DC and Virginia are the latest to sue to block Trump's horrible arch proposal near the entrance to Arlington Cemetery. It's gross, and for those of you who have ever been to Arlington, it would be even worse.

But obviously disgust is not a legal argument. The questions hinge on standing, and who has it as individuals or as governments. Individuals almost always fail over standing regarding government spending and projects without a direct impact, such as a "taking."

The arguments by DC and Virginia seem rational and might stick. I hope so. (The property is actually within DC's border. I had not realized until this controversy that a tiny piece of DC was left across the river.)

The arguments in favor of the arch are so lame, and the judge who reviewed an active case couldn't believe some of what the administration argued, such as the arch would help prevent assassination attempts on the POTUS. And how exactly would it do that?