This ruling is judicial legislation; plain and simple. The question is, at what point should a judge be removed from their duties? A reasonable congress would pass a law stating that, if a judge willfully and purposefully exceeds their judicial authority and/or attempts to override SCOTUS case law without ample justification, they should be barred from holding any judicial appointment in perpetuity.
Outside of individually impeaching every rogue judge, this appears to be the only mechanism where by congress could reign in a rogue Court.
I always say, create a Federal Court district of Kiska, Alaska, and state that any judge transferred there has jurisdiction only over cases filed in the Federal Courthouse there. Since there are no structures on Kiska, transferred judges could sit in Portland or DC and collect their salaries and pound sand.
This ruling reeks of political obstruction dressed up as process. If the board meets again, parades in construction experts, facilities engineers, safety consultants, structural reports, closure timelines, cost estimates, and public-risk evidence, then what is Cooper left with? Nothing. He cannot run the building from the bench. He cannot become a super-trustee because Representative Joyce Beatty lost a board vote. The renaming fight may be different because Congress wrote statutory language. But the closure injunction is the tell. It is not law. It is an Obama judge saying Trump did not deliberate nicely enough. Fine. Deliberate again. Then close it.
Did you read Cooper's decision? He makes clear that closure can proceed if the Board brings in those experts (and they agree with closure). Why do you suppose the Board made a decision WITHOUT any input from experts? The answer, from the timeline, is that Trump was pissed off about the drop in ticket sales and the decision of artistic companies to leave, probably hoping their sales would recover in a non-Trump venue. Trump decreed the Center should be closed as punishment and his Board of flunkies quickly approved without the slightest inquiry of their own. The remodel (more of a complete teardown according to Trump) explanation is pretextual.
This is quite different from Cooper's ruling on the other two issues, which OP concedes have little defense for Trump. The law establishing the Kennedy Center makes clear that it can't be named after anyone else. And the standard Law of Trusts says that ex officio members like Rep. Beatty get to vote same as general trustees unless the trust's founding documents indicate otherwise, which is not the case here.
Putting story after story together brings a bigger picture to mind. The democrats seem to want DC to be a third world looking shithole. Either that, or they would rather it look and be that way, than have DJT make it nice again. I guess they just can't stand America being great again.
That should tell us all we need to know about the "opposition party." They "oppose" America.
You look at an aerial shot of the White House, with the East Wing in ruins and a UFC octagon going up where the Rose Garden used to be, and you think that DJT has great taste?
At this point in time, one may only hope and pray that Elon Musk's child, or grandchild, is able to find somewhere in this universe, or another, the denomination capable of portraying the infinitesimally miniscule valuation I apply to your opinion.
Only because, so far, I have found no method in substack to block comments from roving assholes doing nothing but making nasty, unfounded comments with nothing to add to the conversation.
So the problem is I am not sure the Administration is going to appeal. I hope they do especially on the grounds you mention here. The naming issue is really a red herring because the Board voted to do that also. Also the absolute lunacy of a judge ordering a dangerous deteriorating structure to NOT be made safe and to be open to the public is so insane there aren’t words to describe it. A state housing court judge who are not known for their judicial and constitutional acumen would do better. Indeed, they’d be horrified. #TDS is a horrifying disease. Trump seems disgusted with the whole thing and said he was going to dump it on Congress. The insanity that is fueling these lawsuits against fixing up the country’s Capitol is beyond comprehension.
I am so deeply disgusted and disappointed with Congress pro-forma sessions, blocking President Trump from making recess appointments of judges as well as other critical appointments.
I am just trying to clarify: obstruction of the opposing party is good, of your party is bad. So you don't have any problem with obstruction per se, only what is being obstructed. Not a procedural argument, strictly team-oriented.
No, the problem is Obama was still able to hold recess appointments, many in fact, just like Bush and Clinton. Trump has zero zilch none 000 and his second term is way past just beginning. 🤬🤬🤬
What is missing is Congress appropriated 32 million for maintenance. Trump proposed $200-250M. Public reporting indicates the $250M target is expected to come mostly from private fundraising (Kennedy Center Foundation and major donors) So again if this is coming from private donors and not tax money why should anyone try and stop this? Fine remove his name but 250M from willing donors why stop that? Have we lost our common sense? Trump will be out of office in aprx 2 yrs propaganda has told us for 10 yrs to hate this one man no matter what he does no matter the cost. Hate is a strong and evil emotion that consumes and destroys all. I find that pathetic.
Alexander, I agree with and respect your analysis 100% and what I glean from it is this: we have an arrogant Congresswoman exercising her privilege to be arrogant and an arrogant judge exercising his privilege to be arrogant by backing up the privilege of the arrogant Congresswoman; all at the expense of taxpayers. And this is what has become of our country’s governance. Unfortunately, arrogance is not persuaded by reason.
Hunh? Even he admits the Administration’s argument for the renaming is a loser. So the Congresswoman was correct there. His complaint is only about the closure, which was done out of spite. The decision makes clear it could proceed if justified by the condition of the building, which it probably isn’t, but might be.
“Under these authorities the question a court may ask is narrow. Did the trustees act bona fide, honestly, within the scope of their authority?”
Did the board vote to rename the Center? You have mentioned the Federal statute that prohibits the renaming. If they did then in that matter they exceeded the scope of their authority. The question then is, would that have tainted the simultaneous exercise of their legitimate authority to renovate?
I would say no. I would also like to point out that such bundling of issues is the exact opposite of what happened when 32 accounting entries were turned into 32 indictments of Trump.
I’m not an expert in this area, but Alexander’s argument is persuasive. I couldn’t help wondering, however, if the Center wasn’t renamed to include the “Trump” name (which he says the Board does not have the authority to do), would this objection to the reconstruction have come up at all?
"The question then is, would that have tainted the simultaneous exercise of their legitimate authority to renovate?"
Notice that the Court did not rule on the renovation permanently, only that it was obvious they had decided on the closure at Trump's demand. Only a few days before, the Center was talking about its upcoming programs. Then Trump became upset the the departure of the Opera and Symphony Orchestra, largely in protest to the illegal renaming, and ordered the center closed and gutted out of spite.
It may be that the various engineers and architects recommend full closure, or closure wing-by-wing, but absolutely no analysis of this issue informed the Board's decision.
If true none of that overturns the trust law issues in this article. A Symphony and an Opera walking away created a legitimate renovation opportunity for the trustees, not an impediment.
The original name was the National Cultural Center. First proposed by Eleanor Roosevelt and funded under Eisenhower in 58. Constructed basically under Kennedy and then Johnson, opening in 71 under Nixon. Your super efficient bipartisan government at work. After JFK was assassinated the Democrats went into a prolonged spasm of naming everything they could after him that wasn't already named after a Democrat Idlewild became JFK, even if JFK didn't have anything to do with it. I'm somewhat surprise the USA didn't become the US of JFK or Massachusetts didn't become Kennedychusetts . Cape Canaveral became Kennedy Space Port before reverting, and so on. Go back to original name: The National Cultural Center. No Trump, no Kennedy. Though I would like to see JFK go back to Idlewild as it seems more appropriate after waiting in all the lines. Note that Eleanor didn't suggest the FDR Cultural Center or the Eleanor Roosevelt Cultural Center. The difference between then and now.
This ruling is judicial legislation; plain and simple. The question is, at what point should a judge be removed from their duties? A reasonable congress would pass a law stating that, if a judge willfully and purposefully exceeds their judicial authority and/or attempts to override SCOTUS case law without ample justification, they should be barred from holding any judicial appointment in perpetuity.
Outside of individually impeaching every rogue judge, this appears to be the only mechanism where by congress could reign in a rogue Court.
I always say, create a Federal Court district of Kiska, Alaska, and state that any judge transferred there has jurisdiction only over cases filed in the Federal Courthouse there. Since there are no structures on Kiska, transferred judges could sit in Portland or DC and collect their salaries and pound sand.
This ruling reeks of political obstruction dressed up as process. If the board meets again, parades in construction experts, facilities engineers, safety consultants, structural reports, closure timelines, cost estimates, and public-risk evidence, then what is Cooper left with? Nothing. He cannot run the building from the bench. He cannot become a super-trustee because Representative Joyce Beatty lost a board vote. The renaming fight may be different because Congress wrote statutory language. But the closure injunction is the tell. It is not law. It is an Obama judge saying Trump did not deliberate nicely enough. Fine. Deliberate again. Then close it.
Did you read Cooper's decision? He makes clear that closure can proceed if the Board brings in those experts (and they agree with closure). Why do you suppose the Board made a decision WITHOUT any input from experts? The answer, from the timeline, is that Trump was pissed off about the drop in ticket sales and the decision of artistic companies to leave, probably hoping their sales would recover in a non-Trump venue. Trump decreed the Center should be closed as punishment and his Board of flunkies quickly approved without the slightest inquiry of their own. The remodel (more of a complete teardown according to Trump) explanation is pretextual.
This is quite different from Cooper's ruling on the other two issues, which OP concedes have little defense for Trump. The law establishing the Kennedy Center makes clear that it can't be named after anyone else. And the standard Law of Trusts says that ex officio members like Rep. Beatty get to vote same as general trustees unless the trust's founding documents indicate otherwise, which is not the case here.
I do wish that Trump would quit putting his name on everything. It's undignified and unnecessary.
Yes. As much as I support him, that just creates a barrier.
Putting story after story together brings a bigger picture to mind. The democrats seem to want DC to be a third world looking shithole. Either that, or they would rather it look and be that way, than have DJT make it nice again. I guess they just can't stand America being great again.
That should tell us all we need to know about the "opposition party." They "oppose" America.
You look at an aerial shot of the White House, with the East Wing in ruins and a UFC octagon going up where the Rose Garden used to be, and you think that DJT has great taste?
At this point in time, one may only hope and pray that Elon Musk's child, or grandchild, is able to find somewhere in this universe, or another, the denomination capable of portraying the infinitesimally miniscule valuation I apply to your opinion.
So why did you reply? Troll. EDIT: Also, the spelling is minuscule.
Only because, so far, I have found no method in substack to block comments from roving assholes doing nothing but making nasty, unfounded comments with nothing to add to the conversation.
This will be my last.
So the problem is I am not sure the Administration is going to appeal. I hope they do especially on the grounds you mention here. The naming issue is really a red herring because the Board voted to do that also. Also the absolute lunacy of a judge ordering a dangerous deteriorating structure to NOT be made safe and to be open to the public is so insane there aren’t words to describe it. A state housing court judge who are not known for their judicial and constitutional acumen would do better. Indeed, they’d be horrified. #TDS is a horrifying disease. Trump seems disgusted with the whole thing and said he was going to dump it on Congress. The insanity that is fueling these lawsuits against fixing up the country’s Capitol is beyond comprehension.
More Blue supported TDS, in a matter against the best interests of preserving the cultural heritage of the Country. SOP for a corrupt judiciary.
I am so deeply disgusted and disappointed with Congress pro-forma sessions, blocking President Trump from making recess appointments of judges as well as other critical appointments.
Can you point up your social media on this subject when Mitch McConnell held pro forma sessions blocking Obama and Biden?
Apples and oranges, dude, the obstruction in question is of an Executive obstructed by members of its own party.
So the problem isn't with pro forma sessions, but with anything that obstructs Emperor Trump? I wonder why liberals say MAGA is a cult.
No, the problem is your argument, which is fallacious.
I am just trying to clarify: obstruction of the opposing party is good, of your party is bad. So you don't have any problem with obstruction per se, only what is being obstructed. Not a procedural argument, strictly team-oriented.
He didn't argue anything.
No, because you’re an insufferable Democrat.
You failed again, insufferable cultist.
No, the problem is Obama was still able to hold recess appointments, many in fact, just like Bush and Clinton. Trump has zero zilch none 000 and his second term is way past just beginning. 🤬🤬🤬
"But, but ... Obama!" 😂 🤣
"But Biden ...!" 🧦
"What about Hunter ..." 🤧
What is missing is Congress appropriated 32 million for maintenance. Trump proposed $200-250M. Public reporting indicates the $250M target is expected to come mostly from private fundraising (Kennedy Center Foundation and major donors) So again if this is coming from private donors and not tax money why should anyone try and stop this? Fine remove his name but 250M from willing donors why stop that? Have we lost our common sense? Trump will be out of office in aprx 2 yrs propaganda has told us for 10 yrs to hate this one man no matter what he does no matter the cost. Hate is a strong and evil emotion that consumes and destroys all. I find that pathetic.
TDS is real.
It just proves many people are sheep
I agree TDS is real .
Your complete self-abasement, incessantly pumping out this preposterous trump-fellation, still leaves you groveling for chump change. Pathetic.
Alexander, I agree with and respect your analysis 100% and what I glean from it is this: we have an arrogant Congresswoman exercising her privilege to be arrogant and an arrogant judge exercising his privilege to be arrogant by backing up the privilege of the arrogant Congresswoman; all at the expense of taxpayers. And this is what has become of our country’s governance. Unfortunately, arrogance is not persuaded by reason.
Hunh? Even he admits the Administration’s argument for the renaming is a loser. So the Congresswoman was correct there. His complaint is only about the closure, which was done out of spite. The decision makes clear it could proceed if justified by the condition of the building, which it probably isn’t, but might be.
I very much enjoy your diligent documented analysis.
“Under these authorities the question a court may ask is narrow. Did the trustees act bona fide, honestly, within the scope of their authority?”
Did the board vote to rename the Center? You have mentioned the Federal statute that prohibits the renaming. If they did then in that matter they exceeded the scope of their authority. The question then is, would that have tainted the simultaneous exercise of their legitimate authority to renovate?
I would say no. I would also like to point out that such bundling of issues is the exact opposite of what happened when 32 accounting entries were turned into 32 indictments of Trump.
I’m not an expert in this area, but Alexander’s argument is persuasive. I couldn’t help wondering, however, if the Center wasn’t renamed to include the “Trump” name (which he says the Board does not have the authority to do), would this objection to the reconstruction have come up at all?
The plaintiff alleged, and the timeline supports, that the closure was done out of spite.
Trump adds his name.
Both artistic companies and patrons cancel because they don’t like Trump.
Trump, angry, upgrades repairs to closure and reconstruction in his image.
So the artistic companies canceled out of spite? Sounds like it.
Frankly, if I conducted that symphony I would have stayed and added an opening dirge to each concert to protest the renaming.
Sounds like schoolyard stuff. Is it too much to ask that our elected officials focus on governing?
No disagreement from me.
This clown's "arguments" are never close to persuasive for anyone but deluded cultists.
Excellent question!
Exactly. The renaming gave the challenge political cover.
"The question then is, would that have tainted the simultaneous exercise of their legitimate authority to renovate?"
Notice that the Court did not rule on the renovation permanently, only that it was obvious they had decided on the closure at Trump's demand. Only a few days before, the Center was talking about its upcoming programs. Then Trump became upset the the departure of the Opera and Symphony Orchestra, largely in protest to the illegal renaming, and ordered the center closed and gutted out of spite.
It may be that the various engineers and architects recommend full closure, or closure wing-by-wing, but absolutely no analysis of this issue informed the Board's decision.
If true none of that overturns the trust law issues in this article. A Symphony and an Opera walking away created a legitimate renovation opportunity for the trustees, not an impediment.
The original name was the National Cultural Center. First proposed by Eleanor Roosevelt and funded under Eisenhower in 58. Constructed basically under Kennedy and then Johnson, opening in 71 under Nixon. Your super efficient bipartisan government at work. After JFK was assassinated the Democrats went into a prolonged spasm of naming everything they could after him that wasn't already named after a Democrat Idlewild became JFK, even if JFK didn't have anything to do with it. I'm somewhat surprise the USA didn't become the US of JFK or Massachusetts didn't become Kennedychusetts . Cape Canaveral became Kennedy Space Port before reverting, and so on. Go back to original name: The National Cultural Center. No Trump, no Kennedy. Though I would like to see JFK go back to Idlewild as it seems more appropriate after waiting in all the lines. Note that Eleanor didn't suggest the FDR Cultural Center or the Eleanor Roosevelt Cultural Center. The difference between then and now.
Superbly argued position, Muse.
Obama judge indeed.
Fuck the Judge!! If he really cared he wouldn't have let it become dilapidated!!
Unlike you, it's not "dilapidated."
You're telling me there's a difference between unlawful and imprudent?