Like gold-plating everything. Maybe even the ‘football’?
This is my concern. The ballroom will be no better than the Qatari jet. Likewise the “safe” space beneath it. None of it will be reliable for a Democratic President who rules by and for the People. But I do believe wholeheartedly that everything should be done by the book and in accordance with the FAR.
It’s my hope that the gold leaf will be removed from the Oval Office before the next President sets foot in there, and that the Rose Garden will be restored to some semblance of a garden.
As for the arch, that has to come down. And I look forward to a reconciliation ceremony with the Japanese government in which new cherry trees will be planted in place of the ones he just destroyed. What a very poignant bookend to our Democracy given the old myths about the young George Washington and his honesty.
We need Congress to step up and rename the bases by law. No more of this renaming by Presidential whim. It is ridiculous to waste Military time, effort, and funding redoing it every four years.
Pull the other leg; it’s got bells on it.
When the current, Republican-controlled Congress has not seen fit to stand up against Trump on more vital issues, they sure as hell aren’t going to pass a law to countermand this particular bit of stupidness.
We are talking about what should happen in 2028. It’s my hope that the tables will have turned by then.
n/m
Saw it; thanks.
Supreme Court has just (8/31/26) dodged the merits of the case (whether the ballroom comstruction is illegal) again and said that the Historic Trust doesn’t have standing to sue, and that construction can continue.
Just like they (IMO) dodged the merits of the 14th Amendment case which was about barring individuals who have engaged in insurrection against the U.S. from holding office.
Hard cases? We don’ take no steenkin’ hard cases!
Was anyone elected who was convicted of insurrection, or are we into “guilty until proven innocent”? Because then, all people have to do is accuse someone of inciting insurrection, and bingo- they are ineligible.
Serious nonpartisan questions:
-
Is there anyone who SCOTUS would likely see as having standing to sue to stop the ballroom?
-
Was it ever the case, in past administrations, that the government got to do stuff that SCOTUS would have ruled illegal except that no one has standing?
That was the point. No court ruled on whether Trump’s actions constituted insurrection. And no case could be brought because of presidential immunity. Seems to be a catch-22 situation.
Cases can be brought, since that immunity is limited. In fact trump tried that with his NY conviction, and the courts said- that what he did was not an official act.
And when SCOTUS did rule about the insurrection , that was before the immunity case. So, in other words, you can not bar someone for committing a crime unless that person has been convicted of that crime. And Immunity or no- trump would never have been found guilty of insurrection. Yes, I know- many of us think he was behind the January 6th riot, but that was never proven.
But “proven” only applies in criminal matters. To send Trump to jail for insurrection would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In everything else it’s the preponderance of evidence.
They should have sought an injunction banning Trump from running. It would require convincing the judge that there is a 51% probability that he engaged in insurrection.
That’s my understanding, at least. IANAL.