A 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court ruled Monday that construction on a new $400 million White House ballroom can proceed, reversing lower court orders that had temporarily halted aboveground work on the project.
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the decision, writing that the ongoing construction was “likely unlawful.”
Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices in opposition, arguing that work on the facility had moved forward unchecked for nearly a year despite significant legal flaws.
“Construction of the ballroom has proceeded apace for the better part of a year,” Roberts wrote. “That construction is likely unlawful.”
Despite Roberts’ warning, the majority threw out the challenge against the Trump administration on procedural grounds. The court concluded that the plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, lacked the legal standing required to pursue a federal lawsuit.
Thrown out b/c a lack of standing. Hard to imagine who would have standing beyond Congress, but we know the party in charge doesn’t care. Feels like we’re just going to have to take it.
Hey, that’s probably what a rape victim thinks half way through being raped. Wow, Republicans are very pro-rape: of children, especially it seems.
I used to believe that we should expand SCOTUS to 13 seats. I no longer believe that. Now I believe that we should expand it to 29 seats, with rolling term limits. That way, each president could appoint a few, but they could never appoint enough to rig the entire court.
SCOTUS should be the most stable of our three branches. It should never be manipulated and subverted like the other branches.
Are we still talking about this? This might be the longest he’s cared about anything.
Hey 5 court justices, please fucking tell me how the non-profit organization founded by a act of Congress with the express mission to preserve historic buildings in the US doesn’t have standing in a case regarding the destruction of a historic building in the US?
But your garage extension…hhmmm nah! Your shitty 1920’s house is an historic relic that must be preserved like that until an asshole corporation can build a high rise on your property.
They can’t hear you over their ‘gifts’ from generous conservative friends.
And probably the flapping flag of the Seven Mountain Mandate crazies. Or at least Alito…not sure if that cult Amy is in is affiliated, too.
“Likely unlawful?” Isn’t it literally your job to have the final say on whether it’s unlawful? If you found it unlawful, then say so!
That’s him saying so as part of the Dissenting minority. He was outvoted by the rest of Trump’s sycophants.
I know. The point is he should have said it is unlawful, not “likely unlawful”. Or if he’s so afraid of hurting their feelings, he could say “I find it to be unlawful”.
They didn’t hear the merits of the case, and as a Supreme Court justice he shouldn’t make a determination before the hearing.
And it doesn’t matter here. What he said was appropriate and enough.
It is his job to have the final say, after the lower appeals courts have had their final say. That hasn’t happened yet. This case is still being litigated in the district court.
That’s why Roberts said “likely unlawful.” Because the only question under consideration right now is which way to go until the lawsuit ends. The standard for that is “likely (un)lawful” because you can’t decide if it’s lawful until you decide if it’s lawful. (If that makes any sense).
He did. He’s also acknowledging how little it matters by adding “likely”. That does seem to be the people’s stance: “yeah, that’s probably illegal ¯_(ツ)_/¯”
He is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His job is to determine if something is lawful or not, that’s the whole point of his job.
Not. Yet.
It’s a process.
And yes, we’re all aware of what the five are doing. That doesn’t change his comment here.
Look at Roberts “moderating” the court.
He’s trying to prove he’s “one of the good ones”, so that the inevitable angry mob might decide to let him live.
I’m glad you mentioned this, because I keep asking myself, “How do you end lifetime terms?”.
And the only answer I can come up with is, “By ending the life”.
This supreme court is a farce. But my understanding of history is that that’s actually the norm.
If it wasn’t clear already, these creatures don’t recognize the concept of consent. They do not accept the idea that we are all equal as humans.
Everyone in the hierarchy is naturally entitled to do whatever they please to those below them, who are naturally obligated to “just take it”. That’s the entire point of the hierarchy. Any illusion of agency only exists at the pleasure and convenience of those at the top.
F JR
‘probably’ Trump’s a pedophile, and he’s definitely a rapist lying coward treasonous traitor felon.
But, c’est la vie!If we manage to kick them out of the Whitehouse, we should (after the Epstein files get released) turn the demolished wing into a memorial to the victims.
He’s such a chicken sh#%. Stand your ground and uphold the law or step aside ffs.
Oh well
