In a one-sentence order, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., acting on his own, issued a place holder that gives all nine justices additional time to more fully consider whether construction of the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom can proceed. The chief justice’s order did not provide a timeline for when the court would act next, stating only that a lower-court ruling against the Trump administration was paused “pending further order of the undersigned or of the court.”
21 ఆగస్టు, 2026
"The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed President Trump to continue construction of a luxury White House ballroom to replace the East Wing he demolished last fall."
The NYT reports.
పోస్ట్లు
74 కామెంట్లు:
I wonder what a non-luxury ballroom would be like. A barn?
We'll back from them after the new ballroom is finished, at which point they will declare it moot.
Ballrooms were the forerunner of discos, but with a live band playing the top 40 instead of a dj spinning them. There were ballrooms at every price point. Some of them became venues for other live entertainment, such as the Aragon in Chicago. I saw New Order there.
Speaking of Brits, their seaside holiday towns used to feature ballrooms, aimed at working class couples out for the day or honeymoon. Before cheap airfares enabled them all to go to Spain. CC, JSM
Yes it’s nice to see standing and mootness used for good instead of evil once in a while. CC, JSM
…laches, don’t forget laches…
The Kinks’ Ballroom Dancing and the Sweet’s Ballroom Blitz are about non-luxury ballrooms. CC, JSM
Even if it is near completion, Dems will have it torn down, because Trump can't have nice things.
Trump should name it the John F Kennedy and Donald S Trump Ballroom, which will then force the Progressives to file suit that JKF's name be removed.
Trump will be gone when it’s finished. Roberts just wants to use it.
I wouldn't trust your average judge to build a two hole outhouse on a farm in rural Arkansas. But they are not the ones bringing these cockamamie suits to block anything that Trump does. But it would be good if they had the inner Archie Bunker gumption to tell the lawyers/litigants filing those suits to "stifle yourself".
Thank the Lord that Obama did not build a White House ballroom. It would be Brutalist and no one on the Left would complain.
"Many years have gone by, I've never wed
True to my first love, though she is dead.
She tried to tell me, tried to explain;
I would not listen, pleading in vain.
One day a letter came from this man,
He was her brother - the letter ran.
That's why I'm lonely, no home at all;
I broke her heart then after the ball."
[Chorus]
After the ball is over, Just at the break of dawn
After the dance is ended; And all the stars are gone;
Many is the heart that's aching, If you could read them all;
Many the hopes that have vanished - After the ball.
Interesting that he can reverse the lower court ruling all on his own. Is this a new precedent?
And the judge at the back said, "Everyone, attack"
And it turned into a ballroom blitz
And Roberts in the corner said, "Boy, I wanna warn ya
It'll turn into a ballroom blitz"
*Interesting that he can reverse the lower court ruling all on his own. *
I must've missed the part where he reversed the ruling. Could you point it out, please?
The corrupt left cannot stand the idea that Trump will build something useful, for all to enjoy and feel safe.
It fills leftists with rage.
Roberts blocks orders from two lower courts and allows Trump to continue building his ballroom, offering no explanation for why. And then he complains that the public thinks the Court is making political decisions.
In the current ballroom legal case: Isn't this just Roberts saying work can continue pending a final ruling, as opposed the the lower court ordering a stop to work pending a final ruling?
“*Interesting that he can reverse the lower court ruling all on his own. *
“I must've missed the part where he reversed the ruling. Could you point it out, please?”
He didn’t reverse the lower court ruling. Just froze its injunction.
Each of the Justices essentially oversees one or two Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Chief Justice always has the DC Circuit. Which, the WH sitting in DC, was the relevant Circuit here. Most of what they do is impose temporary holds or injunctions, lasting typically until the entire court can decide whether to take the case, or not.
The sitting Circuit Cory justice for a Circuit has pretty broad discretion, knowing that the entire Court will soon be looking at the case and deciding whether to accept it. My prediction is that they will. The District Court intruded on the President’s Article II CiC power (with the new bunker), should never have given the plaintiff Standing, and in weighing the equities for its injunction, failed to give deference to the President’s determinations in the realm of national defense.
*He didn’t reverse the lower court ruling. Just froze its injunction.*
I know he didn't. That was my point.
Some ballrooms are built for charity
And so often are the best
But when ballrooms are litigated
They're a fine American mess
Roberts’ one-page order contains no reasoning and makes no finding that the lower court was wrong on standing, Article II authority, or national security.
Roberts temporarily froze the lower court’s injunction; he did not vindicate Trump’s legal theory, reverse the D.C. Circuit on the merits, or establish that national-security considerations override the congressional-authorization question.
IEE would prefer the pages and pages of wrong analysis or nonsense reasoning usually produced by his champion judges, rather than no reasoning by Roberts.
Roberts only stayed the injunction which almost certainly means he knows that the case is going to be overturned.
Here I sit
Broken-hearted
Paid ten cents
And only farted
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...
Roberts blocks orders from two lower courts and allows Trump to continue building his ballroom, offering no explanation for why. And then he complains that the public thinks the Court is making political decisions.
---------------
So you think the lower court Judge who blocked the construction was not making a political decision?
"So you think the lower court Judge who blocked the construction was not making a political decision?"
He knows it was a political decision. He agreed with it, so it's okay.
Well, I'm upper, upper-class, high-society
God's gift to ballroom notoriety
And I always fill my diaper, the event is never small
The social pages say I've got the hottest diaper nurse of all
Donnie's got advanced dementia, Don's got advanced dementia
Its such advanced dementia, and his MAGAts don't mind
And he fills my bank account with grift and his family does too
But he's got the biggest balls of them all
The more interesting point is what the lower court actually ordered: it did not require the ballroom project to be abandoned. It halted above-ground construction while allowing underground work and work deemed necessary for White House safety and security to continue.
So the question isn’t whether Roberts “approved” the ballroom. He temporarily allowed construction to proceed while the Court considers the government’s request. The notable thing is that he did so without explaining why the narrower injunction imposed an irreparable injury warranting immediate intervention.
No, the more interesting point is how can people be so retarded that they base everything they think on being in opposition to anything Trump does.
I never once heard any conservative complain when Clinton or Obama enforced immigration laws.
"The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed President Trump to continue construction of a luxury White House ballroom to replace the East Wing he demolished last fall."
The NYT reports.
Why should we even bother electing congress or the president if the Supreme Court makes every decision?
AI cannot replace our entire judiciary fast enough.
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...
The more interesting point is what the lower court actually ordered: it did not require the ballroom project to be abandoned. It halted above-ground construction while allowing underground work and work deemed necessary for White House safety and security to continue.
Retards like this will embrace any lawlessness by a "Judge" as long as it hurts Trump.
Democrat voters do not think about or care about how the system is supposed to work.
They are just dumb pieces of shit.
Mark said...
Interesting that he can reverse the lower court ruling all on his own. Is this a new precedent?
He didn't reverse the ruling. He lifted an injunction that the lower court had no right to make.
If you could read and understand words you wouldn't ask such stupid questions.
The big question is not really whether the ballroom is a good idea, attractive, or even whether it is needed for security. It is who has the legal authority to make a project of this magnitude happen at the White House without Congress.
If the Supreme Court ultimately says the president can do this without Congress, how far does that executive power extend?
If the Supreme Court ultimately says what the president can do, how far does judicial power extend?
Good question Mason!
A ruling for Trump would not mean that presidents are beyond judicial review. It could, however, establish that courts cannot use an injunction to stop an executive action that falls within the president’s lawful authority.
And that is where the interesting constitutional tension lies: Who gets the final word when the executive and Congress disagree about the scope of presidential authority—and what remedy is available to the courts when they think the president has crossed the line?
Is even Roberts tiring of the lower courts' resistance slop?
ChatGPT says:
Nationwide injunctions:
If we use exactly the CRS standard I used for Biden, then the apples-to-apples comparison is:
Administration
Donald Trump, 1st term (2017–2021) 86
Joe Biden (2021–2025) 28
Administration
Biden (2021–2025) 28
Trump II (Jan. 20, 2025–June 27, 2026) 50
Notice a trend?
The constant fight over the ballroom - On one hand, it makes me mad; on other hand, it is clearly making a lot of other people angry too. But on the third hand, the Trump administration just keeps moving forward. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid -the law keeps coming after the outlaws - no matter what they try, no matter how far they run, the posse is still there.
“ The big question is not really whether the ballroom is a good idea, attractive, or even whether it is needed for security. It is who has the legal authority to make a project of this magnitude happen at the White House without Congress.”
I know that that is what you want to see. But I doubt that you will. We are into serious Separation of Powers issues there. Can the Legislative branch limits what the Executive does at the center of its power, and esp when it doesn’t use money appropriated by Congress? Very messy. And I don’t think that the Supreme Court wants to waste its time on that.
My view is that the most l8kely scenario is to order rehearing, or straight dismissal based on lack of standing. One single woman thinks that she would be visually offended by the ballroom when she walks by, maybe once a month. She would be quite unl8kely to get Standing in a similar situation, if Trump weren’t involved. Just ay to attenuated, and speculative. Standing is a big problem right now in the federal court system, with activist lower court judges granting Standing to every Tom, Dick, and Harry challenging Trump initiative, regardless of merit. The federal court system has been flooded with these cases, There are activist lower court judges just trying to give Trump a black eye, and do it essentially by ignoring Supreme Court precedent and guidance on Standing. I think that was the case here. Which is why I expect the case to be nuked on the basis of Standing, in a message to the lower federal courts to just stop it, and quit trying to weasel these cases in.
I think that the next most likely grounds for reversal (etc) is that the lower courts didn’t give deference to the Executive, at least at the seat of power. Significant deference should have been given to the Executive here, and almost none was, in favor of a plaintiff who really wasn’t facing any real harm. Comparing equities should have been slam dunk, in favor of the Executive. Her alleged harms are just too speculative, too weak, to overcome the President’s.
No matter the order that the opinion (if there is one) reads, the issues have to be addressed in that order:
1) Standing
2) Balance of Equities
3) Separation of Powers and statutory interpretation (which gets into SoP because the statutes in question are a product of Congress)
Knocking a higher priority out, and the Supreme Court doesn’t have to address lower priority issues. Hence my prediction for knocking the case out on Standing.
"the Trump administration just keeps moving forward."
He's got the left publicly defending allowing illegal alien rapists and murderers to remain in the country and out of jail, men participating in women's sports, sexually mutilating children, tearing apart the Constitution and spending taxpayer dollars on people who have no right to be here while enabling them to illegally vote.
So- yeah... moving forward.
'... straight dismissal based on lack of standing. One single woman thinks that she would be visually offended by the ballroom when she walks by, maybe once a month....'
Will no one rid me of this troublesome pedestrian ??
Seen at Instapundit
“Democratic voters have declined in 93% of the counties in the nation’s states that allow partisan or Independent registrations since 2016, while Republican voter registrations have gone up in 77% of those jurisdictions, according to a new analysis by USAFacts.”
According to Perplexity those percentages are shares of Dem and Republican voters. So not quite as rosy as it first seems.
“Democrats still had the largest nationwide number of party-registered voters in the data: as of April 2026, USAFacts reported about 45.4 million Democrats versus 39.2 million Republicans.”
Mr Hayden may be right, but it assumes the central legal question can be avoided by labeling the plaintiff’s injury speculative.
More importantly, “deference to the Executive” doesn’t answer the underlying question: what is the source of presidential authority to undertake a project of this magnitude when Congress has enacted laws governing federal property and appropriations?
The irony is that Bruce identifies the separation-of-powers issue as “serious” while predicting the Court will avoid it. That may happen—but it would leave the central constitutional question unanswered.
Mark: "Interesting that he can reverse the lower court ruling all on his own. Is this a new precedent?"
Yeah, it sucks, doesn't it? Imagine a judge doing something like that?
Bwahahaha! Really?
"If the Supreme Court ultimately says the president can do this without Congress, how far does that executive power extend?"
It's mystifying that this issue has never come up before. Apparently no president in history ever chose to construct anything that wasn't explicitly designated by Congress.
Oh wait.
"It's mystifying that this issue has never come up before."
Doesn't matter what it is- Trump's doing something, so it must be opposed. Simple as that.
That's the extent of leftard "policy", and the thought put into it.
The “Oh wait” does a lot of work. Presidents have built, renovated, and modified White House facilities without Congress approving every detail. But that doesn’t answer the legal question: can the executive undertake a major, unprecedented construction project on federal property without specific congressional authorization or appropriation?
The issue isn’t whether a president may build, but whether control of the White House amounts to a blank check. That is the separation-of-powers question.
Finally the SCOTUS, in the form of the justice responsible for that circuit area, tells the lower court to stand back while adults consider the issue -- which probably should never have been given a hearing past "no standing". The Dems don't realize that with their continuation of lawfare against the 47 administration , their quest is recognized by all real Republicans that the Rs need to come out and vote in the mid-terms. Some independents are shaking their heads and going, "this insanity will never stop and if the Dems retake the House, it will just get worse." And the arrival and success of the commie DSA candidates will spell the doom of what is left of the financially and morally bankrupt Democrat Party.
Fear and loathing of the Trump administration by America's most destructive political party, which has now moved even farther left than Fidel Castro.
LOL we told you so!
Apparently the lefties here can’t comprehend “continued the injunction against the stay.” I’m not surprised at all.
Is there any doubt how this will turn out? Trump determined the outcome by tearing down the old East Wing. The alternative is to have a gaping maw of an uncompleted construction site ‘offending’ all passersby forever.
** Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...That is the separation-of-powers question.**
Which means it is first a standing question. If the power rightly belongs to congress, then it is for congress to complain about it.
Bruce Hayden frames this exactly right as a separation of powers question. The President is the Chief Executive of the executive branch. The White House and its grounds (including the ballroom) aren't just any federal buildings, they're the headquarters of the executive branch. Who the heck has more authority to say what can or should be done to this property than the President? And the next President can tear it or parts of it down if they wish (and have many times in the past for various parts of the property). It's a patently absurd issue, pursued solely due to personal animus toward the President.
The President heads the executive branch; he does not own federal property. That is the issue. Maintaining or renovating the White House is not the same as unilaterally demolishing an entire wing and adding 90,000 square feet. The question is whether Congress authorized this project, not whether the President runs the White House. Calling the challenge “personal animus” simply assumes the legal conclusion at issue.
Look at it this way, rich. If you're capable. The president is extending and improving the bunker that lies below the east wing of the white house. A ball room just happens to be an added benefit. "Why?" Your little brain asks. Because once the hole has been covered up you have to put something over it. So why not an improvement to the east wing. I know you were hoping for a homeless encampment, but that isn't going to work.
What part didn't you get when I said weeks ago when SCOTUS gave trump immunity to do whatever he wanted and claim its official business this is the monster they created. Of course ,he claims all that "official business" and runs with it. The Supreme Court said presidents are immune from prosecution for actions within their core constitutional powers. Lower courts now have to treat anything that looks like an official function as protected. If the administration argues the ballroom is part of official presidential operations, then challenges become almost impossible to sustain. Watch where this ends up in the decades to come, although most of the people up in here be dead by then as the clock runs out ,but the kids will see it. Grin and bear it nothing you can do about it, Congress has become a total useless entity and SCOTUS reaping the harvests!!! An immune president in the calls of "official duty" kind of like the catholic pope infallible in matters of church scripture etc.. ART LINKLETTER nailed it decades ago PEOPLE ARE FUNNY!
Ah yes, the constitutional principle of “we dug a hole, so we can build anything on it.” If improving the bunker requires a ballroom, perhaps the separation-of-powers clause is buried beneath the dance floor. The real question is whether the President can undertake a project this large without Congress but by all means, keep dancing around it.
“The President heads the executive branch; he does not own federal property. That is the issue. Maintaining or renovating the White House is not the same as unilaterally demolishing an entire wing and adding 90,000 square feet. The question is whether Congress authorized this project, not whether the President runs the White House. Calling the challenge “personal animus” simply assumes the legal conclusion at issue.”
Well, the President is closer to owning the WH than Congress is. But only while in office. It is legally owned by the Dept of the Interior, a part of the federal government, that reports to the President, and operates under his authority. The only thing that Congress has title to is the Capital - including the Capital itself its adjoining office buildings, and the surrounding Capital grounds.
What leftists like you don’t like (since Trump is President) is that the President has operational control over all federal land, except maybe the Capital and the Supreme Court, by being the Executive of the USG. The three branches of the USG each have a center of power - a small number of blocks of contiguous land in the middle of DC, that they have essentially had exclusive power over, for well over 200 years now. They each have their own dedicated police force, responsible only to the head of that Branch (Speaker, President, Chief Justice).
Yes, Congress has enacted laws that affect the operation of the White House. The question is how valid are they? As a leftist, with Trump as President, you would, of course, assume that they are fully valid. Trump, along with most, if not all, of his predecessors, would naturally disagree. In this case, Congress is attempting to interfere with the execution of the core powers of the of a co-equal branch of government. THE President is both Head of State and Head of the government. Both are run out of the WH - roughly broken into Head of State in the East Wing, and Head of the Government in the West Wing. The new bunker is, of course ourselves, necessary as Commander in Chief, while the ballroom helps with his job as Head of State.
One of the aspects of this case that makes it interesting, is that there is nothing in Article I that gives Congress the power here to interfere wit h the Executive in its seat of power, except for its general Legislative power. Normally, Congress has power through its power of the purse. But in the case of the ballroom, monies raised by Congress are not being utilized. The money involved is private money donated, and earmarked, for a specific purpose. This is a long-standing practice, esp in the DoI, and those donated monies are legally by statute considered as appropriated for the earmarked purpose.
This is similar to the War Powers Act dispute over the armed action in Iran right now. It was never accepted by a US President as binding (Dem Congress overrode Rep Presidential veto), and seen by the Presidents since as an encroachment of their Article II powers.
These Separation of Powers issues are messy, which means that they would take a lot of time and effort to resolve. A hasty, ill written, decision could fundamentally change the long established relationship between the three branches of government. CJ Roberts, in particular, is a careful gradualist. And will try hard to keep this from happening. And I expect that he will do whatever he can to avoid trying to adjudicate Separation of Powers issues.
And note that they have already done something similar, with preventing anyone else from trying to enforce the WPA by limiting Standing to Congress, itself, acting as a whole. Hence my suggestion that the most likely resolution to this case would be for the Supreme Court to reject standing, so that they would not be compelled to make a decision on Separation of Powers issues on the whim of random third parties.
“
Ah yes, the constitutional principle of “we dug a hole, so we can build anything on it.” If improving the bunker requires a ballroom, perhaps the separation-of-powers clause is buried beneath the dance floor. The real question is whether the President can undertake a project this large without Congress but by all means, keep dancing around it.”
No. The question is whether the Supreme Court wants to expend the time and effort to wade into the Separation of Powers issues involved.
Imagine this scenario. A lame duck President decides that building the bunker and ballroom are clearly within his Article II powers. He tells the Judiciary to go pound sand. Then surrounds the WH with thousands of armed federal agents, and maybe some M2 Bradleys for backup. Buzzes the area with fully loaded F-15Es every day about lunchtime. Until the constitution is done. And with that, the Supreme Court has squandered over 200 years of soft power that they have been garnering since Marbury v Madison.
“ This means that construction of the ballroom can resume, and can continue while the case works its way through the appellate process. In all likelihood, it will be complete, and thus a fait accompli, by the time there is a final ruling on the plaintiff’s standing and the President’s authority to improve the White House under 3 U.S.C. § 105(d)(1). The project is privately financed, so it doesn’t need a Congressional appropriation.”
And when that happens, the case can be dismissed as Moot.
Re: Mr Hayden’s 11:08 comment: The argument conflates executive control with ownership and legal authority. The President may use and operate the White House, but he does not own it or have unrestricted control over federal property. The White House belongs to the American people and is stewarded by the National Park Service; federal property is governed by statutes, appropriations, preservation laws, delegations, and agency responsibilities—not a generalized presidential property right.
The question is whether Article II permits the President to demolish part of a federally owned historic property and replace it with a 90,000-square-foot structure without congressional authorization. Private funding and the Head-of-State/Head-of-Government distinction do not eliminate Congress’s authority to regulate federal property.
Nor did Roberts’s administrative stay resolve the merits; it temporarily paused the lower-court injunction while the Supreme Court considers the administration’s application. Operating the White House and unilaterally reconstructing it are different powers and the latter is before the Court.
Re: Mr Hayden: That frames the issue as though the Supreme Court’s only choices are to “wade into separation of powers” or let construction proceed. They aren’t.
The Court can address standing, statutory authority, or other threshold questions without deciding the branches’ entire constitutional relationship. Roberts’s administrative stay did not hold that the President has Article II authority to build the ballroom; it merely paused the lower-court injunction while the Court considers the government’s application.
Private financing does not resolve the legal question. The absence of a congressional appropriation does not mean Congress surrendered its authority to regulate federal property; privately funded projects may still be subject to federal statutes and restrictions.
Nor does §105d1 settle the matter. The dispute concerns the scope of the President’s authority over White House improvements—specifically, whether “improvement” encompasses demolishing a historic wing and constructing a roughly 90,000-square-foot addition.
The Bradleys-and-F-15Es hypothetical shows only that judicial authority ultimately depends on executive compliance with court orders—not that the President possesses the underlying legal authority.
If construction could become a fait accompli before final judgment, that supports prompt resolution, preservation of the status quo, or other interim relief—not treating completion as a substitute for lawful authority. Practical irreversibility is a remedial and equitable concern, not an independent source of legal power: demolition or construction may make restoration costly, incomplete, or impossible, leaving a later judgment inadequate. But completion does not establish authorization, cure a statutory violation, or eliminate the court’s authority to determine legality. You don’t establish constitutional power by building first and litigating later.
“The Court can address standing, statutory authority, or other threshold questions without deciding the branches’ entire constitutional relationship. Roberts’s administrative stay did not hold that the President has Article II authority to build the ballroom; it merely paused the lower-court injunction while the Court considers the government’s application.”
No. You really can’t. Before you can really get to statutory interpretation, they would likely have to address whether Congress had the power to legislate what goes on in the seat of the President’s power.
“The Bradleys-and-F-15Es hypothetical shows only that judicial authority ultimately depends on executive compliance with court orders—not that the President possesses the underlying legal authority.”
Except to point out that the President has the hard power, and the Supreme Court only has soft power. That soft power is a result of CJ Marshall asserting its power in Marbury v. Madison. It was a pivotal case in US jurisdiction. It’s been over 200 years, and the Supreme Court has been working that entire time, to cement and increase that power.
But what if the President believes that the emperor has no clothes? Who is the better salesman Donald Trump? Or John Roberts? CJ Roberts knows the answer to that. Can he risk pushing the President to put their respective powers to the test? Can he risk the loss of any of the 200+ years of garnered soft power?
And my answer is that it’s a rare CJ who would push the line here. Much better, I think, to take the low risk solution, and dismiss on some grounds that completely avoids the confrontation.
+
Re: Mr Hayden’s 8:47. That’s not quite how the jurisdictional sequence works. The Court does not necessarily have to resolve the entire scope of Congress’s power over the White House before considering narrower threshold or statutory questions. Standing, jurisdiction, statutory authority, appropriations, and the scope of executive authority can be addressed independently where the case permits. The fact that a constitutional question could arise doesn’t make it the first question the Court must decide.
Re: Mr Hayden’s 9:45. You’re describing a real institutional risk, but conflating the Court’s practical ability to enforce its judgments with the President’s legal authority. The possibility that a president might defy a ruling does not make the ruling legally optional, nor does it establish presidential authority. Marbury established judicial review; it did not create a presidential veto over judicial judgments. Roberts may well prefer a narrow ruling that avoids a constitutional confrontation, but that would be a prudential choice, not an adjudication of who actually possesses the underlying legal power.
I think that you miss the point. Courts all the time avoid hard and messy issues by dismissing on easier grounds, every day. No Court more than the US Supreme Court. They tend to be very busy, with typically much more work ahead of them than they can do. So, for example, in civil litigation, judges will often almost stand on their heads to avoid civil trials. They can’t do that with much of their criminal docket, and the time left has to come out of their civil docket.
The problem with the Supreme Court is that much of their docket is voluntary on their part (by accepting writs of Certiorari), much isn’t. And this is one of those cases that they pretty much always accept - because it was requested by the DOJ (Solicitor General - often called the 10th Justice). He’s probably got the home phone of the CJ on speed dial. And the private office numbers of all the Justices in his contacts.
As I said before, the case on the merits doesn’t end with the statuary analysis. That’s only the beginning. The Executive is going to argue that Congress is interfering with a coequal branch by trying to encroach into the sole prerogatives of a coequal branch of government. On 1/6/21, 274 FBI agents were present at the Capital. But officially, not a single one entered the Capital building. Executive branch employees just don’t enter the centers of power of the other two branches of government without permission.
This is a fight that the Supreme Court wants to get in the middle of. It doesn’t stop with just these facts. As a general principle, for example, it affects what happens if Congress, in its entirety, decides that Trump violated the War Powers Act by not pulling out of Iran after 60 days (or Biden out of Libya after a longer stay).
Why not spend 15 minutes writing out a dismissal on lack of Standing, instead of days, if not weeks, working out a compromise decision, that doesn’t go too far, favoring Congress?
A Cautionary Experience
Everyone needs to be careful, as online scams involving fake real estate companies are becoming increasingly common.
I was looking to purchase a house in Denmark and contacted what I believed was a legitimate real estate company I found online. Unfortunately, after paying €410,000, I discovered that I had been dealing with a scam.
I took action quickly and sought professional assistance. I contacted Ms. Kristina Hooper, who carried out a private investigation and guided me through the recovery process. Thankfully, I was able to recover my funds.
If you are going through a similar situation, don't lose hope. Take action promptly and seek professional advice from a legitimate and verifiable recovery professional. My experience with Ms. Hooper was professional and reassuring, and I’m grateful for the assistance I received.
kristinahooper 24 at gmail Doc Com
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.