"... siding with military veterans and local government officials who had urged her to stop the project. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan
blocked work on the arch for two weeks while the court considers challenges to its legality. Three Vietnam War veterans, a historic preservationist, the D.C. government and the Commonwealth of Virginia
sued to halt construction.... Chutkan also criticized the Trump administration’s arguments, writing that officials’
recent assertion that the arch was necessary for national security was 'belated and unsupported.' And she mocked the administration’s central claim that Congress
authorized Trump’s arch a century ago, when lawmakers approved a
somewhat similar project that was never built."
The Washington Post reports in
"Judge halts Trump’s arch after federal panel approves it/U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan blocked the planned 250-foot project, which opponents say is illegal and needs to be approved by the current Congress."
Trump needs to think through what he wants to do on his way out. It's crushingly clear that building the arch should not be one of those things. Finish the ballroom and do it well and in time to throw some dignified events before your term is up, but let the arch go. Leave it as an idea of something that could be done. If it's really worth doing, it will happen later. If it doesn't, it wasn't.
পোস্টগুলি
৫৯টি মন্তব্য:
I could not disagree with you more.
What exactly is Judge Chutkin's legal authority to stop this?
Clever straw man knock down by WaPo and the Judge re: national security. It was a weak argument and easy to deal with.
The fact of the matter is that liberal federal judges are undermining the authority of the President simply because they hate Trump.
If this decision stands, then this "least dangerous branch" becomes super dangerous. Trump has to protect the Executive Branch.
If - as I hope - Trump launches on Iran this week or next, we can expect the Dems to go to federal court and ask that a federal judge to stop Trump. War Powers Act!
TDS is in the federal judiciary and we routinely see these trial court judges getting reversed.
And as an aside, John Thune better act on Sen. Lee's recommendation and get Trump's federal judges confirmed; including the new nominee from NE.
Talk about prejudged. That lady should recuse herself from anything involving Trump.
Trump's not "on his way out". He's got two full years to MAGA and make libs upset. What a ridiculous assertion.
LOL!
Trump should start with the federal “Judges.”
Of course Ann sides with the stupid woman who seized power she doesn’t have.
It is about time for the boomer Karen aristocracy to meet the next generation.
Ann Althouse said:
"Finish the ballroom and do it well and in time to throw some dignified events before your term is up, but let the arch go. Leave it as an idea of something that could be done. If it's really worth doing, it will happen later. If it doesn't, it wasn't. "
AGREE.
Trump lost, in part, because he and the GOP lost focus on the things we care about. No one cares about that Arch.
As far as that horrible judge stopping it? She is a fascist.
"Leave it as an idea of something that could be done. If it's really worth doing, it will happen later. If it doesn't, it wasn't."
Like starting an elective war.
If we had a balanced budget, and no illegals to deal with - I'd be all for it.
Whatever you think of the judge or her legal grounds for blocking the arch, this is a gift to Trump. He can, without admitting he's wrong or has bad judgment, step away from this ambitious project. It's better for all of us. Don't get bogged down in the question whether the judge is biased or arrogant or whatever. Trump should not build the arch and he should take advantage of this opportunity to abandon it.
"And she mocked the administration’s central claim that Congress authorized Trump’s arch a century ago, when lawmakers approved a somewhat similar project that was never built."
So she mocked a claim that was true?
Why would Trump need to be careful about what he does now? What are they going to do, keep impeaching him after he's gone? Probably.
Like most things Trump touches, there’s a remarkable vulgarity that’s uniquely his own. In attempting to emulate the grandeur of Rome and the imperial palaces of Europe and Russia, he seems to have missed the essential ingredients: proportion, restraint and an appreciation for context. The result is often an excess of white stucco, gilded concrete and imposing proportions that seem more concerned with spectacle than architectural integrity.
There’s something revealing about the edifice complex. It’s the impulse to build monuments to greatness rather than achieve something worthy of being remembered. A leader’s need to render his own importance in marble, steel and gold can become an inadvertent confession that his deeds alone might not suffice.
When the builder needs the building more than the building serves any genuine purpose, the edifice complex has done its diagnostic work.
These structures may eventually become interesting cultural artifacts, but perhaps more as cautionary tales than celebrations. They will stand as reminders that legacy cannot be commanded, only earned, and that insecurity rendered in architecture remains remarkably transparent, no matter how much gold leaf obscures the façade.
"Trump should not build the arch and he should take advantage of this opportunity to abandon it."
Why?
I don't know about the legality of what she did nor how that will wash out. And I also know that she did it simply to thwart Trump. But, that aside, I'm glad about it. That stupid arch is unnecessary, unworthy and grotesque.
It is high time that the self-aggrandizing narcissist Trump stopped trying to create monuments to himself and get busy focusing on what the voters on Tuesday punished him for ignoring the last two years.
(BTW, I voted for Trump three times and would again, and I think he's top five presidents in our history. I also can't stand the guy...)
You do know that Trump isn't running again? All he cares about is what he can get done toward his vision of the country while he can. He will just pick something else you don't think is worth what he's obviously willing to sacrifice. That's what he done the whole time, and I don't think he would change many decisions in hindsight. He takes personal risks most can't stomach, because he's concentrates on the goal, and that's no longer getting elected.
IUD - your party is a vulgar evil mob-like crime syndicate.
Trump and the GOP could do themselves some huge favors with voters by getting back to work and using the short time they have before January... to work.
I like the Arch idea - but now is not the time. This is not accepting defeat. It's optics.
"Dems Already Planning to Trample Second Amendment, Steal Jobs for Migrants"
headline.
The young people who think they are clever voting in dems - they just F'ed themselves royally.
I'm like the Donald Trump of my house. I pay for everything, and when you have to do something hard, I tell people to just blame it on me, because I don't care if people think I'm mean. Those who are fair know better, and I don't care what the rest think.
On the flip side - who is paying for the Arch?
If it's private funds - and it's been approved - then go ahead and build it. Tell the judge to pound sand. That's what the corrupt left are going to do now.
They are going to mob-proof everything for the soros One Party rule.
How is it that every single Trump-related litigation ends up in front of one of only two or three judges (who, by the way, consistently get overruled on appeal)?
Althouse offers her readers a perfectly sensible off-ramp, but apparently even pragmatism is too much to ask. Rather than recognize the obvious political gift of a face-saving opportunity for Trump to abandon an ill-conceived vanity project, the MAGA chorus is busy sharpening its pitchforks and doubling down on attacks against the judge and the judiciary. One might have thought the ability to recognize an advantageous retreat would qualify as common sense. But then, for some, grievance is not merely a political reflex; it’s a way of life. Even Ann’s eminently reasonable suggestion can’t compete with the need to keep the outrage machine running.
Ann Althouse said...
Whatever you think of the judge or her legal grounds for blocking the arch, this is a gift to Trump. He can, without admitting he's wrong or has bad judgment, step away from this ambitious project. It's better for all of us. Don't get bogged down in the question whether the judge is biased or arrogant or whatever. Trump should not build the arch and he should take advantage of this opportunity to abandon it.
LOL!
If men like Trump did what Ann suggests the United States would never have happened.
Intellectuals never miss an opportunity to talk down to builders.
IEE: regurgitating AI slop is so banal.
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...
Althouse offers her readers a perfectly sensible off-ramp, but apparently even pragmatism is too much to ask.
Ann has always been a kneeler.
I look forward to more of this sort of thing. Triumphant leftists will demand penises in girls bathrooms and they will demand more illegal sweat shop laborers be let in.
Please keep it up.
People talk about these things like Trump builds them himself by hand. If you care about presidential time management, we got to pass an amendment to ban golf and BJs in the Oval Office.
Dave, per usual I assume you didn’t bother to read the decision. If you had you would know exactly what her legal basic is. To give you a hint - it has something to do with something called a “law” that prevents such projects w/o approval of Congress. Surely a lawyer like you would understand what a law is?
If Obama was building this, think how different all of it would be. No hatred from the right, no court challenges, glowing media coverage and bipartisan patriotism, but then we would be getting two gray trash cans with a Styrofoam rainbow on top costing 2 billion, that the contractors would never see a penny of.
"To give you a hint - it has something to do with something called a “law” that prevents such projects w/o approval of Congress."
Do you think that law would ever get dusted off if a Democrat was building this?
"The federal panel that gave final approval for the proposed 250-foot triumphal arch project is the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), which voted 8–4 to greenlight the construction. Earlier in the planning process, the design also received approval from the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts."
Google AI, citing an NBC news report.
There are millions of veterans in the US, a lot of architects and preservationists. How do these particular plaintiffs have standing? I question how the State of VA or the City of DC has any standing to oppose this as well.
I don't think the arch is wonderful, but isn't that what the commissions are for?
I'll bet if the design was to paint a gay pride rainbow on the underside of the arch, liberals wouldn't stop it, neither would the biased AWFL judge.
Althouse--Trump has two more years in office, veto power, and an unhinged Dem Congress that will pull lots of crap but can't effectively get anything done over Trump's veto.
If you think he's going to be quiet and dignified for the next two years, I suspect that you will be disappointed.
"He can, without admitting he's wrong or has bad judgment, step away from this ambitious project."
Why would he do that? This "ambitious project" is a very minor one of about a thousand far more ambitious projects going on.
Begley--I don't think Trump is going to seriously bomb or (God forbid) invade Iran. He's just going to keep doing what he's doing, which is essentially blockading Iran. Oil shipping from the Persian Gulf region is back to or above prewar levels. Gas prices are dropping. It takes time, which he has now that the election is past. This will disappoint a lot of people, but what does all-out war gain us?
meanwhile:
"Scott Galloway DOUBLES DOWN on his call for Elon Musk to be EXECUTED for being a “traitor to the West”
“We took the Rosenbergs and put them up against a wall and executed them for being traitors.”
“And I realize this is an incendiary statement, but I’ll make it and I believe it. I think Elon Musk is a traitor to the West.”
Absolutely sickening."
https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/2118728673037537406/video/1
more.. ot:
Dave Rubin
@RubinReport
Theory: The real reason the Dems are going after
@elonmusk
is because once they take power again big tech censorship is gonna come back even stronger than before.
Dissent will be absolutely crushed."
“Trump needs to think through what he wants to do on his way out.” This IS what he wants to do. It’s a huge troll. Trump is apparently indefatigable. He will do other things. However, just as Islamists try to erase all evidence of other religions, Democrat cultists are compelled, OCD-like, to erase signs of Trump. Democrats may flood the streets with drugs, illegals and criminals, destroy the unborn, wreck the military and the economy and undo most of Trump’s achievements. They will not however undo the contempt the normal third of our people have for their corruption and foolishness and tainting of the federal judiciary. That legacy will likely not stem the tide of Marxism or Islam, but it will endure. For example, think of a high profile Democrat who has not shown up as a clown or worse.
“Trump needs to think through what he wants to do on his way out.” This IS what he wants to do. It’s a huge troll. Trump is apparently indefatigable. He will do other things. However, just as Islamists try to erase all evidence of other religions, Democrat cultists are compelled, OCD-like, to erase signs of Trump. Democrats may flood the streets with drugs, illegals and criminals, destroy the unborn, wreck the military and the economy and undo most of Trump’s achievements. They will not however undo the contempt the normal third of our people have for their corruption and foolishness and tainting of the federal judiciary. That legacy will likely not stem the tide of Marxism or Islam, but it will endure. For example, think of a high profile Democrat who has not shown up as a clown or worse.
Sorry. I can’t erase any more.
Some people need to get serious. Althouse is partly right. But who actually believes Trump is committed to building an “Arch de Trump?” The very people he intends to believe it. LOL!
Sorry, Prof, but Trump has to fight them everywhere, all the time, on everything. Just like the Left does. Can't concede the smallest thing to the other side.
Off topic but related: Breaking news on Fox: Susie Wiles is resigning; Stephen Miller will be the new WH CoS. Kind of tells you what direction Trump is going for the post-midterms. Probably not going to back off from too many fights. CC, JSM
Doesn't matter what Trump wants. He's not in the driver seat. The leftwing DC judges are.
What Althouse said.
Is there a question about her legal authority to stop this? If so, that would be the problem, regardless of whether the arch is a good idea. Even if he allows the project to be put on hold, he should still challenge her authority to stop it.
I never understand disparaging Althouse personally. She's created a unique sort of place and not just allows but encourages wide latitude in terms of speech. Why get so personal? Why not just read elsewhere? Weird as hell.
Judge gets his 15 minutes of fame and is reversed in a month or two.
This is getting so tiresome.
I hate it as a design concept, and I hate imposing it on the nation's capital, something so huge, when there isn't strong consensus that we the people love it.
A "victory arch"? I mean, I lived by one in Greenwich Village in the late 1970s, and I've got one a few blocks away from me right now in Camp Randall, but I don't think of a victory arch as a particularly American expression. The design is clunky and dumb as something to build now, as opposed to in the 19th century. And it's so big. Trump may be associated with the idea of hugeness, but Washington isn't his to put a personal stamp on. Don't do it!
How about a victory in Israel/Iran/Ukraine — an actual victory? A victory arch is an irritating lie when the lack of recent victories is so glaringly obvious.
"the Commonwealth of Virginia"
There ought to be some kind of check on state attorneys general joining nuisance suits against the federal government. I suppose it wouldn't matter in new blue Virginia and I suppose this case relates to Virginia matters, but the way that every state attorney general piles on to such lawsuits when they should be taking care of crime in their own fiefdoms is annoying.
𝐴 "𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ"? 𝐼 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛, 𝐼 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑤𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑉𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 1970𝑠
Althouse, the "That Girl" years. Did you ever get that beret back?
“Trump needs to think through what he wants to do on his way out. It's crushingly clear that building the arch should not be one of those things. Finish the ballroom and do it well and in time to throw some dignified events before your term is up….”
Nah. Who needs a ballroom? Are diplomats going to dance the minuet or something? Finish gilding the White House! Now that would impress those furinners!
"Crushingly clear": oh, dear. Really?
So instead of a Victory Arch all we get is a cold and broken Hallelujah?
Activist Judges are killing any trust I ever had in the Justice
System.
"Trump needs to think through what he wants to do on his way out. It's crushingly clear that building the arch should not be one of those things."
It doesn't matter what he does (or doesn't do, for that matter), the left will just piss and moan about it.
You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
"Leave it as an idea of something that could be done. If it's really worth doing, it will happen later. If it doesn't, it wasn't."
Kick the can down the road, then? That sounds exactly like what politicians do best.
Ann Althouse said...
How about a victory in Israel/Iran/Ukraine — an actual victory? A victory arch is an irritating lie when the lack of recent victories is so glaringly obvious.
The Strait of Hormuz will remain closed until the WEF falls.
Your problem is you are thinking about now. You are not thinking about the future.
"𝐴 "𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ"? 𝐼 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛, 𝐼 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑤𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑉𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 1970𝑠"
Was Greenwich Village the province of the promoter(s) of the victory arch to put their personal stamp on?
It does not sound like any of you in the comments have read Judge Chutkan's opinion, which you can easily find online. The judge cites the provision of the U.S. Code that says, "A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.” She also cites other provisions of federal law. Althouse in fact underplays the strength of the plaintiffs' arguments.
It's better for all of us.
How is it better for all of us?
Three vets supporting this action? This vet is happy to support building it. Do these people think three vets give them some overreaching moral authority? What trash.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন
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.