In an unsigned 5-4 opinion published on Monday, though, the Supreme Court decided that a president’s unilateral decision to bulldoze part of the White House was totally fine. The justices in the majority strained to avoid saying as much; in the final paragraph of their opinion, they expressly stated that it does not “pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project.”
But the upshot of National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation is that whether or not Trump’s already-in-progress ballroom is “legal”—something that, in my view, the Supreme Court of the United States really ought to weigh, but whatever—no one has the power to stop its construction, even temporarily. As a result, if a federal court eventually rules on the merits that, no, Trump can’t build the ballroom, that conclusion will be academic. The ballroom will already be complete, and Getty Images will be awash in photos of Justice Clarence Thomas attending the ribbon-cutting ceremony, cocktail in hand, having an absolute blast.
4 Comments
Rentlar@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 18d
So, in effect, the Supremely Corrupt Five are saying:
KnitWit@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 18d
They’ll come to the conclusion that a President doesn’t have this authority as soon as the next one tries to do something about it.
mx_smith@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 18d
Actually it is six but every now and then they like to act like they aren’t corrupted, so they vote with the three less corrupt judges.
Rentlar@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 18d
Yes, I'm aware of Roberts' pretend neutrality and Barrett's occasional break, I normally say Six but I'm just speaking in the context of this ruling.