A Justice Department lawyer astonished onlookers by arguing in federal court that the Trump administration could "bulldoze" the Statue of Liberty if they moved too quickly to be stopped.
The lawyer appeared Friday morning for oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit over President Donald Trump's controversial White House ballroom project, which is under construction on the site of East Wing he ordered demolished last year without warning, and Judge Patricia Millett pressed the attorney on the matter.
"If the government decides very quickly to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors — that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the govt moved too fast — nothing can be done?" she asked, according to Politico's Kyle Cheney, who was in the courtroom.
"I think that's right, yes," agreed the attorney, who was not identified by the reporter.
The courtroom exchange stunned social media users.
"They’re out of their minds," marveled Fox News contributor Jessica Tarlov.
"There is nothing left of the Justice Department I worked at," lamented former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance.
"We voted to make him God Emperor of the United States," quipped HuffPost's S.V. Dáte.
"I honestly thought this was a joke," offered The Bulwark's Cathy Young.
"The Trump Admin talking about bulldozing the Statue of Liberty … sick, sick stuff," muttered California Gov. Gavin Newsom's official account.
"Feels like we should have the 'You Can't Just Bulldoze the Statue of Liberty Act' introduced and passed rather quickly now, right Congress?" suggested political strategist Thomas C. Bowen.
"I don't think this is going to help the DOJ," commented attorney Kevin Baum.
"Under Lujan itself, the lawyer’s answer is almost certainly wrong," opined law professor Michael Morley. "A tourist, or even better an art or architecture specialist, who had bought a ticket to fly to New York at a particular time to go look at or study the statue would almost certainly have standing to challenge its destruction. The destruction of the statute would be a tragedy and should absolutely never occur and there should be some way to stop it. It’s not clear that aesthetic injury *should* be sufficient to satisfy article III? Standing doesn’t even seem to be the biggest hurdle under currently doctrine here? I’m not sure who would have a cause of action to challenge the destruction?"
