TheEternalOptimist said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Biden & Obama judges team up to stop the ballroom:

BREAKING: The D.C. Circuit has ruled against construction of the White House ballroom, saying it requires congressional approval. Decision is delayed 14 days to permit time for appeal. https://t.co/U5dLHrSYkZ pic.twitter.com/ny8yNEuczb

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 7, 2026

---

The whole apparatus of the left, including the judiciary, will not let Trump have a win on even something that would beneficial to potential Democrat presidents as well.

This is all about framing. Period.

---

That a ballroom would be desirable or beneficial isn't the point, the point is that there are limits on Presidental power, and his acting unilaterally on this is in excess of the power of the office he holds. The office of the President is powerful, but it isn't all powerful such that a President can ignore the Constitution or laws we have established.

The Court said as much in their ruling: "Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help, … This holding has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy. This ruling does not even necessarily mean that the Defendants may not ultimately construct the ballroom. … What it does mean is that the Defendants may not do so during the district court's expeditious litigation without securing Congress's authorization, as the Constitution and laws require."

It is understandable that we tend to frame this in partisan ways, given the hyper-polarization of our current politics, but in matters such as this it might be helpful to answer this simple question, "how might I feel if the other party had done this?" In other words, if Obama had decided to gild darn near every surface of the "People's House" in a gaudy way, pave over the Rose Garden, replace the Tennessee flagstone that had graced the West Wing colonnade with imported black granite at taxpayer expense, mock previous President's with disparaging photos and plaques along that walkway, and knocked down the East Wing and proposed a ballroom that dwarfs the rest of the White House without even consulting Congress, how would Republicans react? If we are honest, I think the answer would be very revealing.

techno-ag said:

---

Rock solid remark, LH.

---

Marble-ous, Techno.

oldyeller said:

---

It is understandable that we tend to frame this in partisan ways, given the hyper-polarization of our current politics, but in matters such as this it might be helpful to answer this simple question, "how might I feel if the other party had done this?" In other words, if Obama had decided to gild darn near every surface of the "People's House" in a gaudy way, pave over the Rose Garden, replace the Tennessee flagstone that had graced the West Wing colonnade with imported black granite at taxpayer expense, mock previous President's with disparaging photos and plaques along that walkway, and knocked down the East Wing and proposed a ballroom that dwarfs the rest of the White House without even consulting Congress, how would Republicans react? If we are honest, I think the answer would be very revealing.

---

Such boring blather. The fact is "someone" had to file a lawsuit or the judge wouldn't have had to rule. Full circle back to TDS by the dems…"of course other presidents have done it, but we MUST stop Trump."

The dems know that the changes to the White House compound are needed.

The lawsuits are all about denying Trump the use of the completed facilities. Nothing more.

The next dem POTUS (God save us) will redesign it shortly after taking office and claim it as his/her/its own doing.

Canvasback said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Is Trump the only president who isn't allowed to renovate the White House? This is ****ing deranged.

---

The White House is not the property of the President. Any change should go through Congress for funding and approval. This is all a part of the frenzy Trump is in to build monuments to himself before the end of his term. How many other Presidents have built monuments to themselves while in office?

---

No, it is not the property of the president. I don't recall seeing anywhere that DJT has claimed ownership. It is actually a gift to you, me, and every other American, providing a much needed gathering space for FUTURE presidents to receive high profile guests, for future events like the Correspondents' dinner that just this year was held in a local hotel and resulted in a potentially fatal security breach, and future State dinners.

The ballroom will be 22,000 square feet, as opposed to the 3,000 East Room that can only hold 15-20 tables or 200 people.

Are you saying we don't need this? What makes you think that since DJT is privately funding a much needed facility that solves known size and security issues that is is necessarily a "monument to himself'? (It's funny you said that, as I just today went into a new building at our local University that is providing a much needed function. It's absolutely beautiful, and there is a plaque inside that pays homage to the local couple that provided the vast majority of funding for this building. However, I don't consider this building as a "monument" to this couple, nor am I resentful that their name is on the building. I am grateful for their generousity to the University and the community.)

In the words of Col. Jessup, "I would rather you just say 'thank you', and be on your way"...

Phatbob said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Biden & Obama judges team up to stop the ballroom:

BREAKING: The D.C. Circuit has ruled against construction of the White House ballroom, saying it requires congressional approval. Decision is delayed 14 days to permit time for appeal. https://t.co/U5dLHrSYkZ pic.twitter.com/ny8yNEuczb

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 7, 2026

---

The whole apparatus of the left, including the judiciary, will not let Trump have a win on even something that would beneficial to potential Democrat presidents as well.

This is all about framing. Period.

---

That a ballroom would be desirable or beneficial isn't the point, the point is that there are limits on Presidental power, and his acting unilaterally on this is in excess of the power of the office he holds. The office of the President is powerful, but it isn't all powerful such that a President can ignore the Constitution or laws we have established.

The Court said as much in their ruling: "Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help, … This holding has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy. This ruling does not even necessarily mean that the Defendants may not ultimately construct the ballroom. … What it does mean is that the Defendants may not do so during the district court's expeditious litigation without securing Congress's authorization, as the Constitution and laws require."

It is understandable that we tend to frame this in partisan ways, given the hyper-polarization of our current politics, but in matters such as this it might be helpful to answer this simple question, "how might I feel if the other party had done this?" In other words, if Obama had decided to gild darn near every surface of the "People's House" in a gaudy way, pave over the Rose Garden, replace the Tennessee flagstone that had graced the West Wing colonnade with imported black granite at taxpayer expense, mock previous President's with disparaging photos and plaques along that walkway, and knocked down the East Wing and proposed a ballroom that dwarfs the rest of the White House without even consulting Congress, how would Republicans react? If we are honest, I think the answer would be very revealing.

---

If you really believed this, you could pretty easily point to the applicable laws requiring Congressional approval for White House construction then, yes?

---

How about the Property Clause of the Constitution for starters:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Then there's the the Sundry Civil Appropriation Act of August 24, 1912 which states that "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."

Branding fail from the start. Should have called it a National Multicultural Community Flex Space and solicited input from every bucket the Dems have created. And then built the Ballroom.

boulderaggie said:

---

Branding fail from the start. Should have called it a National Multicultural Community Flex Space and solicited input from every bucket the Dems have created. And then built the Ballroom.

---

Of course it wouldn't matter though. I know you're being facetious but even if that happened they'd lose their collective tiny socialist brains if he did that.

To even approach that is to accept the standing of the plaintiff. Which is ridiculous.

Judge Rao’s dissent is likely to reflect what the Supreme Court ultimately decides in this case—especially on standing.

The plaintiff’s theory of injury is remarkably broad: essentially, a person may occasionally walk past the White House and dislike how the ballroom changes its… https://t.co/5DVFyRc1vz

— Preston Hill (@realPrestonHill) August 9, 2026

nortex97 said:

---

To even approach that is to accept the standing of the plaintiff. Which is ridiculous.

Judge Rao’s dissent is likely to reflect what the Supreme Court ultimately decides in this case—especially on standing.

The plaintiff’s theory of injury is remarkably broad: essentially, a person may occasionally walk past the White House and dislike how the ballroom changes its… https://t.co/5DVFyRc1vz

— Preston Hill (@realPrestonHill) August 9, 2026

---

I suppose we shall see.

As the ruling notes:

Quote:

---

The dissenting opinion's standing argument rests on a misconstruction of Professor Hoagland's declaration.

… Numerous cases from the Supreme Court and this court have recognized Article III injuries in similar circumstances.

… The Defendants' cramped standing theory would deem no one injured by a decision to raze the Statue of Liberty, to obscure the names on the Vietnam War Memorial, or to install a political billboard atop Mount Rushmore. People wounded by the lost historical view could just "shift [their] gaze[.]" (Defs.' Opening Br. 25.) Yet the harm would remain from being unable to look upon, learn from, or commune in a location where, for example, a personal hero was born, an ancestor first arrived in the United States, a relative died on September 11th, or the battle for the individual's equal rights and dignity first started. The Defendants' argument, in other words, simply
brushes off the signification, emotion, meaning, and
particularized value to individuals of witnessing certain places where their history happened, looking upon architectural marvels, reveling in sweeping landscapes, and viewing buildings, memorials, and monuments that tell the American story."

---

oldyeller said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

To even approach that is to accept the standing of the plaintiff. Which is ridiculous.

Judge Rao’s dissent is likely to reflect what the Supreme Court ultimately decides in this case—especially on standing.

The plaintiff’s theory of injury is remarkably broad: essentially, a person may occasionally walk past the White House and dislike how the ballroom changes its… https://t.co/5DVFyRc1vz

— Preston Hill (@realPrestonHill) August 9, 2026

---

I suppose we shall see.

As the ruling notes:

Quote:

---

The dissenting opinion's standing argument rests on a misconstruction of Professor Hoagland's declaration.

… Numerous cases from the Supreme Court and this court have recognized Article III injuries in similar circumstances.

… The Defendants' cramped standing theory would deem no one injured by a decision to raze the Statue of Liberty, to obscure the names on the Vietnam War Memorial, or to install a political billboard atop Mount Rushmore. People wounded by the lost historical view could just "shift [their] gaze[.]" (Defs.' Opening Br. 25.) Yet the harm would remain from being unable to look upon, learn from, or commune in a location where, for example, a personal hero was born, an ancestor first arrived in the United States, a relative died on September 11th, or the battle for the individual's equal rights and dignity first started. The Defendants' argument, in other words, simply
brushes off the signification, emotion, meaning, and
particularized value to individuals of witnessing certain places where their history happened, looking upon architectural marvels, reveling in sweeping landscapes, and viewing buildings, memorials, and monuments that tell the American story."

---

---

I can't help but wonder if they would have held the same position if a case about the removal of a statue landed in front of them. For some reason, I think they would have been able to find a justification for the removal being fully and perfectly legal.

YellAg2004 said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

To even approach that is to accept the standing of the plaintiff. Which is ridiculous.

Judge Rao’s dissent is likely to reflect what the Supreme Court ultimately decides in this case—especially on standing.

The plaintiff’s theory of injury is remarkably broad: essentially, a person may occasionally walk past the White House and dislike how the ballroom changes its… https://t.co/5DVFyRc1vz

— Preston Hill (@realPrestonHill) August 9, 2026

---

I suppose we shall see.

As the ruling notes:

Quote:

---

The dissenting opinion's standing argument rests on a misconstruction of Professor Hoagland's declaration.

… Numerous cases from the Supreme Court and this court have recognized Article III injuries in similar circumstances.

… The Defendants' cramped standing theory would deem no one injured by a decision to raze the Statue of Liberty, to obscure the names on the Vietnam War Memorial, or to install a political billboard atop Mount Rushmore. People wounded by the lost historical view could just "shift [their] gaze[.]" (Defs.' Opening Br. 25.) Yet the harm would remain from being unable to look upon, learn from, or commune in a location where, for example, a personal hero was born, an ancestor first arrived in the United States, a relative died on September 11th, or the battle for the individual's equal rights and dignity first started. The Defendants' argument, in other words, simply
brushes off the signification, emotion, meaning, and
particularized value to individuals of witnessing certain places where their history happened, looking upon architectural marvels, reveling in sweeping landscapes, and viewing buildings, memorials, and monuments that tell the American story."

---

---

I can't help but wonder if they would have held the same position if a case about the removal of a statue landed in front of them. For some reason, I think they would have been able to find a justification for the removal being fully and perfectly legal.

---

It's part of the left's master plan to complain about EVERYTHING when the Republicans are in charge. Sadly it works on the useful idiots.

While I'm confident these judges are merely acting political and would find a way to allow Biden etc to do it, the removal of a statue is a different than demolishing a building and building a new one under the law.

If the issue is Congressional approval to make the change, regardless of how its funded, they congress can vote on it.

Has there even been a bill or amendment introduced? Do it, and vote. If the democrats block it, then just leave the place in rubble and let them take accountability for it.

BMX Bandit said:

---

While I'm confident these judges are merely acting political and would find a way to allow Biden etc to do it, the removal of a statue is a different than demolishing a building and building a new one under the law.

---

They're the ones that equivocated the removal of a building to the removal of a statue or monument as quoted above.

Honest question, have all the other changes to the White House been voted on an approved by Congress? A quick google search says Obama didn't get approval for his basketball court. Without going down the rabbit hole of what every previous POTUS changed, is the issue magnitude of the change? And if so, where is the line?

Or is the issue that it's Trump doing it?

Leftists are doing everything to control the country regardless of who the people vote for. They blocked Trump's governance with Russian collusion, faux impeachments, investigations, and now unbridled lawfare. They absolutely do not want We the People or those we elect dictating anything.

They'll continue to install their dictators and unelected bureaucracy. It's the communist way.

Trump: "I have the cure for cancer and I'll give it away for free."

The left: "The **** you will, fascist!"

Quote:

---

Honest question, have all the other changes to the White House been voted on an approved by Congress? A quick google search says Obama didn't get approval for his basketball court. Without going down the rabbit hole of what every previous POTUS changed, is the issue magnitude of the change? And if so, where is the line?

---

i think its two issues. on building a new building, appears straight forward:

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. 40 USC 8106.

On modifications, redo, design change etc. etc., its much more vague:

There are authorized to be appropriated each fiscal year to the President such sums as may be necessary for-
(1) the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House; 3 USC 105

YellAg2004 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

While I'm confident these judges are merely acting political and would find a way to allow Biden etc to do it, the removal of a statue is a different than demolishing a building and building a new one under the law.

---

They're the ones that equivocated the removal of a building to the removal of a statue or monument as quoted above.

Honest question, have all the other changes to the White House been voted on an approved by Congress? A quick google search says Obama didn't get approval for his basketball court. Without going down the rabbit hole of what every previous POTUS changed, is the issue magnitude of the change? And if so, where is the line?

Or is the issue that it's Trump doing it?

---

It could be a little bit of both, but legally I think the magnitude issue is the one that is germane. Is the removal of the Statue of Liberty on par with the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee? Both are impactful, but the set of persons, and degree of impact, to those affected is different. Similarly, is an easily removable basketball court on par with tearing down the East Wing and putting in its place a ballroom that overshadows the rest of main house and dominates the grounds?

Where is the line is a difficult question to answer, and likely why this should be a debate that is resolved by our representatives, rather than simply by Presidential fiat.

Slicer97 said:

---

YellAg2004 said:

---

Or is the issue that it's Trump doing it?

---

That's pretty much it.

---

Exactly.

If Obama had proposed the same project they would be praising it as a beautiful addition to the "people's house"

Tree Hugger said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

YellAg2004 said:

---

Or is the issue that it's Trump doing it?

---

That's pretty much it.

---

Exactly.

If Obama had proposed the same project they would be praising it as a beautiful addition to the "people's house"

---

And you would be raising heck as an overreach and waste of money. Just be honest about it

More drawings out regarding this simple project the leftists in black robes are freaking out about someone walking by being upset over.

Quote:

---

The Trump administration announced in July that a 90,000-square-foot ballroom with a seated capacity for 650 people will be constructed in the White House's East Wing. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the project would be paid for by private donors and the president himself, who has committed to disclosing donors' names.

The new ballroom will be significantly larger than the main White House building, which comprises about 55,000 square feet over the ground floor, state floor and residence. That does not include the East and West Wings.

CBS News reported last week that corporate and individual donors have pledged nearly $200 million to cover construction costs, and fundraising is ongoing. Google, R.J. Reynolds, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin, Palantir and NextEra Energy have donated, sources told CBS News, and so have firms in the tech, manufacturing, banking and health industries.

Construction got underway on the South Lawn earlier this month. McCrery Architects PLLC is the architectural firm behind the project.

---

Obama's wouldn't have been tax free and financed by donors.

🚨 Chief Justice John Roberts ordered opponents of the White House ballroom to respond by noon Tuesday to the Trump administration's request to pause an injunction blocking its construction, set to take effect August 21. https://t.co/wXkHobpmYX pic.twitter.com/55TEt7c9CL

— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) August 14, 2026

Bucketrunner said:

---

Obama's wouldn't have been tax free and financed by donors.

---

TAX FREE?

2040huck said:

---

Tree Hugger said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

YellAg2004 said:

---

Or is the issue that it's Trump doing it?

---

That's pretty much it.

---

Exactly.

If Obama had proposed the same project they would be praising it as a beautiful addition to the "people's house"

---

And you would be raising heck as an overreach and waste of money. Just be honest about it

---

We wouldn't have heard about it, just like we didn't hear anything about his $100M WH bunker renovation.

I'm also wondering if the ballroom needed to come down regardless due to the PEOC being under it being 80 years old...and probably needing to be rebuilt and the Eastroom was just a convenient cover/excuse used to so nobody would ask questions.

This whole saga just shows the petty nature of Dems and the spineless nature of Rs in Congress.

All they had to say was wait, we think this is needed and a good idea but it needs Congressional approval so let's work through that.

Instead it becomes a legal matter and s**t throwing contest.

The vast majority of Congress is useless and do not give a F*** about the American people and taxpayers and with Trump as POTUS it has just been once obstruction after another even when he is doing good (which is not always) or simply trying to enforce laws passed by Congress itself.

poor wording on my part. It isn't costing the taxpayers. It is financed by donations.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Honest question, have all the other changes to the White House been voted on an approved by Congress? A quick google search says Obama didn't get approval for his basketball court. Without going down the rabbit hole of what every previous POTUS changed, is the issue magnitude of the change? And if so, where is the line?

---

i think its two issues. on building a new building, appears straight forward:

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. 40 USC 8106.

On modifications, redo, design change etc. etc., its much more vague:

There are authorized to be appropriated each fiscal year to the President such sums as may be necessary for-
(1) the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House; 3 USC 105

---

Uh oh…….. Another swing and miss by leftists against logical renovations.

A comment & a question:

1. If only he knew someone that could charge, arrest and try the traitors!

2. Why in the hell are random blue hairs being shown Top Secret information??!?

pic.twitter.com/pVds4QTwtI

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 15, 2026