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.

  • Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

  • BeanGoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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?

  • leadore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 hours ago

    “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!

    • Ava@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 hours ago

      That’s him saying so as part of the Dissenting minority. He was outvoted by the rest of Trump’s sycophants.

      • leadore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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”.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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).

    • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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)_/¯”

      • leadore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

  • 2hundredpancakes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

  • slothrop @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 hours ago

    ‘probably’ Trump’s a pedophile, and he’s definitely a rapist lying coward treasonous traitor felon.
    But, c’est la vie!