In a ruling Friday, District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the cessation of all repair plans for the Kennedy Center and the removal of Trump’s name from the building within two weeks. It is a detailed and comprehensive opinion, but I believe that Judge Cooper is wrong on the cessation of repairs.
I previously expressed skepticism over the claim that the board could order such a change unilaterally. At that time, I raised the very issues that Judge Cooper cited in his rejection of the right to rename the Center without congressional approval.
I agree with the court on its standing decision (which is hardly a surprise given my past writings in favor of broader standing).
However, the opinion becomes more challengeable when the court addresses the decision to close the Center for two years to carry out major renovations. The opinion is rife with digs at President Donald Trump for his social media postings and his unilateral plan for a ballroom. Judge Cooper editorializes that “Especially after the demolition of the East Wing of the White House— which occurred out of the blue a few months after President Trump pledged that construction would not ‘interfere with’ and would ‘pay[] total respect to the existing building’—there has been understandable concern that the Kennedy Center may be the next target of the wrecking ball.”
Judge Cooper accepts that the Center is long overdue for major renovations and that the Board had the authority to order them. He further rejects the sweeping claims of litigants that Trump was planning to effectively raze the Center: “The evidence before the Court does not demonstrate that the Center is poised for wholesale destruction and rebuilding, à la the East Wing.”
However, Cooper rules that the Board could not have given the decision sufficient time or attention in carrying out the plan. He declared that “None of the board members had sufficient information in advance of the March 16 meeting to make a well-considered decision to close the center.”
The court’s tight analysis is lost in supporting the cessation of repairs. While he acknowledges that such repairs have long been planned and studied, he cites differing statements on the plan to continue operations before a later decision to close the Center. The court finds that the record illustrates a failure to fulfill the fiduciary duty of the board and Chair:
“Whatever happened during that purported four-month incubation period, Board input was, most evidently, an afterthought. Trustees learned about the plan to close the Center at the same time as the general public, by social media post. Deprived of time and information, they had no meaningful opportunity to consider perhaps the most momentous decision in the Center’s lifetime since it opened in 1971.”
That analysis is heavily laden with assumptions on the lack of consideration of the Board. The same approach could be used to set aside an array of board decisions that do not evidence sufficient concern or scrutiny for the satisfaction of a judge.
Judge Cooper seems to recognize how far the court was taking its own authority in countermanding the decision:
“The Court appreciates that, in both the charitable and corporate spheres, board meetings are often scripted affairs… The Court should not be heard to suggest that trustees must scrutinize every piece of prefatory work that has been done, or labor through the night debating the relative merits of their decisions in order to discharge their fiduciary duties— especially where, as here, a board is large and comprised of members who may not be well schooled in the subject matter before them. “
Yet, the court still concludes that this Board “seems to have fallen grossly short of prudent decision-making.” That seems far too subjective and fluid a standard for federal courts to micromanage executive branch decision-making.
For example, Judge Cooper recognizes that lawyers were present at the critical meeting, but suggests that they were not relied upon enough due to the lack of direct statements preserved on the record. Since when is there an obligation for counsel to speak and be memorialized in such records? The court writes:
“Where were the lawyers? The answer appears to be “nowhere.” The Center’s General Counsel and Associate General Counsel were present at the March 16 Board Meeting but, according to the minutes, did not speak. There is, further, nothing in the record to indicate that the Board relied on any legal advice in reaching the closure decision. It goes without saying that, for all his background in project management and construction, Mr. Floca is no legal expert.”
Yet, the court answered its own question. Where were the lawyers? They were there. There is simply no record of their views expressed in this meeting as opposed to other conversations or inquiries. Moreover, lawyers give advice, not commands, to political appointees. The court seems entirely adrift in reading the lack of such references as proof that the decision was made without legal guidance or consultation. Finally, given the thrust and tenor of the decision, I doubt seriously that a notation reading “the lawyers stated that they agreed with this plan” would have made any material difference to the court.
For his part, President Trump was equally sweeping and unrestrained in his response. He declared that he would order the Commerce Department to transfer the Center to Congress “so they can make a determination as to what to do with it.”
Given that Judge Cooper’s order on the cessation of repairs may be reversed, it is unnecessary unless the naming of the Center is the overriding consideration. In either case, it would make little sense for the Center to be placed under the supervision of Congress. It would be appropriate for Congress to address the naming question as well as potentially being heard on the need for a closure.
In the end, I thought that the court’s cessation analysis conveyed ample reasons, but Judge Cooper himself (and others) may be unhappy with how the decision was made. It is less clear why that should matter. There are ample reasons to close the Center to facilitate what the court acknowledges will be extensive and major renovations. That construction can only be facilitated and expedited if there is not a simultaneous need to keep a substantial part of the Center operating for the public.
The Administration should appeal the decision and may soon be able to resume work on the Center, regardless of its name.
Here is the opinion: Beaty v. Trump
CAT just built a large installation and addition to their plant in Indiana (multimillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of square feet), and also remodeling of other areas to improve and increase their product lines. That area was closed to all except the construction people and then as it was done, the employees returned. In a building that old and improperly cared for as the Kennedy Center, I would certainly not wish to assume the liability of Civilians walking around inside a construction area especially with structural work being done. I think anybody who has constructed a house (as their own general contractor) or been on a corporate board supervising remodels and new construction would tell this judge the safest and fastest way to get this Done is no civilians while work is proceeding. People are stupid and civilians in construction sites are a tragedy just waiting to happen.
This Justice may have jurisdiction but he is way out of his league.
I really could care less about what it’s called.
While I mostly agree with you – this is a legal blog and the courts jurisdiction is the law and constitution.
As of yet I have not heard a constitutional or statutory Claim that Trump can not do what he is doing.
You argue it is a good idea – and that is likely right – but it is not the courts job to micromanage the administration.
John Say, “ I have not heard a constitutional or statutory claim””
You have not “heard” because you’re actively ignoring the evidence that you have been shown.
The plaintiffs raised a massive, airtight statutory claim under the John F. Kennedy Center Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 4).
This explicit federal law legally designated the facility as a national monument named solely to honor President John F. Kennedy.
The administration’s unilateral decision to co-brand the building with Trump’s name directly violated that standing congressional statute.
Under the U.S. Constitution’s Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3), a president is legally mandated to ensure that “the laws be faithfully executed”—not rewritten or ignored for personal branding. Breaking a standing federal statute is a constitutional and statutory violation.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), federal courts are explicitly required to step in and strike down executive branch actions that are ultra vires (acting beyond legal authority) or taken “without observance of procedure required by law.”
Judge Cooper did not issue an injunction because he was “second-guessing” a policy choice; he issued it because the administration executed an illegal corporate ambush that violated federal administrative law.
This explicit federal law legally designated the facility as a national monument named solely to honor President John F. Kennedy.
Can you quote the statutory text that says it must be named solely to honor JFK? I don’t think you can.
My initial reaction was identical to PT’s, that the renaming exceeded DJT’s authority and that the order ceasing the closure exceeded the judge’s authority. Seeing that the opinion is 94 pages long I am content to simply agree with Turley’s opinion on the opinion.
“My initial reaction was identical to PT’s, that the renaming exceeded DJT’s authority ”
What matters is not Judge Coopers opinion, Turley’s opinion, your opini9on or mine.
It is the law.
The courts do not determine what they think the presidents authority is.
They determine what the law and constitution say.
Congress often names public buildings.
But it does not come close to naming all of them.
Biden renamed military bases – Trump named them back.
Obama renamed national forests – Trump named them back.
Clearly presidents have authority to change the names of things.
Is there specific law that would limit Trump’s authority to rename Kennedy Center ?
What distinguishes The presidents authority to rename national parks military bases and other government buildings – something lots of president have done,
And Trump’s authority to rename kennedy center ?
Some such limit may exist – but neither the Judge, Turley or you mentioned it.
Judges jurisdiction is limited to the constitution and the law – not micromanaging the executive or deciding what policies or actions are good or bad.
That type of oversite regarding the executive rests with Congress.
Absolutely Congress can rename Kennedy Center or preclude Trump from doing so.
It can direct renovations or preclude Trump from doing so.
But no one has provided a valid argument that Judge Cooper can.
Contra Turley – Cooper is one of the left wing nut judges that has been slapped down for exceeding his authority.
He is just not in the top 5.
Absent law passed by congress – whether I or you or Cooper or Turley like it or not, this is within the presidents power.
The power to change that rests with Congress – not cooper.
The statute is cited in the opinion 20 USC 761 that the center is specifically to be designated as the JFK Center. Renaming it conflicts with the statute. Your deflection to naming of other buildings is irrelevant to this particular issue. If naming and renaming military bases or any of your other examples matters only if their renaming conflicts with specific statutes. Do they?
John Say, you have been shown multiple times why you’re wrong. The evidence and the actual law is clearly spelled out.
The Evil Ones are the One’s that made YOU out to be the Evil Ones.
(i.e.: The Dems-&-RINOs, District Judge Christopher Cooper, Hillary, etc. – Your Neighbor … DEMONS)
Judge Cooper is simply biased anti-Trump, along with his wife who represents parties against Trump Admin. Judge Cooper should recuse himself from any Trump cases.
That his wife represents parties adverse to the administration is not enough to require his recusal. He would of course have to recuse himself from any case in which one of his wife’s clients is a party.
I thought putting Trump’s name on the Kennedy center was silly. I think turning the Kennedy Center over to Congress – subject to his veto of any bill 🙂 – is absolutely brilliant! Puts Congress on the spot to fix it, or it continues to deteriorate while the Dems misbehave!
The question is not whether it was silly. But whether it was constitutional or lawful.
The president does NOT have the power to “Turn it over to congress”.
The president is the cheif executive – with extremely few exceptions – like the Capitol Building,
The president is responsible for maintaining federal buildings.
Not the courts, not even congress.
Absent statute or constitutional provision – the Courts have no jurisdiction here.
A hallmark of the left is using whatever tiny portion of government they control to accomplish their policy goals.
But that is not how the constitution operates. Judges are limited to the constitution and statute.
What is a good idea or a bad one is none of their business. Policy is none of their business – unless a policy violates statute or the constitution.
Politics and political decisions – are none of the courts business. What things are named is none of their business – absent provisions in the constitution or statute.
Obama, Biden and Trump have all renamed things in the past.
As have other presidents – clearly the president has some power to rename things.
Military bases and national parks are more significant than one building.
If you have a statutory or constitutional provision precluding Trump from renaming Kennedy Center then the court must follow that.
Otherwise – they must stay out of this as they have no jurisdiction.
Personally – The Arts are not the legitimate domain of the federal govenrment.
Kennedy Center, the Institute for the humanities the institute for the arts all should be found unconstitutional and sold to private owners.
That solves the problem.
But that is not happening.
As things stand – I have heard no valid legal argument that Trump can not do this.
If that pi$$es off democrats – win the presidency and name it back or name it to something else.
Do I think presidents should avoid controversial and otherwise mostly meaningless actions – absolutely.
But the constitution and law do not require that.
Why the Democrats want to stop Someone/Something in Government that’s ‘DOING SOMETHING’ is the blatant hypocrisy of Their agenda.
The Democrats are a allegedly the Party of ‘CHANGE, PROGRESS, NEW DIRECTION’, but not todays Democrat Party.
They want to put a ‘STOP’ on anything and anyone that’s finally ‘DOING SOMETHING’ about what is needed to be done.
Ignorant Hypocrisy, plain and simple.
University of Delaware (Newark, DE): Renamed its public policy school the Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School of Public Policy & Administration in 2018. Additionally, plans were initiated to establish an academic facility called Biden Hall.Cape Henlopen State Park (Lewes, DE): Houses the Biden Environmental Center, named in 1998.Wilmington, DE: Features the Joseph R. Biden Jr. Railroad Station and the Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Aquatic Center (the pool where Biden worked as a lifeguard in 1962).Washington, D.C.: The University of Pennsylvania established the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement.
This world is scheduled for deletion. All humans die but the demons remain. None of it matters.
These Leftard judges really need to be reigned in! The minute they display any TDS, they should be reprimanded! It’s absolutely disgusting, and unbecoming, for judges to be activist, for any cause! It’s no wonder why people don’t trust the legal system much any longer.
Judge Cooper did not ban repairs; he halted a two-year total closure of a massive national institution that was rammed through without legal authorization. The court’s injunction targets the sweeping, unauthorized shutdown of the Kennedy Center, not the concept of fixing the plumbing. Pretending the judge is “anti-repair” completely distorts a ruling designed to protect public access to a national monument from a unilateral executive decree.
There is a vast legal gulf between a “scripted” meeting and a completely fraudulent one. The record shows that the trustees—the individuals legally burdened with fiduciary duties—learned about the total closure of the Center at the exact same time as the general public via a social media post. Defending this as standard corporate behavior is absurd. Turley is arguing that executive boards should act as literal rubber stamps for a president’s whims, entirely erasing the legal requirement for due diligence and prudent decision-making.
Turley complains that the opinion is “rife with digs” at Donald Trump and unfairly brings up the sudden, unannounced demolition of the White House East Wing.
The demolition of the East Wing is not a “dig”; it is critical legal context and material evidence of intent. When an administration promises a project will “pay total respect to the existing building” and then secretly demolishes an entire historic wing of the White House “out of the blue,” a federal judge is legally obligated to weigh that pattern of behavior. The “understandable concern” noted by the judge isn’t partisan editorializing—it is a fact-based assessment of an administration with a documented track record of destroying historic public property without oversight.
Turley casually notes Trump’s response to dump the Center onto the Commerce Department or Congress as merely being “sweeping and unrestrained.”
This is a textbook example of carrying water for authoritarian behavior. A sitting president threatening to unilaterally dismantle a federal agency’s jurisdiction and throw a national cultural center to a completely different branch of government because a judge told him to follow the law is not “unrestrained”—it is an extortionate tantrum against the separation of powers. By treating this radical threat as a casual political counter-move, Turley exposes his own deep bias.
Turley wants the reader to believe this is a dry, nitpicky dispute about construction efficiency. In reality, it is a defense of autocracy. He openly argues that as long as a goal is deemed “efficient” (like closing a center to speed up renovations), the law, the bylaws, the fiduciary duties of the board, and the public’s right to access a national treasure simply do not matter.
If you cant keep it pithy, you lose the argument by default. The board of directors of any non profit is within its authority to determine the scope of any/all repairs. The judge is wrong in his argument and authority to 2nd guess a legitimate board’s decisions.
The official court record proved that the trustees learned about the total, two-year closure of the national center at the exact same time as the general public via a social media post. A board cannot exercise “authority” over a decision it was never allowed to see, debate, or vote on.
“The official court record proved that the trustees learned about the total, two-year closure of the national center at the exact same time as the general public via a social media post.”
Correct.
” A board cannot exercise “authority” over a decision it was never allowed to see, debate, or vote on.”
Incorrect.
The board of directors of any corporation can overrule the CEO on anything – though for important liability reasons they rarely do.
The CEO can overule ANYONE or ANY committee aside from the board of directors.
The Kennedy center board is answerable to the president – like everyone else in the executive branch.
All authority they have is delegated presidential power.
The president can take it back if he wishes.
This is true of the entire executive branch.
“ The Kennedy Center Board is answerable to the President… All authority they have is delegated presidential power”
Wrong.
The authority of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees does not come from the President; it comes directly from Congress.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was established by an explicit federal statute, the John F. Kennedy Center Act of 1964.
In that statute, Congress explicitly vested the operational and administrative control of the facility in a Board of Trustees, not the President.
The President cannot “take back” authority that he never granted in the first place. Because the board’s power is statutory (created by law), only an Act of Congress can alter, reduce, or revoke that authority.
“ The CEO can overrule anyone or any committee aside from the board”
In both corporate and non-profit governance, a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) does not possess independent, dictatorial power.
The CEO is a subordinate officer who serves entirely at the pleasure of the Board of Directors.
A CEO can only execute policies and make major structural decisions (such as shutting down operations for two years) if that authority has been explicitly delegated to them by the board via bylaws or a formal resolution.If a CEO makes a monumental strategic shift without informing or seeking a vote from the board, they are acting ultra vires (beyond their legal power) and violating their corporate charter. The board does not just “overrule” the CEO; the CEO lacks the legal authority to take the action in the first place.
Because Congress gave the Board of Trustees the legal authority to run the Kennedy Center, the President has zero right to treat the board like a rubber stamp or shut them out of historic operational decisions.
US Constitution
Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
This has been addressed in court myriads of times since the founding.
It has been addressed during the Obama administration Trump’s first term, Bidens term and multple times in Trumps 2nd term.
Outside of a few specific constraints in the constitution Congress CAN NOT delegate executive power EXCEPT Through the President.
The primary exception is the appointments clause – Which requires the president to receive the consent of the Senate to confirm officers of the United States.
Aside from that – if Congress creates a anything within the executive branch it is automatically and irrevocably under the President.
The president can hire and fire those on boards or comittees that Congress creates within the Executive Branch as he please.
Put more simply there is nor FOURTH branch of Government.
Every single person in the US Government is either part of the legislative branch and under the direction of Congress, part of the Judiciary and under the direction of the Supreme Court, or part of the executive and under the direction of the President.
There is no such thing as an “independent agency” – there is no 4th branch. We are not governed by unelected comittees.
Congress has SOME power – within the constraints of the constitution – primarily by controlling the Budget, to constrain the president. But any positions or offices that it creates within the executive branch are under the direct or indirect control of the president – not Congress.
It is entirely irrelevant what your spin on some law is – SCOTUS has been Actively making this crystal clear for the past 4 decades. It has been doing so under Republican and Democratic presidents alike.
This is not some partisan issue.
It is a constitutional fact that you are completely wrong about.
And as noted above – Judge Cooper is in for a spanking from the appelate courts – or SCOTUS – it the Appelate courts fail to do so.
While Turley’s observations are Relevant with regard to “is this a good idea”.
This is a legal blog – and Turley has ignored the most important factor.
Judge Cooper has no jurisdiction.
The management, maintenance, renovation of almost all federal buildings is a PURELY executive function.
No provision of the constitution has been violated, and no statute that is constitutional has been violated.
Judge Coopers opinion, Turley’s opinion, your opinion, and my opinion of how this should be done is completely irrelevant – except with respect to how we choose to vote.
It is highly unlikely the Appellate courts will pay the slightest attention of most of Cooper’s 94 page ruling – it is irrelevant. The jurisdiction of the court over the executive is compliance with the constitution, and constitutional statutes.
All of the nonsense that You and Judge Cooper are ranting about – is fully within the legislative branches Oversight role – but not the judiciaries constitutional and statutory role.
Various legislative committees can hold hearings on the Kennedy Center renovations,
As tough questions, Grill members of the executive.
And if you can get 2/3 majorities in the house and senate necescary to overide a likely presidential veto they can by Statute direct the president to act according to Their prefences.
That is assuming that we are dealing with an executive power that Congress has some control over. This would likely qualify.
But the courts do not get to decide if something is a good idea or a bad one.
They do not get to decide if it is in the publics interest.
They get to review executive actions for constitutionality and statutory compliance.
That is all.
As to the merits of Judge Cooper’s opinion – aside from the fact he does not have jurisdiction.
Every single thing he is examining is Complex, with MANY factors. Like an enormous number of executive (or Corporate, or individual) decisions, There is NOT a KNOWN right answer. There may not even be an actual right answer that is known.
YOU and Cooper have addressed the fact that there are other ways to do this.
There are an infinite number of other ways to do this – which is precisely why we have an executive who is responsible to make those decisions, and we do not delegate them to courts EVER.
Even outside the context of the constitutional powers of the president. It is NOT the courts role to look at the positions of two parties in a civil case and decide whose approach is best.
In all such cases – the first question is which party by law has the power to make the decisions. The 2nd question is are their any contractual, or statutory requirements that are not being met.
Whether the approach of the party acting is the best solution is NEVER within the jurisdiction of the courts.
Individuals make choices for themselves – good ones, Bad ones. Neither you nor anyone else can get the court to preclude someone from making bad choices, only unlawful choices.
Business owners, CEOs, make choices – good ones, bad ones. Again the court only authority is whether a choice is lawful or not.
The same is true of the President and the executive branch.
Truth and logic are not allowed. Those are hallmarks of insane TDS Trump haters.l (according to the comments).
You have offered no “Truth or logic” in fact you have been egregiously untruthful – constantly calling things illegal when they CLEARLY are not, and your logic is complete garbage.
Can you provide any actual evidence that you have the slightest logical ability ?
X, so long needed construction to remodel the Kennedy center is supposed to be carried out while people roam about the building? I looked into a Kitchen remodel and the contractors insisted that I be out of the house for two weeks. You remain uninformed on purpose. I know, you do not think about what you do not think about.
Thinkitthrough, you never think things through.
The world’s largest public buildings, museums, airports, and train stations undergo massive structural overhauls every day without completely shutting down for years.
Major civic projects use phased construction—sealing off specific wings, floors, or galleries while keeping the rest of the facility safe and open to the public.Landmark structures like the U.S. Capitol, Grand Central Terminal, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art have executed massive, decade-long renovations while remaining fully operational.Assuming a massive national cultural center must treat construction like a suburban house flip is an absolute failure of scale.
That’s a far cry from your average kitchen remodel.
Apart from the fact its an opinion piece, George, you’re lying again. Geoge wants the reader to believe this is a dry, nitpicky comment.
What is factually incorrect? You don’t say and clearly you can’t.
It is factually incorrect that Judge Cooper has jurisdiction over the means by which any renovations of any federal government building are conducted.
“Judge Cooper did not ban repairs; he halted a two-year total closure of a massive national institution”
The Kennedy Center is not Massive – it is smaller than the Capital, Smaller than the smithsonian.
Nor is it a consequential national institution.
Mostly it is heavily government subsidized culture and arts for Government employees – it is mostly a Perq for those in government – not something relevant to most people.
Culture and the performing arts are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution as a legitimate federal power.
If we were following the constitution – Kennedy Center must be sold off and some billionaire or non-profit can operate it.
Kennedy Center is of zero benefit to the overwhelming majority of americans.
It is NOT a national institution.
With respect to renovations – Kennedy Center is a federal building – the authority and responsibility for maintaining it rests with the president PERIOD. There is no legal authorization needed for the president to renovate and maintain federal buildings. You are just spouting lunacy.
Absolutely Congress controls funding – but they RARELY fund specific repair and renovations.
The Budget provides each department with budgeted amounts for repairs renovations, and even new construction.
I have not heard from Cooper, you or Turley that Trump is spending money without congressional authority.
It does not matter how fast or slow Trump moved on this. As Turley noted – repairs and renovations have been planned for years – while not crtitical, that completely undermines your claim that this was rushed – not that whether it is rushed or not is within the jurisdiction of the courts.
Nor is the decision as to whether the building can be closed to the public for renovations.
Absent statute passed by congress or provisions in the constitution – that decision rests with the executive.
Contra Turley this is a stupid lawsuit and Cooper will be b***h slapped on appeal.
This is far outside his authority.
You keep talking about Trump’s actions as not legal.
Absolutely the authority to maintain, repair and renovate almost every single federal building rests with the executive – the president. If you doi not like that – change the law or constitution.
But that is not going to happen – because Congress does not want – and probably does not have the constitutional power to manage nearly all federal property – that is an executive function.
Congress controls the MONEY for federal property managment
But I have not heard a single claim that Trump is using federal money that Congress has not budgeted.
With rare exceptions Congress does not budget for the renovations of specific buildings. They leave that to the executive.
Congress probably COULD budget specifically for Kennedy Center – but again no one has claimed they have. In which case Trump is free to use budgeted renovation and repair money as he wishes.
It is not Judge Coopers job to decide what is wise, what is right or wrong. what is good or bad.
It is his job to decide what is constittutional and what is lawful.
Contra the left claims – the maintance and renovation of federal properties is by DEFAULT an execituve branch power. Trump needs no law to empower him to do this – he merely needs a federal building he beleives needes repairs and or renovations – and congressional budgeted funds.
That is it.
“that was rammed through without legal authorization.”
The legal authorization is called the constutiton – the president is the cheif executive and the renovation, repair and maintance of federal property is an executive function.
Congress has oversight powers – andf they can impose constraints by statute – they have not.
The courts have no power beyond ensuring constitutional and statutory compliance.
The only thing unusual here – is that “Kennedy Center” is a building most people have heard of – like the White House and Capital. But that does not change the constitution or the law.
The president OBVIOUSLY has the power to maintain and renovate the Social Security branch office in Kalamzoo Michigan – you would not even be arguing but for the high profile of this building.
But high profile does not alter the constitution and statute one iota.
If you do not like what Trump is doing – have congress do something, or elect a new president in 2028 and you can undo, redo or whatever else you wish – subject to the same constraints.
“The court’s injunction targets the sweeping, unauthorized shutdown of the Kennedy Center, not the concept of fixing the plumbing.”
The management of federal property is authorized by default in the constitution.
Again – what statute or constitutional provision distinguishes Kennedy Center from the SS office in Kalamazoo michigan ?
The judge is acting without jurisdiction – that is lawless and he should be impeached.
He wont, but he should. His injunction will be overturned – probably quickly.
I would note – you do not need 94 pages to say – “Article # Section # of the constitution proihibits this, or Congressional law ##-### prohibits this – that is trivially easy – not even a one page ruling.
The fact this took 94 pages is just evidence that Copper is way out of his jurisdiction.
” Pretending the judge is “anti-repair” completely distorts a ruling designed to protect public access to a national monument from a unilateral executive decree.”
Kennedy Center is not a national monument – and actual national monuments are frequently closed to the public for repairs or renovations. At any given time – there are many federal buildings, monuments and parks closed to the public for renovations. No act of congress needed.
“There is a vast legal gulf between a “scripted” meeting and a completely fraudulent one.”
Nope, there is not even the need for a meeting. Kennedy Center is a federal building.
It is within the domain of the executive – that means the president.
“The record shows that the trustees—the individuals legally burdened with fiduciary duties—learned about the total closure of the Center at the exact same time as the general public via a social media post.”
So what ? Soldiers at Fort Bragg learned of Biden’s name change at a press conference.
The national park service learned of a major national park name change at a press conference.
Trump is president – federal buildings are executive responsibility.
Absent specific law to the contrary – they are the presidents to manage as he sees fit.
The capital as an example is statutorially removed from the responsibility of the president.
Do you have a statute that shifts the oversight of Kennedy Center to the judiciary or Congress ?
As to the trustees – they are members of the executive – they are answerable to the president.
They can be fired or overruled at the discretion of the president.
We have been through this all this time last year with left wing nuts like you.
You LOST. Nor is this some Trumpian thing.
Obama fired people and won atg the Supreme court.
Biden Fired people and won at the supreme court.
There are only 3 branches of government – legislative, executive and judiciary.
Everything the Federal govenrment does MUST fall within the Domain of ONE and only ONE branch.
With extremely few exceptions – such as federal Marshall’s, the judicial branch is strictly limited to what is constitutional and what is statutorily compliant.
Not what is a good idea. Not public safety. Not assuring public access.
That you think something is or is not a god idea is irrelevant. If you want to do it your way – get elected president.
Congress has executive oversight of the executive – That means Congress – not the courts has broad powers of inquiry and limited power to overrule the president in the administration of executive functions – mostly by controlling money.
You keep using words like unlawful – for actions that are inarguably lawful.
As a libertarian – we should get rid of the Kennedy center – there is no enumerated federal power to provide arts or culture.
Regardless so long as the building is owned by the federal govenrment, the president has the ultimate authority over it.
BTW he can close it for as long as he wants – without renovating or repairing it.
“Defending this as standard corporate behavior is absurd. Turley is arguing that executive boards should act as literal rubber stamps for a president’s whims, entirely erasing the legal requirement for due diligence and prudent decision-making.”
This is not standard corporate behavior – it is standard executive behavior.
But as you wish to use a corporate model – The CEO of a company can NOT overrule their board of directors. in a Company the board of directors is the rough equivalent of Congress, the CEO is the rough equivalent of the president – there is no judiciary.
Below the CEO are myriads of managers and committees. They are answerable to the CEO.
They are not independent. There is NOTHING in the constitution that allows for the creation of any entity that is not either in the executive, judiciary or legislative branch.
There is no one in the executive branch that is not exclusively answerable to the president.
With respect to the legal requirements of “due diligence” – you once again do not know what you are talking about. I am literally in the commercial Due Diligence business.
Due Dilligence is a standard of responsibility in determining whether you can be held responsible when something goes wrong. I can be fired for not excercising proper “due Dilligence” in the projects I perform. Clients can refuse to hire me for past failures. They can sue me for ACTUAL damages should a failure of “due Dilligence” cause them harm. But there is no Judicial recourse regarding due diligence absent ACTUAL HARM.
I know this is hard for you – but courts do not rule the world.
They are limited to the constitution and the law.
“Turley complains that the opinion is “rife with digs” at Donald Trump and unfairly brings up the sudden, unannounced demolition of the White House East Wing.
The demolition of the East Wing is not a “dig”; it is critical legal context and material evidence of intent.”
Again – intent is irrelevant. I would note that the legal issues regarding the Ballroom have been resolved entirely in Trump’s favor – Cooper by citing it – for whatever reason is doing little more than proving he fails to understand the limits of his own jurisdiction.
” When an administration promises a project will “pay total respect to the existing building” and then secretly demolishes an entire historic wing of the White House “out of the blue,” a federal judge is legally obligated to weigh that pattern of behavior.”
Nope – and you LOST that case.
“The “understandable concern” noted by the judge isn’t partisan editorializing—it is a fact-based assessment of an administration with a documented track record of destroying historic public property without oversight.”:
No it is attempting to substitute his judgement for that of the President.
Cooper was not elected president – it is NOT his job to decide if constructing a WH ballroom or renovating Kennedy Center are a good idea.
He is limited to is it constitutional and is it lawful.
You do not need 94 pages to cite a statute.
Expect Cooper to again get b***h slapped for exceeding his authority on appeal.
“Turley casually notes Trump’s response to dump the Center onto the Commerce Department or Congress as merely being “sweeping and unrestrained.””
Trump can can casually or otherwise say whatever he pleases.
What matters is what he does and whether that is lawful.
Trump can not remove the Kennedy Center from executive branch responsibility.
While he can transfer buildings between agencies – he can not transfer function.
Only congress can do that.
But he can renovate the Kennedy Center – closing down as he sees fit – and Judge Cooper will be told that AGAIN on appeal.
“This is a textbook example of carrying water for authoritarian behavior.”
Because you say so ?
Whether you like it or not – Trump’s actions are within his constitutional authority.
They are within his statutory authority.
It is the courts that have repeatedly exceeded their jurisdiction – not Trump.
You are the one “carrying water” for a tyrant.
Fortunately cooper is a minor petty tyrant and he will pose little more than a speed bump.
“A sitting president threatening to unilaterally dismantle a federal agency’s jurisdiction
and throw a national cultural center to a completely different branch of government because a judge told him to follow the law is not “unrestrained”—it is an extortionate tantrum against the separation of powers. By treating this radical threat as a casual political counter-move, Turley exposes his own deep bias.”
No it is just free speech. Tyranny is an Action. As noted above – Trump can not dump the Kennedy Center on Congress – though he CAN deliberately neglect it. Nor can he move it between Cabinet responsibilities – he can move it between agencies within the same cabinet authority.
Regardless, as with all Trumps ranting and all your pi$$ing and moaning.
Trump has not DONE anything unlawful or unconstitutional – though Judge Cooper has.
Tyranny is not what you say – it is not what left wing nuts claim you intend, it is what you DO.
While Matthew 25:31–46 is a parable about the final judgement, it is also a lesson in law and logic.
It is not what you SAY that you are judged on it is what you DO.
“Turley wants the reader to believe this is a dry, nitpicky dispute about construction efficiency. In reality, it is a defense of autocracy. He openly argues that as long as a goal is deemed “efficient” (like closing a center to speed up renovations), the law, the bylaws, the fiduciary duties of the board, and the public’s right to access a national treasure simply do not matter.”
You are correct this is not about construction efficiency – courts have no jurisdiction over construction efficiency.
No this is NOT about autocracy – the constitutional responsibility for maintaining, repairing and renovating federal buildings is an executive – presidential power.
This is not about due diligence – which would be very relevant if someone is harmed as a result of this judge’s idiocy. Due Dillegence is the standard used to determine your responsibility when ACTUAL HARM has occured. The court has no role in due dilligence until there is a harm.
It is not about fiduciary duties – not even remotely. Congress decides the budget – the Kennedy Center board does not. Kennedy center spending must come from Funds specifically allocated by congress for the Kennedy Center – or from the budgetary decisions of the executive chain of authorities above the board ending with the president.
No there is no public right to access a national treassure – and the Kennedy Center is NOT a national treassure. It is just a facility providing entertainment for wealthy people. It does not belong in the federal government any more than PBS, NPR or Netflix.
John Say,
You probably were not aware but the profanity filter automatically shunts comments that contain the word bi**h. I modified that word to make it post. Avoiding the use of this word will correct the issue.
Ahhhh !!!
So the “impartial” moderator here edits and corrects the comments of his MAGA buddies so that they will post, while deleting those he disagrees with, or at least allows comments that he does not like to get rejected by the filter.
Just as I have always suspected.
The idea that this is a forum for free speech is laughable, and Turley and his minions are revealed as the hypocrites that they have always been.
The precedent has been set.
Darren is now obligated to correct all comments that are rejected by the “filter”, not just the ones from his buddies.
In the spirit of free speech I expect to see Darren correcting many more comments that get rejected by the filter, especially the ones that he does not like.
The post that Darren modified did NOT violate the standards of this board.
Thank you.
I try to avoid pi$$ing off the content filter.
But I do not always remember every word that is flagged.
John Say, you continue to be factually wrong on everything. Posting a long running response doesn’t prove you’re correct or factual.
“ The Kennedy Center is not a National Monument”
Wrong.
The John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. § 76q) explicitly designates the facility as the sole official national monument and “sole national memorial” to President John F. Kennedy in the nation’s capital. It is not a standard office space; it is a legally protected historical and cultural landmark.
“ The President has default authority over it… There is no law to the contrary”
Again, wrong.
The exact statute that overrides the President is the John F. Kennedy Center Act. In this law, Congress explicitly vested total operational, administrative, and maintenance authority in a Board of Trustees, not the President or the executive branch. By law, the board is a independent bureau.The President cannot “take back” or overrule authority that Congress explicitly granted to a statutory board by law. You know, the actual law.
“The Trustees are members of the Executive branch and answerable to the President”
The Kennedy Center Board is a bipartisan, multi-branch statutory body. Under federal law, the board is structurally shielded from unilateral executive control. It is composed of Members of the legislative branch (including three sitting U.S. Senators and three members of the House of Representatives). Ex-officio members who cannot be fired by the President.
Public trustees who serve fixed, staggered terms. The President cannot simply fire or overrule sitting members of Congress or independent trustees who are executing their statutory duties on a federal board.
“ A 94-page ruling proves the Judge had no jurisdiction”
Again. Wrong.
In complex federal administrative law, a judge is legally required under Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to provide exhaustive, detailed findings of fact and legal conclusions. A 94-page opinion does not show a lack of jurisdiction; it shows a thorough legal analysis of multiple overlapping issues, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), fiduciary duties, and constitutional separation of powers.
“ Soldiers learned of Biden’s base name changes at a press conference”
So?
This is a false equivalence. Military bases were renamed because Congress passed a law (the 2021 NDAA) ordering it, overriding a presidential veto. It was a transparent, years-long legislative process. In contrast, the total closure of the Kennedy Center was a sudden executive ambush that actively concealed the plan from the very board members legally required to vote on it, violating federal administrative procedures.
John Say, you have been consistently wrong on nearly everything.
“The John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. § 76q) explicitly designates the facility as the sole official national monument and “sole national memorial” to President John F. Kennedy in the nation’s capital. It is not a standard office space; it is a legally protected historical and cultural landmark.”
What part of what I wrote is incorrect ?
Congress can statutorily designate a pile of cow flop a national monument – that does not make it so.
John Say,
“ The Kennedy Center is not Massive – it is smaller than the Capital, Smaller than the smithsonian.
Nor is it a consequential national institution.
Mostly it is heavily government subsidized culture and arts for Government employees – it is mostly a Perq for those in government – not something relevant to most people.”
You just admitted you’re wrong.
“ Congress can statutorily designate a pile of cow flop a national monument – that does not make it so.”
Well duh. It still means Trump can’t even do that. Which is the entire point.
With respect to ALL the rest of your idiotic nonsense.
USD Constitution Article II Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
It is not like that has not been addressed on THIS BLOG, And BY SCOTUS – half a dozen times in the past year plus, and atleast a dozen more times in the 21st century.
You can rant and rave about laws, regulations, statutes, rules of procedure
They do not create a work around to the constitution.
I would note this is NOT a partisan issue.
Both Obama and Biden fired Republican members of so called independent bipartisan boards.
Republicans challenged those firings, and SCOTUS upheld them.
Congress can not place an executive power anywhere but in the executive branch, and it can not place any power in the executive branch but independent of the president.
PERIOD. FULL STOP.
Judge Cooper does not have jurisdiction. PERIOD,
and that is what will be confirmed on appeal.
Every other claim you made REQUIRES the constitution to be amended to be true.
John Say,
“ ntent is Irrelevant” vs. “It is not what you SAY, it is what you DO”
Nope.
In federal administrative law and injunction cases, intent and historical patterns of behavior are highly relevant. When a plaintiff asks a court for an emergency injunction, the judge is legally required to evaluate the likelihood of future irreparable harm. The sudden, unannounced demolition of the White House East Wing is concrete, material evidence of what this administration DOES. Citing a pattern where the executive promises “total respect” to a historic building and then immediately bulldozes a wing is the exact definition of evaluating a defendant’s actions to predict future unlawful harm.
“ “Due Diligence and Fiduciary Duties Only Apply AFTER Harm Occurs”
Total fabrication.
This is completely backward. The entire purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent the harm from happening in the first place. Under both corporate and non-profit law, a board’s Duty of Care requires them to be fully informed before making a monumental decision. Proving that the trustees learned about a two-year shutdown on social media is definitive proof that the duty of care was breached. Courts routinely step in to stop corporate or statutory actions before an irreversible disaster occurs. You do not have to let a historic building be ruined before you are allowed to sue.
“ The Ballroom Case Was Resolved in Trump’s Favor”
BS.
The litigation surrounding the secret demolition of the East Wing and the unconstitutional redirecting of public funds for a private presidential ballroom was never resolved “in Trump’s favor.” In fact, multiple federal watchdogs and congressional committees successfully established that the administration repeatedly violated the National Historic Preservation Act and bypassed statutory appropriations. The commenter claims a legal victory occurred but cannot provide a single case citation, because it does not exist.
“The President Can Close It Down as He Sees Fit”
Nope.
You completely ignore the explicit text of the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. § 76h). Congress did not write a blank check to the President. The statute explicitly mandates that the Board of Trustees shall “maintain” and “administer” the Center. Because the building’s operating authority is statutory, the President cannot unilaterally shut it down for two years by executive decree. Doing so violates the Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3), which requires the President to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress, not replace them with his own preferences.
“ You Do Not Need 94 Pages to Cite a Statute”
Wow, so ignorant.
A federal court ruling on a major constitutional separation-of-powers dispute must legally address standing, jurisdiction, statutory interpretation, injunctive standards, and administrative procedures under Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Complex constitutional law cannot be written on a post-it note. Dismissing a thorough, rigorous legal opinion because it is “too long to read” is a rhetorical white flag. This shows your lack of understanding.
It’s truly embarrassing how you make up things not in evidence and ignore the actual law. Nothing you stated is backed by facts or the actual law.
“In federal administrative law and injunction cases, intent and historical patterns of behavior are highly relevant.”
Nope – neither logical nor constitutional.
This is a stupid argument – one dispensed with THOUSANDS of years ago.
” When a plaintiff asks a court for an emergency injunction, the judge is legally required to ”
Determine if the plantif has standing – if not the case is OVER.
Both Turley and I support Broad standing – in every case or controversy SOMEONE must have standing. Standing is a valid judicial basis for preventing a SPECIFIC plaintiff from proceeding with a case. It is NOT EVER a basis to prevent the case from proceeding with a different plaintiff.
Determine if the court has Jurisdiction – if not the case is OVER.
Every other claim – accurate or NOT that you have made is dependant on the court having jurisdiction. They do not.
“The sudden, unannounced demolition of the White House East Wing is concrete, material evidence of what this administration DOES. ”
Ignoring the false spin – Trump WON regarding the WH.
There are only a few TINY differences in this case, and they do not matter.
YOU claim the administrations behavior regarding the Ballroom is relevant.
That would be Correct IF the administrations actions with the Ballroom were unlawful.
But they were not.
Therefore the court – if it actually had jurisdiction, which it does not, MUST take judicial note of exactly the OPPOSITE of what you claim.
It MUST note that the prior CONDUCT of the president was LAWFUL, and therefore the current very similar CONDUCT is presumptively LAWFUL.
BTW the standard for an injunction is that the conduct that the plantiff seek to enjoin is LAWFUL, and the plantiff MUST prove otherwise.
Further “irrepairable harm” does not mean – inconvenience.
There would be no “irrepairable harm” if Trump bulldozed the Kennedy Center and never rebuilt it.
There is no RIGHT at issue – no one has the RIGHT to attend Kennedy Center.
It did not exist prior to 1965 – were people who could not attend Kennedy Center in 1958 deprived of their rights ?
There is no constitutional right to government provided entertainment.
There is no possibility of irreparable harm – because nothing is being taken from anyone that actually belongs to them.
Irrepairable harm does NOT mean being depreived of something you wanted.
It means being deprived of something you have a RIGHT to – generally that means constitutional rights, and property.
No ones constitutional rights are being violated.
No private property is being taken
There is no possibility for “irrepairable harm”
So if you get past the fact that Cooper has no jurisdiction.
He has also failed as he has no basis for an injunction.
Again – both in the consequence of nationwide injunctions – and other injunctions,
SCOTUS has bi**h slapped lower courts for failing to understand that “irreparable harm”
is a high standard and requires the violation of an individual right in a way that can not be remedied.
There is no individual right at issue here.
No jurisdiction, No foundation for an injunction.
Reversed.
“Citing a pattern where the executive promises “total respect” to a historic building and then immediately bulldozes a wing is the exact definition of evaluating a defendant’s actions to predict future unlawful harm.”
Your off completely in the boonies.
First – you are using the Ballroom – which you LOST as an example.
To the extent that Cooper may consider the Ballroom – he must consider it as an argument AGAINST an injunction.
Tearing down the East Wing entrance and building the ballroom are CONDUCT evidence.
They are also CONDUCT evidence in favor of the president – ultimately the courts found Trump’s actions constitutional. OOPS.
With respect to What Trump “said” – no that is not relevant.
It is no more relevant than Trump saying he would impose a “muslim ban”
in 2016. Numerous left wing courts followed your idiocy and enjoined Trump’s executive order – not based on the Order itself – but idiotic claims of Trump’s intentions.
This is also True regarding Obama’s promise that you can keep your doctor or your insurance if you want to. No successfull challenge to PPACA was made on the grounds that Obama LIED – which he clearly did. The question was not what were Obama’s intentions.
But is the law constitutional – Roberts tangled himself into massive gordian self contradictory knots over that – PPACA is just plain NOT constitutional and never was.
Regardless it is failing horibly – it is expensive, it has made healthcare more expensive.
It has not positively changed ANY healthcare trends – and it likely will be gone one way or another soon enough.
Regardless, your claims regarding “intent” are complete idiocy.
If what you claimed was True – the SAME law or executive action would be lawful and constitutional done by ONE president – but not by another.
Again – even the omniscient god who knows our hearts – judges us on our actions.
Forget Religion – this is a logical observation – that wrong does not become right because of good intentions, and right does not become wrong – because of bad intentions.
In nearly EVERY instance that Voter ID laws were past in the past 30+ years – left wing nuts have alleged – and often won at lower courts because some idiot in a state assembly – said something that was deemed racist. SCOTUS still upheld ever single Voter ID law.
When an administration promises a project will “pay total respect to the existing building” and then secretly demolishes an entire historic wing of the White House “out of the blue,”
The East Wing was not historic, or of any interest to anyone, and the demolition was neither secret nor did it affect the White House. Exactly as the President promised, the new construction would not touch the existing White House building, and would respect it. He said nothing at all about the East Wing.
Millhouse, BS.
The East Wing was an indisputable historical structure central to the modern operations of the executive mansion.
It was originally constructed in 1902 during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt and expanded significantly in 1942 under Franklin D. Roosevelt.
For nearly a century, it served as the historic workspace for the first ladies of the United States—including Eleanor Roosevelt, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Nancy Reagan—and housed the White House Family Theater and the public entrance to the complex.
In July 2025, the President publicly promised that the new 90,000-square-foot ballroom project would “not interfere with” or touch the existing White House building.Administration officials initially assured the public that the East Wing “would not be touched”.
Just months later, the administration shifted positions, claiming it was “not feasible” to save the structure and proceeded with its total demolition to clear land for a $300 million venue. Which now has ballooned to $400 million and Congress wants to add $1 billion of YOUR money to it after Trump promised it would be privately funded only.
“The East Wing was an indisputable historical structure “
George Svelaz X: Your AI reply doesn’t deal with the nuances.
The executive residence is the only part of the White House that can be said to have “sacred” historical value. The east and west wings were built in modern times. The residence itself was gutted approximately at the same time, and remember, Richard Nixon’s swimming pool was removed. Apparently you believe that anything Trump does that the left doesn’t approve is illegal: a foolish thought.
All of this dispels your theories of “*indisputable* historical structure.
Your use of AI doesn’t make you appear smarter. It simply proves your comprehension ability is more limited than even I thought. You don’t understand the word nuance when there is active debate. All you can do is copy, and post, but you cannot think.
Let’s see. They’re still there and they still have the name of a devout southern racist on the edifice.
Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse and Federal Building (Beckley, WV)Robert C. Byrd Federal Building (Charleston, WV)Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse (Charleston, WV)Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technologies Center (Princeton, WV). Byrd renounced his long held belief in white supremacy expecting that all his racist statements would be forgotten by his Democratic brethren. He was absolutely correct in his assessment. This judge knows that these buildings honor the name of a man who did his best while in the Senate to allow racist policies to continue in America. He hasn’t forgotten but when it comes to Trump the devil the honoring of a racist Democratic is no big deal.
He’s not the only one. Remember Biden?
Yes, in 2007, Joe Biden described Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”. The controversial comment, made while Biden was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, drew widespread scrutiny and criticism. CNN.
I guess Martin Luther King wasn’t articulate and bright and clean. Robert C. Byrd taught Joe a lot.
Have you heard of Stephen Petro?
Trump putting his name on the Kennedy Center was an abomination and anyone that doesn’t think so is just as bad as the TDS crowd.
Having said the above, this judge’s asides and unnecessary commentary is so far out of bounds for a judicial decision as to be appealable on it’s face.
Democrats really do like the ugly, the useless and the downward spiral of society and the fact that the Center was in such a state of disrepair and the fight to stop the cleaning of the reflecting pool, as well as the riots that liberals support destroying entire cities are proof of it.
“The judge’s commentary is so far out of bounds as to be appealable on its face”
Really? Are you sure?
The judge’s commentary is standard legal analysis under federal injunction rules, not a rogue political attack.
To grant an emergency injunction to stop the Kennedy Center’s closure, a federal judge is legally required to evaluate the “likelihood of irreparable harm” and the history of the parties involved.
Pointing to the recent, unannounced demolition of the White House East Wing is not an “aside.” It is highly material evidence showing a pattern of behavior by the administration. It directly proves why the plaintiffs had a legitimate, fact-based fear that the Kennedy Center was at risk of sudden destruction before a full trial could take place.
An appellate court will never overturn a ruling simply because a judge cited real-world evidence of an administration’s past actions.
Btw, No one fought to “stop the cleaning” of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool; the litigation was about a $2.6 billion construction project that completely restricted public access.
“ Riots that liberals support destroying entire cities”
This is a wild rhetorical pivot into tribal political grievance that has absolutely zero relevance to a federal administrative law case.
The litigation regarding the Kennedy Center was filed by legal watchdogs and a bipartisan coalition of 35 retired federal judges—not “rioters.”
Bringing up civil unrest in American cities to justify why an administration should be allowed to ignore federal bylaws and strip a board of its fiduciary duties is pure cognitive dissonance. It is an emotional attempt to excuse executive overreach by demonizing the Democrats.
SMH.
X – we have already address – Judge Cooper has no jurisdiction. PERIOD.
SCOTUS has addressed this repeatedly and recently.
After that the case dies.
But even your irreparable harm claim – Trivially fails.
And SCTOUS has addressed that repeatedly and recently.
Irreparable harm requires infringement on a right. There is no infringement on any right here.
Further it requires an infringement that can not be corrected in the future.
Infringing on free speech is pretty much always uncorrectable.
Infringing on property rights – is pretty much always correctable in the future and therefore not irreparable.
You rant about irreparable harm – but there is no irreparable harm.
There is absolutely nothing Trump can do to Kennedy Center that can not be undone by a future president or by a Court Order – if ACTUAL HARM is subsequently found.
irreparable harm means likely ACTUAL HARM that can not be fixed later.
You do not have that.
Even the name change – which I find offensive, but likely within the presidents powers,
can be changed – by a future president, congress, or the courts LATER.
And a name change can NEVER be irreparable harm.
with respect to the rest of your and coopers nonsense.
I have no idea what the actual state of Kennedy Center is.
But there is a record of seeking repairs and renovations for many years.
The need for repairs or renovations – is ALWAYS outside the domain of the courts.
The question then becomes how to accomplish them.
Your rant about votes – is irrelevant.
If repairs and or renovations are needed – it is irrelevant whether Trump ordered them, the board voted on them or some combination.
The president has the power to say NO to them. The president has the power to say YES to them
Her can rubber stamp the board, or override the board.
With great difficulty – Congress can overide either the board or the president.
The courts have no role.
Courts decide the lawfulness and constitutionality of an action – NOT the merits.
But back to the renovations – the HOW of going about them is NOT the business of the courts.
This is no different from the courts deciding the color of the walls or the style of door knobs to use.
SOMEONE must decide ALL those and many more things.
Constitutionally – that is THE PRESIDENT.
Normally president delegate that to subordinates. But they are not and can not be required to.
No where in the constitution are courts given authority over the color of paint or the style of door knobs.
Door knobs and paint are the SAME ISSUE just on a smaller scale. If you do not have power over door knobs – you do not have power over construction materials, time line, renovation methods, or whether to renovate at all. Conversely if you DO have the power to decide to renovate – you have the power to decide all the smaller things if you wish.
No matter how this proceeds – there is no irreparable harm.
There is no irreparable harm to Trump proceeding.
There is no irreparable harm to stopping him.
But the standard for injunctions is that the actor must be allowed to proceed absent irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.
No one is harmed if Kennedy Center is closed for two years – there is no right to attend an event at kennedy center.
If there was no one would ever be able to renovate any public building.
“Trump putting his name on the Kennedy Center was an abomination”
Not an abomination – but definitely egotistical – and a political mistake.
That is the ONE part of Trump’s actions that MIGHT prove legally problematic.
It certainly will not be well received by courts.
There is a legal question – because Congress created the Kennedy
Center – does that preclude Trump renaming it.
Personally I do not think it does. But I would not rant that the court got it wrong if they decide it did.
President do clearly have the authority to name things.
Naming the building after himself – is like a president pardoning themselves – probably constitutional,
but still offensive.
I do not care about the judges commentary – that is just likely to aide in getting the decision overturned.
The big deal is the courts do not have jurisdiction.
John Say,
A president can only name things if Congress explicitly delegates that authority to the executive branch. In the case of the Kennedy Center, Congress did the exact opposite.Congress passed the John F. Kennedy Center Act of 1964 (20 U.S.C. § 76q), which explicitly designated the building as a national monument named solely to honor President John F. Kennedy. Because a standing federal statute encodes the name, a president cannot unilaterally change or append names to it. The president is required to execute the laws, not rewrite them.
Federal courts have absolute and unquestionable federal question jurisdiction over violations of federal statutes and administrative law.
After the surge of Democrats forcing the renaming of college buildings, changing a bazillion street names to “Martin Luther King Boulevard”, etc., I’m not particularly impressed with the Democrats’ claims. On the other hand, I personally think Trump’s ego is out of place if he had to stick his imprimatur on the Kennedy Center.
Democrats like their ruined building, homeless, illegals, etc
weird how a Conservative Judge can’t just jail all the democrats helping illegal invaders?
Next Democrats will FORCE Trump to deface the monuments of DC and return the homeless there
Ignore the judge…let the supreme court decide.
While I support Trump in most ways, I surely do wish he would not name things after himself. Had he called the ballroom after Thomas Jefferson, or another founding farther, there would be little controversy.
If DT announces plans to name the stupid ballroom after Thomas Jefferson, lefties will freak out and call our erstwhile President a white patriarch slave owner. I think that Mr. Jefferson and others have been maligned in this regard. Further, I think that some leftists should grow brains.
The ghost of Thomas Jefferson is said to haunt the Yellow Oval Room. Can’t say that I blame him.
gda – there would be controversy no matter what.
Both the Ballroom and the Kennedy center are perfect examples.
No Trump should not be naming things in government after himself.
But he does have the power to do so.
Regardless it is bad politics.
But beyond that – the Ballroom and the Kennedy Center are very small potatoes – and here we are debating them.
And not just debating them – but having political holy wars tying up the courts.
There is ZERO DOUBT that Kennedy Center will eventually be renovated.
This entire court case is not about Renovating Kennedy Center – it is about Trump renovating Kennedy Center. That is a personal affront to the left. Nothing Trump does can be allowed to stand.
If Trump rescued a child from a burning building – the left would sue to require the child be returned to the burning building to die.
Trump wants to demolish the Kennedy Center, and he won’t provide advanced warning.
Then why did he “I have instructed the Department of Commerce to make all necessary arrangements with Congress to allow a full and complete transfer of this Institution, giving them the responsibility for its Operation, Maintenance, and Management. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
That makes zero sense. The management structure of the Kennedy Center is set is law. Trump can’t give it to Congress just because he does not get what he wants.
That portion of the law is unconstitutional.
Nor is that NEW.
These “bipartisan independent boards” usurping executive power are NOT anywhere in the constitution.
We have 3 branches of government – legislative, executive and judicial.
There is no 4th 5th 6th … branch.
The constitution UNEQUIVOCALLY says that all executive power is vested in the president.
PERIOD. For DECADES presidents have challenged various congressional statutes limiting their ability to hire/fire or otherwise direct the entirety of the executive branch.
Obama challenged those laws, Trump 45 challenged them, Biden Challenged them Trump 47 Challenged them.
Universally The president WON.
This is NOT a partisan issue.
No part of the executive branch is or can be “independent” of the president.
If you do not like that – amend the constitution.
But that is highly unlikely to ever happen.
While Congress LIKES to create these faux independent commissions – they are a stupid and bad idea.
The president is answerable to congress – that is what oversight and impeachment are for.
He is answerable to the people – that is what elections are for.
He is answerable to the courts ONLY with respect to the lawfulness and constitutionality of his actions.
No one REALLY wants random unelected committees, that are not clearly answerable to anyone.
You can not run a government that way.
This is the perfect example – even Judge Cooper has ultimately accepted that the Kennedy Center needed renovated. He is just seeking the judicial power to micromanage how it is done himself.
But no one elected him. Nor does his judicial appointment grant him the slightest executive power.
I’d like to see this monument to the egos of Washington elites removed from government subsidy and control and privatized.
It’s NOT the role of our government of laws to spend like this. Let it operate on capitalist footings.
So What ?
What RIGHT of yours has been infringed on ?
Does Trump need to provide you notice every time he takes a crap ?
In the immortal words of Susan Wild at the GW Law graduation: “Do what you know is right, and let the law catch up to you.” Ignore the judge like any good Dem would do. . .
The judge says “comprised of members who may not be well schooled in the subject matter before them.”
So I guess that means the judge is well schooled on the subject matter of construction and renovations?
I would say that the one thing we ALL know that Trump actually knows something about is building,
but left wing nuts will dispute even that.
Come On Man! That’s why we have Black Robe Illuminati, right? Only they have the Oracle type wisdom for All-Knowing or EVERYTHING!! Whew, what would we do with these legal geniuses that can see deep into the future like Nostradamus with the Historical Wisdom of Solomon to ensure all of the Peasantry and Great Unwashed Swine are herded like moronic sheep into a direction ONLY THEY CAN UNDERSTAND! Oh wait, we never agreed to have a legal half-wit rule over us nor did we vote for these Black Robe Scumbags.
If Biden tried it, you conservatives, ie. judges, would respond the same way.
Legal geniuses? I’ll take that to mean you have zero legal training, or experience.
It’s pretty clear that we have reached a point where legal training and the rule of law are irrelevant.
Right, Democrats never make anything better. Any Biden claim for renovation would be prima facie fraudulent.
care to cite an example of a “conservative” judge stopping democrats
Shouldn’t it be a CASE….where we don’t know the JUDGES politics?
But Biden did not try it. He did not try to repair the Kennedy center. He did not try to clean up and repaid the reflecting pool. He did not try to Clean up Columbus Circle and repair the fountain.
Trump did.
What Biden did do was let millions of violent criminal illegals in.
Correct – but Biden did take executive actions in domains that were purportedly “bipartisan independent commissions” – and the Courts upheld his actions.
This is a loser case – Judge Cooper is well outside precident and constitution.
He does not have jurisdiction.
“ This is a loser case – Judge Cooper is well outside precident and constitution.
He does not have jurisdiction.”
Still wrong. Judge Cooper has absolute jurisdiction. It’s a federal case. You have not shown any evidence or cited anything to support your claim. Just saying so does not make any of your claim true.
No they would not. Biden fired republicans on a purportedly independent bipartisan board – and SCOTUS upheld that. As did Trump 45 and Obama.
This is settled law.
Sigh.
And.Here.We.Go. —–