Supreme Court allows Trump to continue building White House ballroom
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for President Donald Trump to continue construction of a massive new ballroom at the White House, rejecting a challenge from a preservation group that was seeking to indefinitely halt the controversial project.
The ruling was 5-4 , with Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberals dissenting.
In its unsigned, eight-page decision, the conservative majority concluded that the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacked the legal right — known as standing — to challenge the project. The justices did not say whether the ballroom project was, in fact, lawful.
The decision from the high court is a major victory for Trump and will likely give the president the time he needs to complete the project, even as the litigation over the ballroom continues. The administration has been racing ahead with work on the nearly 90,000 square foot ballroom, which he views as the foundation of his presidential legacy. Trump has said the ballroom is necessary for national security reasons because it will include state-of-the-art features intended to protect the White House from an attack.
Roberts, a member of the court’s conservative wing, penned the dissent, saying that the construction was “likely unlawful.”
“The White House is not just any building,” Roberts wrote. “In failing to appreciate as much, the court misconceives the plaintiff ’s injury, allowing the executive’s likely infringement of the legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue.”
This story is breaking and will be updated.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
The SC bigfooted this issue. Note the 5-4 split.
That SCotUS of which you SHOULD HAVE been proud would allow the Asshole-in-Chief to paint The White House orange.
Trump is stalling the final decision similar to how he got out of his criminal trials brought by Jack Smith.
The decision from the high court is a major victory for Trump and will likely give the president the time he needs to complete the project, even as the litigation over the ballroom continues.
Big deal, the next Dem president can demolish it and rebuild it. No biggie.
Perfect example how out of their gourd many Democrats are. Much like the Taliban destroying statues out of zealotry, progressive democrats will want to destroy a new ballroom because Trump built it. The religious impulse really surfaces in odd places.
The Taliban were copying Christians from the 3rd and 4th centuries AD who rampaged throughout the Roman Empire destroying both Greek and Roman statues. Humans have this odd thing of being like each other in far more ways than meets the prejudiced eye.
Yes, that's literally my point, except I used the recent example instead of reaching back 1800 years to make it about Christians for reasons only you would know.
Republicans wanted to destroy the Affordable Care Act, the Paris Climate Agreement and the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal because Obama created them. Perfect examples of how completely fucking evil many Republicans are. And let's not forget the utter stupidity of the many Republicans who want to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the American middle class and American democracy.
So it's ok if trump does it, but if a Dem does it it's bad? Wow, ok lol
Trump recently enjoyed of one of his cultists comparing him to Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Any destruction Trump wreaks is AOK with the cult.
It will be a good day reversing all the shit he's built and to strip his name off everything. But I'm anxious for the day when Trump has been thrown out of office into irrelevancy and suffers a severe excruciatingly painful sexually transmitted disease from all the whore's he's fucked in his life and, from natural causes, succumbs to his illness and is finally laid to rest in a large field with plenty of room for the very looooong lines of Americans lining up to piss on his grave. And then we as a nation will never have to think about the piece of shit that is Donald John Trump ever again. That will be a great day.
You can't possibly believe that's a valid comparison.. Every President tries to reverse the policies of the other party. It's literally been happening your whole life.
An actual apples to apples comparison would be Republicans sinking and destroying a brand new aircraft carrier because it was named the USS Obama and then building one to replace the new one they just destroyed.
At least try and find a relevant comparison...
What are you even talking about?
You're right. There really is no comparison between normal, rationale people being disgusted and repulsed by Trump's abhorrent misbehavior and the many Republicans trying to destroy millions of people's lives.
trump tearing up obama's nuke treaty, and then starting/losing the iran war that took the epstein files out of the news cycle?
Bullshit. We can actually use a new aircraft carrier; NO Americans were asking for a new fucking ballroom except for tiny dick Donald. Anyone trying to claim there is some grand need for this ballroom is just blowing smoke up your ass while desperately trying to cover for their disastrous choice of President. Fucking morons.
Lol. Try again. Read the whole thing and use all the words.
[deleted][✘]
Reading the title of the article should help you..
And so would actually reading the article...
Amen sister...
Why did we need it other than so trump could say he had a hand in building it?
The most divisive, most un-American criminal, traitor and tyrant of a "president" in history should NOT be allowed to permanently disfigure the White House, or anything else in the nation's capital for that matter.
The 5 justices voting in Trump's favor were flatly wrong and are totally corrupt, as if anyone needed more evidence.
The White House is NOT Trump's private property to do with as he pleases. Every last thing he does should be undone as soon as he's gone. Not doing so, and leaving monuments built by and for a vile, criminal, traitor and tyrant would utterly disgrace the nation.
I actually agree with the decision, even if I hate the ballroom. Congress should have been the ones to stop the construction.
The construction is clearly illegal, not just likely. It was not his decision to make no matter how stuffed with false-grandeur his head is. Hence, by clinging to the false procedural grounds they ignored the central fact that the administration has broken a specific law by building the ballroom. Worse yet is the reverence and humility towards history and decency that was not displayed in its actions. By allowing the construction to continue, the SCotUS has essentially said that the administration is above the law and cannot be stopped until it is fait accompli.
And this is what this activist SCotUS routinely does. It started with the Colorado eligibility ruling. They did not even touch the question of whether Trump instigated an insurrection; they just ruled that the Colorado Supreme Court cannot effect a nationwide rule. The SCotUS has always been my rock for supporting the CotUS and objective reasoning. This Trump-friendly (inexplicably) SCotUS is a tremendous disappointment.
So our SCOTUS is run by a bunch of criminals
I think it is more accurate to say the Supreme Court is influenced by big money more than in the past. To the point of being arguably corrupt.
Literally all 9 justices agreed what Colorado did was batshit crazy and flagrantly unconstitutional Believing otherwise marks you as an extremist.
.
Ok, then...corrupt!
hard to believe with those endorsements that most maga scum would object ...
Blatant dishonesty (and clear trolling) from you.
I stated accurately what SCOTUS ruled: it held that Colorado did not have the constitutional authority to exclude Trump from the presidential ballot. SCotUS did not decide whether Trump had engaged in insurrection or was constitutionally disqualified.” They ignored the operative question of Trump's eligibility to run for office. And they did not state that the Colorado Supreme Court was wrong in its conclusion that Trump engaged in insurrection.
You dishonestly misrepresented what I wrote.
Which was why they punted to standing. I agree on the rule of standing and pointing directly at the Trump ball-lickers in Congress who have standing.
Are you suggesting all 9 justices are activists?
It seems they ruled on the question before them and decided not to go any farther. I hardly think that is new.
Sometimes people are happy with the decision and the court and sometimes they are not. Nothing new about that either. It seems to go along partisan lines.
They ruled on what seemed to be before them, nothing more and nothing less. Oh the horror.
A stupid question. Labeling a SCotUS an activist court does not imply that every justice is activist, nor that any particular justice is activist in every case. It is an assessment of a pattern of SCotUS decisions.
Yeah, that is exactly what they did; as I have stated. They obviously knew the point (these are highly intelligent individuals). They knew that Trump's candidacy was in question constitutionally, but they chose to kill the Colorado Supreme Court ruling based on authority to enforce (a call that I do not dispute) and do nothing on Trump's candidacy. They did not state that Trump was eligible... they left that unanswered. And clearly that was the underlying question.
Yeah, Trump supporters are happy that the SCotUS did not rule on Trump's eligibility ... that they allowed an insurrectionist to be elected PotUS. And look at the results. All of the carnage of Trump could have been avoided if the SCotUS had ruled on Trump's candidacy accurately based on the CotUS.
There is no such thing as a stupid questioon.
Please supply proof of that. I was under the impression the question was if the state supreme court had the authority to make the call they did.
Of course they are. Just as every call against Trump is celebrated by those on the left.
Again, I don't believe that was the question before them.
Not sure how one can provide proof if one denies the obvious. Do you also need proof that Trump incited his supporters for months, told them to arrive in DC on the 6th, told them that the election was stolen, told them to go to the Capitol, refused to stop their violence for hours, etc.?
Supporting Trump is irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic. What drives people like you to constantly try to defend this tyrant?
You believe the SCotUS totally missed the fact that the lawsuit was brought to prevent an insurrectionist from running for office per the CotUS??
Not a chance, get real.
Correct. Which it obviously did not. The Colorado court's ruling was the definition of judicial activism. Reversing it was the opposite.
SCotUS did not decide whether Trump had engaged in insurrection or was constitutionally disqualified.\
No kidding. As it made clear, under our constitution that is Congress's job to decide those issues. For it to have ruled on those questions would have usurping the power of another branch of government. Talk about "activism". To rule on those issues would have been a direct assault on the Constitution. To characterize the court following the Constitution as "activist" is just Orwellian. Everything you claim is literally the opposite of what the words actually mean.
The SCotUS held that federal enforcement responsibility rests with Congress. That is different from ruling that Congress possesses the exclusive constitutional authority to determine the underlying factual and legal question whether Trump engaged in insurrection.
The SCotUS did not decide the obvious consequential and time-critical underlying merits questions—whether Trump engaged in insurrection and whether he was disqualified from running for the presidency. Instead, it reversed the Colorado Supreme Court on the separate ground that Colorado lacked constitutional authority to enforce its ruling on a federal candidate.
There is no doubt that these justices understood the constitutional issue at the core of the lawsuit. They chose not to decide that important underlying constitutional question despite having a concrete case presenting it, and the practical result was that Trump remained on the ballot and was able to run without the Court ever deciding if he was disqualified.
no problem for maga recognizing even the slightest bit of activism when it goes against trump, is there?
Lol. Of course it does. It's literally right there in the 14th Amendment. Literally every single Supreme Court justice agrees with that.
You don't seem to fathom how the Court works. It just can't declare, on it's own, that someone engaged in "insurrection." That flies in the face of our entire legal system of justice. For you to believe the Court can usurp the Constitution by ignoring the specifically delegated powers to and the executive branch and simply declare someone an insurrectionist is batshit crazy.
This is the most basic concept of our system of governance "The Supreme Court cannot simply decide, on its own initiative, "Did Trump engage in insurrection?" and you, bizarrely, are claiming it's an activist court for not deciding that issue. Insurrection is a crime. A low level state official can't simply convict someone of it because they believe it's true.
They chose not to decide that important underlying constitutional question despite having a concrete case presenting it,
No they didn't. Trump was never criminally charged with being an insurrectionist in a court of law.
Damn good point. I ask myself that about others several times a day
Why would I? That is totally irrelevant to my question. What was the the actual issue brought before the court? Trump or the State Supreme court overstepping its authority?
Great bumper sticker but also irrelevent.
Nice try.
Was it really? Can you prove that with the actual words from the case and not just a wish on a star? It seems Cotus ruled on what they were asked to rule on and some are not satisfied that they didn't go farther. If that was not the case please explain why the three liberal judges went along with the other 6.
Projection
Exactly.
Where in the argument were they asked to rule on that?
Is that the actual case they were asked to rule on?
Perfectly said.
You are pretending I have argued that Congress is not the enforcement authority. I have stated and have not indicated otherwise that Congress holds the authority for enforcement. You are engaging in strawman tactics.
Strawman again.
I did not claim that SCOTUS could simply “declare” Trump an insurrectionist on its own. The SCotUS was presented with a genuine adversarial case, a factual record, and a lower-court finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection. Courts routinely decide whether established conduct satisfies constitutional standards. The SCotUS chose NOT to reach that merits question and instead chose to resolve the case solely on Colorado’s lack of enforcement authority (which I have stated several times now). That does NOT mean that Congress has sole authority to determine if Trump had engaged in insurrection. The point I have made, again, is that the SCotUS ruled Colorado could not enforce removing Trump from the ballot; and given a clear opportunity to resolve a constitutional question, the SCotUS chose not to rule that Trump had engaged (or not) in insurrection or that he was eligible (or ineligible).
This point is an indisputable fact. That is why I see nothing but fucking strawman tactics from you.
So you have not researched this and are just shooting from the hip.
Right up there in the questions on page i ( ) we have question 5:
Further in ( ) we have Trump's attorneys making this argument:
They argue that Trump did not engage in insurrection and that he is not an officer of the United States. They are arguing against the merits as stated by the Colorado Supreme Court. They want the SCotUS to agree with their argument that Trump did not engage in insurrection and reverse the Colorado decision on those grounds .
Then you should understand you have no argument.
ourts routinely decide whether established conduct satisfies constitutional standards
Not when the Constitution specifically delegates the issue to Congress. Read what you wrote, it makes no sense. e SCotUS chose not to rule that Trump had engaged (or not) in insurrection or that he was eligible (or ineligible). You are, yet again, claiming the Court has the power to usurp the decision from Congress and decide the issue of his eligibility. The Constitution and every Supreme Court Justice thinks otherwise.
Your claim that is "activism" is absurd . Every Justice (even the progressive bomb throwers) found your claim meritless. Not one supports it. Use common sense. If the majority were being "activist" in not deciding the issue of insurrection don't you think one of the progressive justices would have brought it up? Do you think they are that dumb?
You are, indisputably, arguing the activist position. You want the Court to go beyond deciding the case before it and to issue an unnessaery opinion on a question that wasn't properly before it to begin with. That you either don't understand that , or won't admit it, makes discussion impossible
The court rarely votes unanimously anymore. The fact that they did shows any issues are just made up.
You mean like:
Or more like:
Your understanding of how this works is flat-out wrong.
In this case, the SCotUS had the constitutional authority to decide whether Trump engaged in insurrection. They had the authority to agree with the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court on this question or disagree. They did neither. They ignored the question.
In this case, the SCotUS had the constitutional authority to decide if Trump was constitutionally banned from holding office per Section 3. They had the authority to agree with the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court on this question or disagree. They did neither. They ignored this question too.
The SCotUS has broad constitutional authority, in cases within its jurisdiction, to interpret the U.S. Constitution and federal law and to review lower-court judgments involving those questions. You want to carve out an exception. That right is above your pay grade.
None of us peons will ever receive an invite to the ballroom that our tax dollars paid for.
What a friggin' mess our nation is in. And those who have the power to stop this madness (GOP TRUMP ) are spineless sycophants rubber-stamping Trump's idiocy and corruption.
There... right there is the truth of the seeded issue.Wait until a Dem Admin tries to use the same playbook and then we'll hear from the same shitheels lamenting how liberals are ruining the country.
Oh...we hear how the libs are ruining the country every goddamn day and they aren't even in power! The dems are the fucking boogeyman to the right wing. If only we had the power of Satan
We should be putting up their 7 Tenants in classrooms and government buildings around the country... LOL!
Absolutely!
I wonder how well Trump would have done in 2024 if he'd run on the "I Will Spend $600 million on a new Whitehouse Ballroom!" Campaign.
"I'm going to coat everything in gold and the ballroom will be magnificent! And even if you aren't any richer because inflation will actually go up, and I'll raise gas prices by starting an unending war of choice in the middle east, and in fact you'll be $600 million poorer for the ballroom because unlike what I said taxpayers will actually be on the hook, but the American people will feel like a million bucks! Vote for me America! I'm Donald Trump and I approved this message!".
Well, that's one campaign promise should have told us about that he's now delivering on.
MAGA would have mocked us for taking him seriously. I just want to know when to take him seriously
The answer is 'always and never' and accepting that as an answer is a litmus test of loyalty for the MAGA movement that exists in Trumps bowels. If you want to be part of this bowel movement you need to be able to wrap your head around those kinds of concepts and know that your dear Leader is always right, even when he's wrong, which he never is. If the alternative is admitting to the reality that you've had your head up the ass of a greasy fat lying pedophile all this time for no reason, then reality be damned. /s
Always take him seriously but never believe his lies.