ago
First thing that occurred to me when I read their justification for saying there was no standing: “mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury.”
Truly insane double standards.
Can’t wait to see all the trans panic lawsuits thrown out for this reason…
12
u/Beneficial_Cash_8420 22h ago
Only because it's their guy doing it. In 2029, suddenly a lot of shit is illegal again
→ More replies (3)10
167
u/hwgl 23h ago
If the National Trust for Historic Preservation doesn't have standing to bring a lawsuit, then who does? Isn't the White House owned by the citizens of the United States? I think the Supreme Court has confirmed that the White House is not owned by the current President, so someone should have standing to sue if the construction is "likely unlawful". I assume Congress could stop him but they just choose not to.
→ More replies (2)
83
23h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)45
u/MadRaymer 22h ago
I think they did a similar thing with emoluments. They said sure, the constitution doesn't allow it, but no one has standing to sue so only Congress can punish for him it. And, well...
→ More replies (1)
178
u/SeminoleDVM Virginia 23h ago edited 23h ago
Roberts doesn’t seem like a stupid person. I wonder sometimes if he stays awake a night considering the legacy that awaits him after he’s gone.
157
u/Back2theGarden 23h ago
He must be one of those upright-seeming people who are, in fact, deeply corrupt. Possibly as bad as Thomas but a lot more elegant about it.
28
u/Imaginary_Scene2493 South Carolina 23h ago
His wife makes tons of money recruiting lawyers for firms that practice in front of SCOTUS.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)38
u/AcidRohnin 23h ago
Most likely that is the case. He probably doesn’t care. He doing ok, his family most likely is as well. They are rich and probably even more so now. Why would he care.
I mean if he critically thought some he might rationalize a bit about how this prob isn’t helping his kids and future family, but he either doesn’t care as he will be long dead, or if he helps keep the pony show going they can also benefit the same way in the future.
If how far you go in life is all about networking, then if you keep that network alive and better yet allow it to grow, you and your family will be set for the foreseeable future. This seems to be what most elected officials are doing, whether consciously or not.
→ More replies (2)22
u/Bulbasauruses 23h ago
He is a multimillionaire living out his life as one of the most powerful people in the country.
I don’t think he gives a shit what anyone thinks of him, because he is basically untouchable and wants for nothing. None of these people believe in anything except money and power. If they did, they wouldn’t be conservatives.
→ More replies (2)9
u/syndactyl_sapiens 23h ago edited 23h ago
“I wonder sometimes if he stays awake at night…”
May his pillow always be warm side up.
6
u/flexbuffstrong 23h ago
Zero chance. Dude sleeps soundly and I’m guessing he sits around basking in the smell of his own farts.
→ More replies (38)9
u/nobadhotdog 23h ago
he doesn't care. rudy guliani however that fuck spells his shit name, said once that he doesn't believe in an afterlife so when he dies reality ceases to exist so why does he care what happens. Roberts lives in luxury and prestige, do you honestly think he gives a flying fuck what some rando or even his close friends think about the shit he does?
42
u/Dry-University797 23h ago
So a fake case about a website was perfectly fine to rule on, but this group doesn't have standing?
→ More replies (1)
97
u/aaronhayes26 23h ago
Next dem president needs to bulldoze this stupid fucking ballroom.
It is literally a monument to lawlessness.
35
u/fluffysmaster 23h ago
Just remove all the trim gold and rename it the "Barak H. Obama Ballroom"
→ More replies (2)39
→ More replies (3)6
29
u/chazd1984 23h ago
Yes this is unlawful, but what does that have to do with us?
-The Supreme Court of the United States of America
132
u/likeabosstroll 23h ago
I know it's never gonna happen but my god I pray for a dem to win in 2028 and make them regret giving the president unlimited authority. As Trumps favorite former president said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
98
u/Word_Eater_OmNomNom 23h ago
Republicans routinely start caring about Presidential overreach the moment a Democrat is in the Oval Office.
They will start screaming about how a President isn't a king with zero sense of shame or irony.
→ More replies (1)7
u/What_a_fat_one 19h ago edited 19h ago
If Democrats have a trifecta they need to kill the filibuster, expand the court to like 60 justices, then let the President go hogwild on a New New Deal.
Shit, have the Attorney General prosecute the Roberts court and the new Supreme define "good behavior" as not being convicted of crimes like bribery. Then kick those fuckers off the court and throw them in prison for life
→ More replies (1)5
u/superxpro12 18h ago
This is the only path out of this. Any centrist bullshit is just running out the clock until the next fascist finishes the job
→ More replies (1)48
u/Taint_Liquor 23h ago
I get it, I want retribution as well. That said, what we really need to do is for congress to nut up and limit some of the executive's power. The president has gotten entirely too powerful and we need to reign that office in.
38
u/countfizix Louisiana 23h ago
Propose the 'you can stop me at any time act' and then start abusing executive power until enough of the GOP are willing to support whatever is needed up to and including a constitutional amendment to create limits with teeth.
→ More replies (1)16
u/MrNormalo 23h ago
That is when Roberts will stop allowing executive orders to stand without review.
→ More replies (1)20
u/erublind Europe 23h ago
According to the supreme court, congress can't limit the presidents power. In Slaughter, Humphreys executor, a precedent that has stood since 1935 (!) was overturned. This basically means that it is unconstitutional for congress to write law limiting the presidents executive power. The executive power of the president will diminish as soon as a democrat is elected. Biden couldn't even forgive student loans, but Trump could pardon insurrectionists.
→ More replies (1)10
u/suburbanoutrage 23h ago
You can’t limit their constitutional authority. You can however claw back the powers congress has given up and ceded to the president.
7
u/dar512 22h ago
Shouldn’t we also automatically dismiss members of the Supreme Court who knowingly refuse to enforce the constitution. After all, that supposed to be their job.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)10
u/Cavane42 Georgia 23h ago
Porque no los dos?
Someone bold enough to wield power in order to fix what can be fixed in a few years and also wise enough to then agree to limit their own power order to prevent this from happening again.
18
7
u/RecursiveSubroutine 22h ago
If a Democratic president takes actions, all of sudden the "Major Questions" doctrine is violated. Somehow it is never violated for Trump.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)11
u/redwing180 23h ago
Democrats need a brawler of a president who’s going to rub Republicans faces in the carpet with the mess that they made. That Democrat needs to go with full force using all the power that has been given to the presidency to the point where Republicans will be crying to claw back the power and finally fix the executive branch. It is a perversion of the democracy that a president can unilaterally commit the USA to war. And it’s been politically convenient that they’ve never bothered to fix that. Now we have a president unilaterally violating treaties, imposing tariffs, inventing branches of the government, and overall committing crimes like destroying parts of the White House and the Supreme Court is basically saying well maybe that’s unlawful but what can we do. So I say let a Democrat do all that punitively and we’ll figure out how much the rest of the government wants to be in control again, and maybe this time we won’t just willingly give it back, just for fun.
→ More replies (2)
19
u/Claudius-is-my-cat 23h ago
Un-fucking-believable but entirely predictable. Likely illegal but keep building so that when the time comes to decide it will be too late because construction is already done. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I am so sick of this shit.
21
u/aircooledJenkins Montana 23h ago
“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project,” the court stated in its unsigned opinion. “We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks ... standing to challenge the project in federal court.”
By deciding the matter purely on standing, the ruling leaves unresolved the core constitutional dispute: whether a president possesses the unilateral authority to alter White House grounds without explicit authorization from Congress.
So Trump can do this, because we want him to. But if a Democrat wanted to do it, we'd decide.
11
u/nittanyvalley 22h ago
Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project
Then why allow it to continue while legality is determined?
9
18
u/Cheese__Weiner 23h ago
And it's rulings like this that terrify me about Trump trying to run for a third term.
"We don't think you're allowed to serve a third term but also no one has standing to stop you"
They won't come out and say it's legal but they will grease the skids and let the lawlessness happen.
Aka they will make that part of the Constitution impossible to enforce.
13
u/jleonardbc 22h ago
"Don't look at me," Roberts added. "It's not my job to judge what is lawful. As ordained by the Constitution, that's the job of the chief executive."
→ More replies (2)
12
11
u/Rough_Common6857 I voted 23h ago
The Supreme Court allowing a $400M White House ballroom expansion while Chief Justice Roberts warns it's "likely unlawful" is a cowardly dodge. Hiding behind procedural standing to let executive overreach bypass Congress creates a dangerous precedent: build fast enough, and the law won't stop you. Such crap.
11
11
u/tapdancinghellspawn 18h ago
History is going to be unkind to Roberts. He has bent over backwards for the most corrupt president the United States has ever had. He as been on the wrong side of so many terrible decisions, such as the Citizens United decision.
6
54
u/AcademicPublius Colorado 23h ago
There is a theory that the Supreme Court is actually carefully choosing which wins they give Trump in order to give the appearance of equanimity and fairness. Cases like this seem to me to put the lie to that theory. A loss for Trump here would undoubtedly show independence and potentially save Republican seats in the midterms; literally nobody is happy with the fucking ballroom and it is coming down in 2029 regardless of the circumstances.
And yet.
24
u/Romano16 America 23h ago
In my opinion the construction yard of this ballroom should stay and be a reminder to Americans for its foolishness and careless vote for an insurrectionist.
By removing it we learn nothing.
12
u/BPhiloSkinner Maryland 23h ago
We may not have to choose. The Orange One is not known for high-quality construction work, and it's entirely possible that this Temu Versailles will fall over in a stiff spring breeze.
→ More replies (2)23
u/AcademicPublius Colorado 23h ago
We will learn nothing regardless; there are plenty of monuments to how senseless and awful slavery was, and a large portion of the populace said "fuck off, we like plantations and hate n-words". But if we leave it up the next would-be president-for-life will hold their inauguration there.
Smash it. Break every stone into powder.
7
u/mishap1 I voted 23h ago
The stone has been fucking sent to Italy to be carved.
→ More replies (1)8
u/AcademicPublius Colorado 23h ago
Very expensive demolition material. Personally, I'd have gone with cheap adobe.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (16)4
u/primetimerobus 23h ago
Unfortunately Trump has figured out you do so many bad actions that no one can keep up with all of them. Ballroom isn’t on the voters radar. No one remembers Signalgate, something that in any other time would be a major deal.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/phoenix64mbr 23h ago
National Trust for historic preservation doesn't have standing? I can't wait for 2028. 13 justices and term limits can't come too soon.
8
u/darkbreak 21h ago
So I suppose at this point we can all just safely ignore the Supreme Court. If they're going to blatantly allow illegal acts (acts that they admit are illegal) to be carried out then what is the point of them? Every state should be free to ignore any statements made by SCOTUS and by extension the Constitution itself since SCOTUS has decided the rule of law doesn't mean anything anymore.
→ More replies (1)
7
9
8
7
7
u/TopTransportation695 23h ago
Just like the bribes er, gratuities that the justices are receiving; likely unlawful but they’ll allow it anyway.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/KJPicard24 21h ago edited 21h ago
In 2028.
Trump running for a third term 'likely unconstitutional', John Robert says, but Supreme Court will allow it anyway.
8
u/Bigtime1234 20h ago
WHAT THE FUCK?!?! This is the highest judicial body in the land and they are basically saying, “Well, it’s wrong but…he’s our guy, so…lol, fuck the law!” It’s time for changes.
7
u/MolassesOk3200 19h ago
What’s the point of laws if even the shitbag president doesn’t have to follow them? What’s the point of SCOTUS if all they do is make ruling by “feels”.
6
u/Tendtoskim 19h ago
Congress can stop him at anytime but chooses not to. Even if the supreme ruled it illegal, they have zero ability to enforce. Most obvious ruling ever.
6
u/sagan4dawin 19h ago
Next democratic administration should commence demolition of that building during their inauguration speech. Just fucking do it. Bulldoze the entire thing and then seize the personal assets and bank accounts of that entire mob family and all of their enablers/cronies to pay for the reconstruction of the east wing and the rose garden. Their name should appear absolutely nowhere except sentencing documents, the Epstein Files, and textbooks when referring to their illegal occupation of the White House. They should not be allowed plots for burial on American soil.
5
u/Craven_Lunatic 19h ago
Roberts is just as corrupt, his vote is calculated to make it seem like there is some disagreement.
6
3
4
u/Dr_PocketSand 23h ago
Well… They did anoint him a de facto king when they made him above the law and taxes.
5
u/NYkrinDC 22h ago
Nothing captures just how badly our checks and balances are failing as this:
Supreme Court - Yeah, what the President is doing is likely illegal, but we'll allow him to do it anyway
→ More replies (2)
5
6
5
u/UnidosJamaisVencidos 13h ago
If not for the SCOTUS corrupt judges, the US would still be a democracy and Trump would be behind bars.
Those judges need to be removed and prosecuted, before it gets way worse. Even if by the hands of the people.
•
u/AutoModerator 23h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.