this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
185 points (97.0% liked)

politics

31051 readers
2101 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] leadore@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (3 children)

"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 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 6 points 6 days 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 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 4 points 6 days 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.