Somehow I think if we want to have the entire line of succession to the government in one place that there is a vested interest in hosting the event someplace that's more secure than a hotel.

Perhaps the entire line of succession to the government shouldn't all go to the same party if it's not being hosted in a government building.

It's a private event, hosted by a private party. It's never going to be held on WH grounds, so it doesn't matter if there's a new ballroom on WH grounds or not. Nor is there any evidence that a more secure ballroom on WH grounds is necessary. If you have an event at a hotel, then you can't control who has access to the overall property (like hotel guests) or whether they bring firearms on property - but with the actual WH, you do have that control.

The anti-ballroom lawsuits were always silly, and in light of Saturday they look even worse.

They're not silly. The President doesn't have the power to decide to build buildings on government property without Congressional approval. It's a core question of authority under the Constitution.

Nothing that happened on Saturday affects that, because - again - the President constantly has to attend functions and events that are off White House property, and functions and events on White House property were already completely safe from these kinds of threats because they are in a much more controlled and secured environment. Completely unrelated.