The Supreme Court has ruled that the White House’s East Wing conversion into a ballroom and an uprated secure facility can proceed. The majority (a 5-4 decision) said, in part, that the single individual the plaintiffs had trotted out, a woman whose aesthetic sense was being offended because she heavily favored the original architecture of the White House over the new architecture created by the East Wing conversion, was insufficient to stop the conversion.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in dissent, disagreed with that. He wrote, regarding this aspect of the matter, that

one of the group’s [National Trust for Historic Preservation, the main plaintiff] members is “deeply committed” to the preservation of historic American buildings.
“The White House is an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture,” he wrote.
Preservationists can be “aesthetically injured” in a way that gives them standing to sue, just as environmentalists can have standing to sue over the destruction of wildlife, Roberts wrote….

Aesthetics—personal taste—can be a source of material injury? Really?

I have questions, then.

Personal taste can be used to stop projects? What about the personal tastes of those who favor the project? What about the personal tastes of those whose aesthetic sense leads them to not care about the progress? On what basis does Roberts determine the minority should reign over the majority?

Roberts’ position is so fatuous it’s hard to believe he gave any thought at all to the matter.