Truly this is trivial — compared to all his other criminality. And, in any event, perhaps it is good (relatively speaking) to let this reprobate waste his days obsessing over gold leaf in a new ballroom, rather than waging wars of choice and vastly destructive (to ordinary Americans) trade wars with Canada.

Perhaps that is what the Chief now thinks. But it is clear that the other five are wrong: only Congress has this power.

As soon as a plaintiff appears with standing (like a taxpayer, in a new suit) this will all end.

But do read this: Amy Howe — over at ScotusBlog has it exactly right:

…In his six-page dissent, which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, Roberts countered that “[a] historic preservationist such as Hoagland can be aesthetically injured in a concrete, particularized way by the transformation of a historic building that she frequently enjoys, just as,” based on prior court precedent, “an environmentalist can sustain a concrete, particularized aesthetic injury from the extinction of a particular animal or the transformation of a particular forest or river that he regularly enjoys.” Roberts ended the opinion by quoting Winston Churchill, who said that “[w]e shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.” “All the more reason,” according to Roberts, “to ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House….”

Now you know… with an exciting week ahead. Smile.

नमस्ते