r/politics • u/theindependentonline The Independent • 1d 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.html
13.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

7.4k

u/MadAstrid 1d 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 1d ago

And by the time they rule it'll be done 

775

u/Rodgertheshrubber 1d ago

Then it will be found it's of the same quality as the pool was and require a complete rebuild

382

u/homerjaythompson 1d ago

It would be hilarious if his security bunker underneath was made to such terrible standards that it collapses

145

u/Serainas 23h ago

Poetic Justice, and more than he deserves

37

u/386U0Kh24i1cx89qpFB1 22h ago

Nah tax papers will foot the eventual rebuild.

13

u/homerjaythompson 21h 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)

12

u/joshuadt 22h ago

Victim of his own hubris… would be a shame… or, not

13

u/boxen 21h 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.

2

u/homerjaythompson 21h ago

These are the images I live for at this point

→ More replies (1)

58

u/c-park 23h ago

It'll be just like the ending of the Watchmen series, all the awful racists dying together. (spoiler alert)

15

u/jarious 21h ago

Mind you I want to watch it now

4

u/Klutzy-Reaction5536 20h ago

Do it. It is so good, and so timely.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Sarrdonicus 17h ago

Then Watchitman

2

u/jarious 17h ago

Immawatchitman

3

u/FellowHumanNo404 10h ago

I think maybe the "spoiler alert" tag is supposed to be presented before the spoiler.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/InevitableAd8511 22h ago

It’s the best paper-mâché money could buy.

3

u/punktualPorcupine 22h ago

Remember you wanted the (gasping for air) ventilation budget (wheeze…) to be moved to your bitcoin…wallet… (passes out)

2

u/Bgrngod 23h ago

It's going to collapse, as planned, but not until someone else is in office.

2

u/Due_Speaker4655 23h ago

This is the most likely scenario.

I wish I was kidding, but we see how these things go.

The first time he has an event there the floor will collapse from the weight since the floor was held up with bubble gum and super glue.

2

u/Beautiful_Nobody_344 22h ago

You just know he goes with the lowest bidder.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/superxpro12 20h ago

The ol cersei ending, eh?

2

u/FishNChips-74 18h ago

That fucker is going to relocate the gold from Fort Knox to it because it’s more secure. Calling it..

2

u/--AbbieNormal 17h ago

You mean the super secret military bunker basement that he won’t shut up about? The security and intelligence folks loooove when we brag openly on TV about all of our super secret stuff.

2

u/Arc125 10h ago

Trump and Miller embrace as the ceiling comes down a la Jaime and Cersei.

→ More replies (20)

51

u/Mistrblank 23h 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.

5

u/Ultravagabird 20h ago

this is a good time & opportunity to get with the times and build another White House and Capitol in Illinois or St. louis - 200+ yrs ago the States were Colonies on the East Coast & DC i guess was center then. it’s now 230 yrs later& US is much larger geographically & population wise and i know many reps and Senators that would love to have a shorter commute - it makes sense.

can keep the DC White House for hosting foreign leaders/diplomats and other events and congregating with Congress there.

The DC Capitol can get tech improved & there can be a secure private link up to the other Capitol for votes -

we should do this asap as we have a great opportunity - it should’ve done ages ago

→ More replies (1)

80

u/MarvelousVanGlorious 1d 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.

63

u/auriem 1d ago edited 23h ago

That would be the perfect opportunity to fill it up with concrete to seal the hate, ignorance and criminality in.

3

u/GraceMcClellans 20h ago

Buried in the Epstein Memorial Ballroom

3

u/lettersvsnumbers 19h ago

bunker in central Berlin

→ More replies (2)

22

u/Karinka_LI 1d ago

Hopefully we can remotely lock them in with no food or communication for 9 months.

24

u/deNET2122 23h ago

Welding is a good trade to get into these days

11

u/OlGreggMare 22h ago

Ever seen Dirty Dozen?

3

u/K2TY Alabama 21h ago

Just walk slow, act dumb and look stupid!

11

u/jdash11 21h ago

They’re currently trying to steal midterms and there seems to be little attention/no sirens blaring. November might not be the blowout we hope.

11

u/Mysterious_Floor_868 United Kingdom 23h ago

Excellent, weld the door shut with them in it.

22

u/JGPH Canada 23h ago

And it'll be full to the rafters with spy devices from foreign adversaries.

7

u/GeneralKang 22h ago

Just like the plane.

15

u/Socratesticles Tennessee 23h 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

20

u/Makenshine 22h 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."

2

u/Blownards 22h ago

How does that make any bit of sense?

6

u/Makenshine 22h ago

No idea. But it was getting thrown around for about 2 or 3 weeks in the lead up to the 2012 election cycle. Mostly social media and small conservative online news outlets. Mostly Tea Party aligned groups.

It's one of the things that didn't gain traction.

The most insane one that did gain traction was the "Birther" movement. Which is actually what propelled Trump into the political spotlight.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/bkbomber New York 20h ago

Remember when all it took for conservatives to get mad was a black man wearing a tan suit and a bit of dijon mustard?

Now we’ve got a traitorous pedophile and they cheer him on!

2

u/joe-h2o 12h ago

They blamed Obama for the botched response to Hurricane Katrina too.

34

u/Ralf_K 1d ago

Hey, trump will only use the highest quality paper machine and sawdust!

10

u/ChanceryTheRapper 23h ago

And asbestos!

2

u/oinkyboinky 22h ago

Only the finest grade for maximum Mesothelioma!

→ More replies (1)

14

u/UndeadT Georgia 1d ago

This is the greatest eggcorn I've ever seen.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/gleaf008 23h ago

That’s the grift.

2

u/ComradeJohnS 1d ago

nah this one is his furher bunker, so it’ll be well done

→ More replies (6)

81

u/cadium 1d 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.

41

u/mjlp716 22h 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.

12

u/lonnie123 21h 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

4

u/KDLGates 16h ago

They have filed an injunction to un-destroy the thing.

2

u/TheQuidditchHaderach 16h ago

Start demolition 12:01am night after election night.

→ More replies (1)

35

u/Witty-Entertainer524 23h ago

The court is worthless

34

u/KinkyPaddling 23h ago

The current SCOTUS is illegitimate.

3

u/deaglebingo America 19h ago

roberts' wife's millions in kickbacks are likely unlawful too. yes.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/thefocusissharp 21h 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?

2

u/jay78910 23h ago

They are taking the "we wanna sit back and see how this plays out" approach, so common nowadays amongst conservatives.

2

u/ecirnj 20h ago

You see, that keeps a future Democrat from doing … anything.

2

u/Different_Wolf_764 20h ago

Oh, it'll never actually be done. The money will disappear though!

1

u/Cold_Tea_Spill112 22h ago

Dems most likely will take control of the House in November. If they are sworn in on January and the planned tom foolery doesn't produce a High Noon scenario then they can stop it then.

1

u/Iron_Maw 22h ago

That thing is never getting built lmao

1

u/armyofant 21h ago

It will be a good place to hold military tribunals in 2029

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Time_Craft_5698 20h ago

That's the plan.

1

u/Vandelay_Industries- Florida 17h ago

I want it to be finished, and for the next president to demolish it. Maybe invite people to the WH and offer free sledgehammers. Would probably be done in a day.

1

u/Cael_NaMaor South Carolina 15h ago

Exactly

250

u/aaronhayes26 1d 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.

•

u/gurnard 39m ago

Only reason he ever set foot in the White House in the first place. He was committing an in-progress violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution at the moment of swearing-in. But there is no mechanism to halt the inauguration of an invalid president, and SCOTUS decided there was no standing to hear a case to reverse it.

This means the door has been open to a third Trump term (or Musk cutting out the middle man and running himself) since 2017.

3

u/OswaldCoffeepot 23h ago

Man, you do t even have to read the whole article. The little blurb right at the top explains the intentionally confusing headline.

6

u/silvertealio 15h ago

It’s an intentionally confusing statement as well. He’s chief justice of the highest court in the land, yet he can’t bring himself to state definitively whether it’s legal or not.

200

u/ToadP America 1d 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.

83

u/ianjm 23h 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.

27

u/Intelligent-Half-620 22h ago

Could like… the average American sue? It’s their White House. 

27

u/ianjm 22h ago

Apparently not given they had a named individual in this suit

13

u/LostWoodsInTheField Pennsylvania 21h 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.

17

u/relikter Virginia 20h 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.

13

u/TJKbird 19h 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.

3

u/relikter Virginia 19h ago

any individual to sue any kind of government program using tax dollars to hold it up

Yes, it would. A judge would decide if an injunction is the right course of action, or if the program can continue while the lawsuit plays out. That's what already happens now, I'm just saying it should be easier to have standing when it comes to the government. Otherwise, we're going to keep getting into situations where the Republican party controls enough (WH plus any one legislative branch) to simply ignore laws and not hold themselves accountable.

2

u/Blackstone01 8h ago

Yeah, it’s fucking insane that the government evidently can perform illegal actions but the courts can do nothing due to some vague “standing” bullshit. The simple fact that it’s the federal government breaking the law, with the Supreme Court acknowledging the fact that it’s illegal, should fundamentally be all the legal standing necessary, doubly so if there’s somebody out there they say should have standing to sue, and are just waiting for said somebody to come forward in time to stop this.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Moleculor Texas 17h 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.

7

u/cIumsythumbs 17h 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 21h 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.

3

u/DisillusionedHobbit 20h ago

Yeah well the UK still has a functioning legal system instead of a corrupt farce 

→ More replies (2)

10

u/ZebraImaginary9412 22h 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.

5

u/Seayont 21h 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.

2

u/stoned_ocelot 21h ago

I mean you're also assuming they ever finish it. As of right now looks like they won't be done by the end of trumps term, moreso if we think impeachment will occur.

→ More replies (4)

36

u/paiute 1d ago

Permission/foregiveness

66

u/fer_sure 23h ago

Also if the penalty for a crime is a fine, it's only illegal for the poor.

16

u/anotherlevl 23h ago

And when the taxpayers pay the fine...

3

u/mark_able_jones_ 21h ago

I hope a Democrat POTUS gets in power and starts calling it treason to tear down the White House and uses it to impeach SCOTUS members + find the corporations who funded the illegal ballroom. Threaten to charge them with criminal treason, too, or pay for the meticulous restoration of the White House. That ballroom is a symbol of corruption.

1

u/iamalext 20h ago

Something about forgiveness being easier than permission comes to mind…

86

u/PDXCarpetBagger 1d ago

When the shoe is on the other foot. Watch how quick these cowards act.

52

u/OddFirefighter547 1d ago

Oh yes, in the next Democratic administration the SC will find all kinds of courage.

23

u/GrassyNoob 23h ago

The next Supreme Court should be packed with young idealistic lawyers.

6

u/Flomo420 19h ago

Current supreme court should be packed into a cannon

→ More replies (2)

2

u/lonnie123 20h ago

Then that president needs to just do shit like Trump does.

1

u/PDXCarpetBagger 21h ago

Thanks for the upvotes. I cant wait for the midnight shadow docket nationwide injunction injunctions issued by Alito and Thomas. Just to prove how corrupt these fools are.

→ More replies (1)

47

u/lexm 1d ago

And they claimed that the group that sued has no legal ground. That blows my mind.

8

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 1d ago

It's the National Trust. They don't have standing, unfortunately. They are in no way shape or form affiliated with the White House building. They don't own, manage, fund, oversee, or do anything with it.

24

u/SushiGato 1d ago

Standing doesn't even meter anymore, they allowed those two chuds standing with the student loan forgiveness, which would've actually really helped the economy. They had no standing, but it was allowed anyways.

6

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 23h ago

I don't disagree necessarily. Corruption is corruption. But ignoring any corruption, assuming that this was a case brought forward and the justices were all truly neutral, I'd expect the same verdict here, because the Trust doesn't have standing.

The 3 liberal justices are dissenting to dissent because they have to. Roberts is probably doing it for optics to suggest he's impartial ("look at me, going against the conservative bloc!"). We're lucky that the conservatives did only rule on standing rather than flat out saying the ballroom is legal.

The court is incredibly political, which is a problem in and of itself that needs addressing.

6

u/aaronhayes26 23h ago

You’re not wrong but I remain deeply uncomfortable with the idea that something can be plainly illegal but nevertheless occur without objection from the Supreme Court based on “standing”.

If laws don’t bind the presidency we are not a real nation, and the courts are not equal branches.

4

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 23h ago

Yes, I agree with the sentiment that this is all deeply uncomfortable. I certainly don't like it. But like I said in another comment, that isn't how the Supreme Court works. They don't get to pick whatever laws they want to review and challenge, even if they think it's illegal or unconstitutional. Someone has to bring the case forward.

It's Congress's job to write laws. They're the ones who could stop this immediately, but we have a complicit Republican majority right now.

Ideally, the entire government and its checks and balances need to be revisited. We're desperately in need of a new and modern constitution.

3

u/jello_aka_aron 22h ago

And would be a legitimate argument.. if this particular court didn't play so fast and loose with standing. Hypothetical business that doesn't actually exist that might possibly get hired by a queer person who then might maybe ask them to do something they are uncomfortable with? SURE THING! Obviously harmful voting law that mirrors others in the past that were already struck down? NOPE, have to actually prove a specific person was fully disenfranchised before we'll even give it the smell test.

10

u/AllGarbage Arizona 1d ago

Amazing that being a tax paying constituent of the federal government doesn’t give you standing in court against a corrupt government that is openly misappropriating tax dollars.

3

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 23h ago

Yeah, while the government is super corrupt under Trump right now, the system from the beginning didn't allow anything like that.

40

u/Ketzeph I voted 1d ago

These feckless Republican villains on SCOTUS should be in prison. They are supreme examples of unAmerican traitors

4

u/mark_able_jones_ 21h ago

Yup. Treason to attack the White House. I hope Dems impeach them all for this and make the companies that funded this illegal destruction of the most important landmark in the nation fund it's restoration.

14

u/Spuriest 23h ago

Roberts is in the dissent here.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/Memitim America 22h 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.

39

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 1d 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 1d 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?

7

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 1d ago

No. Unfortunately, while I agree with the dissenting 4 that this is illegal, the group who sued, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, does not have legal standing. I have to agree with the conservatives on this one point.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is in no way affiliated with the White House building. They don't manage it. They don't fund its preservation. They have nothing to do with the building beyond their personal hopes to preserve it. That's not legal standing. If Trump wanted to knock over Montpelier and build a ballroom? The Trust then has legal standing because they manage that historic building.

It's very annoying. We know what he is doing is illegal, but unless someone with standing can sue, nothing will happen. This would be the federal government itself, the National Parks Service that manages it, or the General Services Administration that oversees the federal property. Basically, you'd need Trump's administration to sue itself. Which has happened before, but probably won't in this circumstance.

5

u/Polantaris Illinois 23h ago

If the White House is the people's house, how does every single American Citizen not have legal standing? They have demolished our property and illegally built upon our land.

The White House is not the President's property.

2

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 23h ago

Because it being "the people's house" is just a moniker and not a legal reality. And that land actually was stolen.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/MadAstrid 23h ago

Great! New version.

“This is illegal, but until Trump sues himself for doing it, we are not going to stop him” - The Corrupt Supreme Court.

5

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 23h ago

Sure, that's nicely condensed. The Supreme Court literally has no power to stop him unless someone sues though. If you want some group who can stop this, look to Congress. It's their job to write the laws.

But yeah, like I said in the comment below: the system is rigged. They're exploiting loopholes in the system to do this stuff "legally." People forget that the evil mustache man legally took over Germany. But being legal doesn't make it good or right. So we really need to understand the specific details in this stuff and acknowledge them, because that's what they're using to screw it all over.

4

u/nonotan 20h ago

The Supreme Court literally has no power to stop him unless someone [with standing] sues though

This should read "theoretically has no power", because de facto they absolutely do. They flagrantly ignore standing when they feel like it, and more generally, they flagrantly ignore the entire constitution when they feel like it (see the flaming clown fiesta of a decision that was repelling Roe v. Wade)

The reality is that they can rule however they want for whatever reason they want, because there is de facto no checks and balances. There is nobody above them that can say "that's obviously wrong, you can't do that".

Congress could, theoretically, pass constitutional amendments that spell things out clearly and explicitly, but if SCOTUS keeps "ruling wrong on purpose", that doesn't achieve much. They could hypothetically remove or modify the legal basis for SCOTUS existing at all, or add an explicit third-party check of some kind that can invalidate rulings. Though with how partisan Congress is these days, and how little they have cared for decades when other branches flagrantly steal their core power to legislate, this is obviously not happening. And at that point you'd be well into an all-out constitutional crisis, anyway, so it's hard to say if even that nuclear option would actually work. Finally, they already have a dismal approval rating with the public, so there isn't even that much damage left to do there.

The flip side to that if that if everybody else straight up started ignoring SCOTUS rulings, there also isn't much they can do to enforce them. I think that's genuinely a plausible future we might get to sooner than you may think. But, for better or worse, we're not there yet.

14

u/BillyTenderness 23h ago

It's very annoying. We know what he is doing is illegal, but unless someone with standing can sue, nothing will happen. This would be the federal government itself, the National Parks Service that manages it, or the General Services Administration that oversees the federal property. Basically, you'd need Trump's administration to sue itself. Which has happened before, but probably won't in this circumstance.

This is the type of mental gymnastics this court loves to do in their unending quest to render the president an unconstrained god-king. It's doubly bad when you remember that they also ruled the president was above criminal prosecution – so it's illegal, but nobody can sue to stop it, and nobody can be held accountable for breaking the law after the fact. And that they've ruled the president can just unilaterally fire anyone in his administration who might actually have standing and choose to use it.

7

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 23h ago

It isn't mental gymnastics. It's how the law works, and it's a loophole that's being exploited.

Also, the court didn't rule the president is above criminal prosecution. They ruled that the president can't be prosecuted for official acts of office. They did not define what constituted an official act though, and left that to lower courts. If we go back to Nixon, for example, Watergate wasn't an official act of office and he would have faced criminal charges. He obviously resigned and Ford granted him an unconditional pardon before that could happen though.

I get people are pissed at all of this. But these are the facts. I don't agree with any of it, but my agreement or disagreement isn't changing what actually is. And when it comes to these rulings, the specifics matter. The system is rigged. So you need to know specifically what was ruled on and what wasn't so you know how to fight against it where you can.

3

u/BillyTenderness 23h ago

They ruled that the president can't be prosecuted for official acts of office.

Surely they would rule that destroying the ballroom is an official act, though. Which brings me back to my point: they've closed the avenue of criminal prosecution when the president fragrantly violates the laws about what the president is allowed to do, and the avenue of anybody suing to stop him from fragrantly violating the law, and the avenue of Congress insulating members of the executive from the president's personal whims, and the avenue of Congress vetoing or otherwise canceling actions taken by the president. We talk about them in isolation, but in fact each one makes the others that much worse; they are mutually reinforcing.

2

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 22h ago

No. Not necessarily. The President can't just arbitrarily decide to destroy parts of the White House. He doesn't own it. It wouldn't be an official act of office because the office lacks the power to do it, officially. Major renovations require Congressional approval, which he did not receive.

Congress could in fact be the ones to sue, as their suffered "harm" of not giving required approval would give them standing. But we'd need a Democratic majority for that.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/Simple_Rules 21h ago

No. Unfortunately, while I agree with the dissenting 4 that this is illegal, the group who sued, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, does not have legal standing. I have to agree with the conservatives on this one point.

So basically "the government is doing illegal shit, but the only person who can sue the government for doing illegal shit is the government. If anyone else tries to sue, well, tough shit."

Notice how they had no problem figuring out how conservative activist groups had standing when it came to attacking Biden's student loan program before it even did anything?

Trump has literally DONE ILLEGAL SHIT, and magically wow it's just so tough, nobody actually has any standing to challenge.

You're providing moral cover this court doesn't deserve.

3

u/OswaldCoffeepot 23h ago

Not really, because that's still not what happened.

8

u/wordsonascreen Washington 23h ago

Well, clearly the plaintiff should have assumed the identity of a hypothetical cake decorator

2

u/BrandonUnusual Pennsylvania 23h ago

What we need to do is start saying the ballroom is gay, or better yet, trans. It's transitioning, right? It was once the east wing, but it's transitioning to a ballroom.

If we make the ballroom a queer icon, some cake decorator will sue and the court will agree they have standing. Masterful!

5

u/viper3 20h 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

u/mark_able_jones_ 21h ago

So, basically no one has standing. Congress would have to stop it.

I hope the justices get impeached over allowing these treasonous destruction of the white house.

2

u/ilrosewood 18h ago

I have nothing that argues the facts of what you said.

What you said is also why we are fucked.

Often SCOTUS may be right on the law but be wrong. Just plain wrong. I would say previous court rulings that brought us the end of Jim Crow had legal scholars making fair arguments against who had standing and what the powers allowed etc. but in the end those courts knew what was right and wrong. Yet - Korematsu is still the law of the land.

The right thing would have been for this court to have stopped this bullshit.

2

u/IndigoHawk 9h ago

Do you think the SCOTUS is making rulings in good faith rather than making rulings to achieve the partisans result they want?

Look at this example. Trump is building the ballroom without permission. SCOTUS likely knows it's illegal, but they want to let the mad king do whatever he wants. So they rule that this case has no standing, allowing him to continue.

The delay while a new case makes its way to them is SCOTUS's gift to Trump. It's the entire point of their ruling. They don't actually care about the legality at all. If a case with standing eventually reaches them, they'll dismiss it as moot because the ballroom is already built. Even if it was declared illegal, it's still moot as no one in the executive branch would be interested in demolishing it against Trump's wishes. All SCOTUS has to do is help Trump delay to give him what he wants regardless of the legality.

Then contrast this with how SCOTUS treated mail in ballots. Trump issued an executive order to attack mail in ballots. SCOTUS upheld this. Why? SCOTUS could have simply said Trump has no standing. How is he hurt if states deliver ballots to their citizens to vote in elections that states run? It doesn't hurt Trump at all. He doesn't run voting. He has no standing at all in how states run elections so his executive order is entirely without standing. If we want to play the standing game, then SCOTUS could have dismissed Trump's lawsuit for the exact same reason they dismissed the ballroom lawsuit.

Instead SCOTUS said that Trump's order was probably illegal, but they are allowing it because they support Trump's attacks on democracy.

SCOTUS is corrupt and doesn't care about the Constitution at all, except to use it as a bludgeon to allow things that SCOTUS likes and disallows things it doesn't like. There is no good faith in their rulings, so why are you still giving them the benefit of the doubt?

I realize that Republicans purposely and rapidly destroying the public institutions of the United States is a difficult pill to swallow. But how much more evidence do you need before you admit that's what they're doing?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

10

u/jimmydog65 23h ago

God damn .. America is a frigging joke

2

u/Beer2Bear 22h ago

need to be all fired and tossed in jail for being a POS

2

u/mark_able_jones_ 21h ago

Seems like any taxpayer should have standing.

2

u/MadAstrid 21h ago

A bunch of Supreme Court apologists will surely jump in soon to tell you why you are wrong and stupid for thinking that the taxpayers have any standing to do anything at all.

But I agree. He bulldozed the people’s house. The people should be considered an injured party with standing.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/OswaldCoffeepot 23h ago

Oy vey.

It was a 5-4 vote that let it continue.

Roberts was one of the four on the losing side. The headline quotes his dissent.

He said it was likely illegal and voted to stop it.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/Lucky-Roy Australia 1d ago

You’d have to wonder what Trump and his goons have on these people to make them cower at his feet as they do. They, and there are a lot of them, must have done some really bad things in the past. Really bad.

1

u/Ok-Cryptographer7005 23h ago

So much for "justice is blind".

1

u/SkySojourner 23h ago

Complete dereliction of duty.

1

u/Odd-String29 23h ago

It is what American people want, plain and simple.

1

u/Honky_Stonk_Man 23h ago

Likely unlawful, but we, the highest court in the land, have no idea who would determine what is or is not legal.

1

u/Randomwhitelady2 23h ago

This is an illegitimate court that ignores the will of the people and acts non-independently. It will need to be reformed and additional justices added after the mid terms. We have to restore checks and balances and enact actual laws, and not rely on “norms”. Norms mean nothing to bad actors like trump..

1

u/donald_buzinkai 22h ago

Insane. How do we teach our kids what justice is when we have this!

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Cold_Tea_Spill112 22h ago

The court was split 5-4. Roberts joined liberal justices in their dissent.

“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 [National Trust for Historic Preservation] lacks ... standing to challenge the project in federal court."

1

u/Nayre_Trawe 22h ago

How else will he earn his gratuity?

1

u/purpleflowergang California 22h ago

SCOTUS has been illegitimate since 2016.

1

u/Laura9624 22h ago

Three appointed by the utterly corrupt trump. I don't know what people expected.

1

u/YF422 22h ago

They need to be removed or prosecuted for corrupion.

Short of that Dems need to pack the court with at least 4 liberal justices the moment they sieze power and with no warning either to cockblock the regressive ones and neuter their power expecially 2 paticularly corrupt and seditious ones.

1

u/awfeel 22h ago

Justice no longer exists in the United States. It’s bought and paid for like abolishing sins for shmeckles in Catholicism.

1

u/Ayotha 22h ago

And the people watch

1

u/InnerWrathChild 22h ago

No no no.  By calling it illegal they can come back and say no when a democratic president ants to do something . 

1

u/Aldo_says Washington 22h ago

A "decision" was based on how much you could leverage for bribes.

Corrupt as fuck.

1

u/Dumb_Dick_Sandwich 22h ago

Until it’s a democrat in doing power for something that actually helps people

1

u/notbobby125 21h ago

Do note, Roberts sided with the Liberals on this one. It was the other five who let it slide.

1

u/DonaldsMushroom 21h ago

same with the Iran war, the Epstein files, the Coup...

A lawless rogue state.

1

u/Salmon-of-Wizdom 21h ago

Well, yes....Chief Justice Roberts was part of the dissenting justices that lost the vote, though. The majority opinion just ruled that the National Trust didn't have standing to bring the lawsuit. 

I wonder who would, then. 

1

u/Terrible_Bear6853 21h ago

We are very worried someone might use this prescident to help a poor person some day so weve decided the case very narrowly only applies to this instance

1

u/reddit4getit 21h ago

The historic preservation group had grounded its claim of standing on a declaration by board member Alison Hoagland, a Washington resident and preservationist. *Hoagland asserted that passing the construction site caused her personal, professional and aesthetic harm.***

The Supreme Court majority explicitly *rejected that argument, writing that “mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury.”***

Get your feewings out of here 😄😄👉👉

1

u/ATXBeermaker 20h ago

If only there was a group who literally job was to be the ultimate arbiter of these sorts of things.

1

u/RobutNotRobot 20h ago

They did do something. They gave the Trump regime 'emergency relief' by inventing that once again no one anywhere has standing to sue Trump when he violates the law.

1

u/MadAstrid 20h ago

No no! He himself alone has standing to sue himself to stop himself from doing what he wants to do!

(PS to all the supreme court apologists and literalists who have been freaking out about my posts here - this response is intended to be humorous in a darkly sarcastic sort of way. Please do not waste time trying to explain that this is not exactly what was decided, but only practically what was decided and so people should not be disappointed by the court as a whole).

1

u/Scrum_Bag 20h ago

Do you have any idea what a dissenting opinion is?

1

u/gomezer1180 19h ago

I mean what really is law… that’s just a word thrown around to poor people.

2

u/MadAstrid 19h ago

it certainly seems to mean nothing to the wealthy.

1

u/Questhi 18h ago

They always weasel out of these things by attacking “standing” of the plaintiff so they don’t have to confront the merits of the case.

They just shrug their shoulders and say “oh sorry you don’t have standing, can’t help you.”

Then tell us who the fuck has standing in the case, I’m sure they’ll get a Go-fund-me and file.

1

u/Noob_Al3rt 18h ago

You can tell they are corrupt, because they dismissed the case for something as tedious as the plaintiff having no standing.

1

u/Omirin 17h ago

Like the good trumplicans they are

1

u/hamlet9000 17h 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.

This is a good reminder that now is the perfect time to learn how the government of your country actually works.

Because you don't seem to have a clue how the Supreme Court decides cases or what a dissent is.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Student___Driver 17h ago

The party of law and order. Ommfg.

1

u/consoletopia 17h ago

Were not ruling if this is or is not against the law. Were ruling that we dont THINK (not KNOW) that the group that brought this lawsuit didnt have the authority to do so....

1

u/MadAstrid 17h ago

Go ahead. Keep going and share with the class that the group they think has standing to sue the Trump administration is the Trump administration.

1

u/_0611 17h ago

Well, this is how things work in third world countries.

1

u/Tango_D 17h ago

The entire system is built upon and runs on a gentleman's agreement for the upper echelons to act in good faith. If they do not, you can't do a damn thing about it.

1

u/waldo_wigglesworth 17h ago

Sure hope Roberts uses the same precedent in allowing President AOC to level both the ballroom & the Arc de Trump.

1

u/povlhp 17h ago

Those appointed by Trump should not be allowed to vote. They are supposed biased.

1

u/Kevin-W 16h ago

I'm sure they'd be like "Trump can tear down the entire White House if he wants" consider everyone just shrugged when he tore down the East Wing

1

u/Asholootleigh 16h ago

If Up is Down, and Left is Right...

If Law is Unlawful, then Defiance is Lawful

1

u/JamUpGuy1989 15h ago

And that includes you and me buddy.

Just ranting on Reddit instead of trying to take our country back. It’s shameful.

1

u/E_seven_20 14h ago

A lot of us screamed for you to help stop this…for almost a decade…

Filling in a bubble was too much to ask.

with less than 60% registered…one of our largest age blocs:

2022 National Youth Turnout: 23% - That's lower than in the historic 2018 cycle (28%) which broke records for turnout, but much higher than in 2014, when only 13% of youth voted.

Why would the people that didn’t care if Trump/ GOP won, by not voting…do anything? They don’t actually hate him enough to keep him, or his gang out of office.

They have no intention of fighting, in any way. Best you can get out of them, is a leaderless parade, with no organization outside of it, no real demands…just frog suits, and snarky signs.

Our polity’s are symptom…the people of the country are the problem. We simply do not have enough decent smart people left.

1

u/Suspicious_Bicycle 14h ago

There is a legal term "sua sponte" where a court can step into a dispute on it's own initiative. Federal District Judge Aileen Cannon has stepped in several times with sua sponte actions to defend Trump. You'd think if the SCOTUS thinks an action is unconstitutional they would step in and block it. That is is they weren't compromised political actors. :(

1

u/Mo_Jack Missouri 13h ago

SCOTUS accepting money & gifts from billionaires & corporations with business before the court is "likely unlawful", but the court will allow it anyway. Cha-ching!

1

u/MadAstrid 10h ago

The only entity with standing to complain about the Supreme Court taking money and gifts from interested parties is the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court takes action against the Supreme Court for what it is openly doing, then the Supreme Court will consider the merits of penalizing themselves.

1

u/IvyGold I voted 13h ago

You must understand that standing is like a light switch: it's either on or off.

Why a standing argument went 5-4 at the Supreme Court mystifies me though. The court of first impression should've ironed this out beyond appellate argument.

1

u/Erroneous_Bonk 12h ago

I mean, Clarence Thomas got caught red-handed taking multiple bribes directly from billionaire republican puppeteer Harlan Crow. Nobody did anything. Most importantly, the population didn't unite in a revolution.

1

u/CanadianGenealogy 11h ago

Who's gonna stop them? Us? 

1

u/underpants-gnome Ohio 11h ago

This has been Chief Justice Roberts' favorite strategy to let republicans do whatever the fuck they've wanted over the last 2 decades: stall and delay, deny injunctive relief, just kick back and watch it all happen.

By the time a case actually makes it to the SCOTUS docket? Voter suppression, election fixing, theft, or whatever the GOP wanted is already a fait accompli. The GOP majority congress is seated. The East Wing is rubble. The AI datacenter is built. Then they get to wag their fingers and say, "Now don't you do that next time, you naughty conservatives < wink >". Or sometimes they just shrug and say the issue should be taken up by congress. When they know full well that even the mildest hope for a just outcome is hopelessly tied up by the Senate's filibuster.

1

u/Old_Hat_2997 9h ago

Not a Trump fan, but worth knowing: DACA was created by Mr. Obama using the same 'nobody has standing' argument. It isn't right, but it also isn't new.

•

u/MoonPieKitty 7h ago

They weren’t asked to rule on the ballrooms legality.

•

u/Ok-Experience-913 7h ago

What have you built? A useless karma generator on red idiot?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)