US federal judge rules that Trump's acting Department of Homeland Security chief Chad Wolf was unlawfully appointed, invalidates DACA suspension

[Lesh]

With all the wordy unreadable ad hominems I can't tell who is arguing what.

No...executive orders are not "law" that cannot be over turned. They exist passed the term of the President who issued them but only until they are negated by another Executive order. Additionally The Sec of DHS could issue a ruling affecting them IF he is the duly appointed Secretary. Wolf is not that...which is the point here

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Judge Rules DHS Head Didn't Have Authority To Suspend DACA

A judge found that Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf assumed his position unlawfully.

www.huffpost.com

Turns out the idiots in the Trump Admin are too stupid to know the rules of how Cabinet appointments are made. Wolf's appointment was illegal and every ruling he made was as well

Maybe the judge will realize he can't create laws that state a Presidential EO cannot be struck down by the incoming president

 

[bigrebnc1775]

With all the wordy unreadable ad hominems I can't tell who is arguing what.

No...executive orders are not "law" that cannot be over turned. They exist passed the term of the President who issued them but only until they are negated by another Executive order. Additionally The Sec of DHS could issue a ruling affecting them IF he is the duly appointed Secretary. Wolf is not that...which is the point here

Trump wrote an EO resending obama's daca eo

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.

That statement is loaded with ignorance. It is simply false. If your dumb ass wants to defend that load of shit that established that alleged precedent you claim, present a link to that Earth shattering, Constitution destroying case.

Such a precedent would allow a President to rewrite the entire Constitution, if he/she wanted to! Didn't think that far ahead did ya, shit for brains! A president would not be bound to any law but his own internal restraints!

Hey look, it’s the grouchy old ****, back from changing his diapers here to spread Christmas cheer.
Hey fuckface, clearly you get a raging Hardon when you see my screen name as you grab your walker and do double time over to the computer to respond.
as usual, your premise of “Such a precedent would allow a President to rewrite the entire Constitution, if he/she wanted to!” Is completely nonsensical. Your such a hamfisted retard, pounding shit out that I’m not even sure what you are talking about.

For clarity, what I was referring to was that for some reason, courts ruled against Trump rolling back, cancelling out, and undoing previous Obama executive orders. That’s absolute bullshit. One president absolutely can do this. The next president, Biden I’m assuming, would be totally within his right to reverse any Trump executive order.

First, your dumb ass claims the following;

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.

That statement directly above of yours is declarative stating a power exists that no POTUS has ever had, and would be unconstitutional on its face. When called on your stupidity, you wrote this rambling piece of garbage contradicting what you initially claimed:

For clarity, what I was referring to was that for some reason, courts ruled against Trump rolling back, cancelling out, and undoing previous Obama executive orders. That’s absolute bullshit. One president absolutely can do this. The next president, Biden I’m assuming, would be totally within his right to reverse any Trump executive order.

What you termed as "nonsensical" is what you contradictorily wrote, fool! You're just trying to cover your ignorance kid and seeking cover with a lie. You reverse that initial claim "For clarity" as you state but actually to cover your bare ass from critiques displaying your blatant stupidity and ignorance.

BTW, your ad hominem is at the third grade level, at best, and displays your lack of development when used as an initial shield for you lagging maturity and insecurities.

So is it your argument that a president cannot resend another president's EO?

 

[Lesh]

Trump wrote an EO resending obama's daca eo

The SCOTUS ruled that the rescinding was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Wolf tried to use internal DHS rulings as a workaround but since Trump stupidly appointed an acting DHS head improperly...that failed

 

[Beef_Supreme]

I’ll try one last time....

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.

That statement is loaded with ignorance. It is simply false. If your dumb ass wants to defend that load of shit that established that alleged precedent you claim, present a link to that Earth shattering, Constitution destroying case.

Such a precedent would allow a President to rewrite the entire Constitution, if he/she wanted to! Didn't think that far ahead did ya, shit for brains! A president would not be bound to any law but his own internal restraints!

Hey look, it’s the grouchy old ****, back from changing his diapers here to spread Christmas cheer.
Hey fuckface, clearly you get a raging Hardon when you see my screen name as you grab your walker and do double time over to the computer to respond.
as usual, your premise of “Such a precedent would allow a President to rewrite the entire Constitution, if he/she wanted to!” Is completely nonsensical. Your such a hamfisted retard, pounding shit out that I’m not even sure what you are talking about.

For clarity, what I was referring to was that for some reason, courts ruled against Trump rolling back, cancelling out, and undoing previous Obama executive orders. That’s absolute bullshit. One president absolutely can do this. The next president, Biden I’m assuming, would be totally within his right to reverse any Trump executive order.

First, your dumb ass claims the following;

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.

That statement directly above of yours is declarative stating a power exists that no POTUS has ever had, and would be unconstitutional on its face. When called on your stupidity, you wrote this rambling piece of garbage contradicting what you initially claimed:

For clarity, what I was referring to was that for some reason, courts ruled against Trump rolling back, cancelling out, and undoing previous Obama executive orders. That’s absolute bullshit. One president absolutely can do this. The next president, Biden I’m assuming, would be totally within his right to reverse any Trump executive order.

What you termed as "nonsensical" is what you contradictorily wrote, fool! You're just trying to cover your ignorance kid and seeking cover with a lie. You reverse that initial claim "For clarity" as you state but actually to cover your bare ass from critiques displaying your blatant stupidity and ignorance.

BTW, your ad hominem is at the third grade level, at best, and displays your lack of development when used as an initial shield for you lagging maturity and insecurities.

I honestly can’t even tolerate reading anything you write. You’re an obnoxious windbag. I’m sure if you come across in real life the way you do on the net, your old ass has been slapped around on more than one occasion.
Do yourself a favor, don’t bother replying to me anymore. You’re so fucking annoying you may be one of the first people I’ve ever used the ignore function on.

I honestly can’t even tolerate reading anything you write. You’re an obnoxious windbag. I’m sure if you come across in real life the way you do on the net, your old ass has been slapped around on more than one occasion.
Do yourself a favor, don’t bother replying to me anymore. You’re so fucking annoying you may be one of the first people I’ve ever used the ignore function on.

Above is a prime example of that which..."displays your lack of development when used as an initial shield for you lagging maturity and insecurities." If you continue to post stupid shit that is blatantly false, expect me and others to point it out, dumb ass! Using the ignore feature to block some one is what a fucking coward would do... part of those maturity and insecurities thingy's I mentioned earlier. But then you are immature and insecure, aren't you.

And I note that once again you avoided even touching on the actual topic, and went directly to the ad hominem. You should get over that for your own sake so you could grow and mature. Hey, it was your error in your post that initially encouraged me to respond to see who the Hell could be so damn stupid to claim a President's Executive Actions were
inviolate, and here is exactly what you wrote;

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.

That statement reeks of ignorance! And your coverup explanation does the same with the added benefit of coloring the water with the taint of a lie! Pitiful!

I’ll try one last time to actually communicate with you.
My post was in regards to the courts telling a president he couldn’t cancel out or reverse a prior presidents executive action. That’s nonsense. That was literally all I was referencing in my original post, and then you went full retard.
What is it you have a problem with?
Tell me, is a president’s executive actions binding on future presidents?
Can I president not cancel a prior executive order?
Is a prior Congress’ laws binding on future congresses, or can they rewrite them, revoke them, etc?

I merely pointed out something that the courts seem to have asserted.... and off you went like a raving lunatic.

Gods honest truth, I don’t even know what you are debating and what you have taken issue with in your posts. They are nonsensical.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

With all the wordy unreadable ad hominems I can't tell who is arguing what.

No...executive orders are not "law" that cannot be over turned. They exist passed the term of the President who issued them but only until they are negated by another Executive order. Additionally The Sec of DHS could issue a ruling affecting them IF he is the duly appointed Secretary. Wolf is not that...which is the point here

That is exactly what I was saying!!!
I was merely referencing that the courts told trump he had to follow Obama’s executive order. I mentioned it because it was in reference to the same department and issues.
Then this freaking clown up here went on a rant about god knows what. You seem to get it clearly, when you said “No...executive orders are not "law" that cannot be over turned. They exist passed the term of the President who issued them but only until they are negated by another Executive order. Additionally The Sec of DHS could issue a ruling affecting them IF he is the duly appointed Secretary”.
Gods honest truth, every time this guy pops up in random threads and argues with me, I don’t understand what he is even arguing about.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.

That statement is loaded with ignorance. It is simply false. If your dumb ass wants to defend that load of shit that established that alleged precedent you claim, present a link to that Earth shattering, Constitution destroying case.

Such a precedent would allow a President to rewrite the entire Constitution, if he/she wanted to! Didn't think that far ahead did ya, shit for brains! A president would not be bound to any law but his own internal restraints!

Hey look, it’s the grouchy old ****, back from changing his diapers here to spread Christmas cheer.
Hey fuckface, clearly you get a raging Hardon when you see my screen name as you grab your walker and do double time over to the computer to respond.
as usual, your premise of “Such a precedent would allow a President to rewrite the entire Constitution, if he/she wanted to!” Is completely nonsensical. Your such a hamfisted retard, pounding shit out that I’m not even sure what you are talking about.

For clarity, what I was referring to was that for some reason, courts ruled against Trump rolling back, cancelling out, and undoing previous Obama executive orders. That’s absolute bullshit. One president absolutely can do this. The next president, Biden I’m assuming, would be totally within his right to reverse any Trump executive order.

First, your dumb ass claims the following;

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.

That statement directly above of yours is declarative stating a power exists that no POTUS has ever had, and would be unconstitutional on its face. When called on your stupidity, you wrote this rambling piece of garbage contradicting what you initially claimed:

For clarity, what I was referring to was that for some reason, courts ruled against Trump rolling back, cancelling out, and undoing previous Obama executive orders. That’s absolute bullshit. One president absolutely can do this. The next president, Biden I’m assuming, would be totally within his right to reverse any Trump executive order.

What you termed as "nonsensical" is what you contradictorily wrote, fool! You're just trying to cover your ignorance kid and seeking cover with a lie. You reverse that initial claim "For clarity" as you state but actually to cover your bare ass from critiques displaying your blatant stupidity and ignorance.

BTW, your ad hominem is at the third grade level, at best, and displays your lack of development when used as an initial shield for you lagging maturity and insecurities.

So is it your argument that a president cannot resend another president's EO?

Good luck getting a coherent answer.
What you just said is what I was initially bringing up... that the courts said Trump must obey Obama’s executive order and couldn’t counteract it.
Then this dude showed up and went off.
Maybe it’s just me, but can you read his posts and understand what he is talking about? What is his point, what is he arguing for or against?

 

[Lesh]

Maybe it’s just me, but can you read his posts and understand what he is talking about?

Nope

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Trump wrote an EO resending obama's daca eo

The SCOTUS ruled that the rescinding was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Wolf tried to use internal DHS rulings as a workaround but since Trump stupidly appointed an acting DHS head improperly...that failed

I'm pretty sure the current supreme court would rule differently
But hell daca is illegal to begin with
By the way what was arbitrary and capricious about what the President did?

A judge may rule that decisions are “arbitrary and capricious” for several reasons including:

• There was a clear error of judgment.
• Or, there was an absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.
• As well as the action was not based upon consideration of relevant factors.
• Additionally there may be an abuse of discretion.

Arbitrary And Capricious Decision - TSGLI Lawyers | TSGLI Application | TSGLI Claim

 

[Lesh]

Trump wrote an EO resending obama's daca eo

The SCOTUS ruled that the rescinding was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Wolf tried to use internal DHS rulings as a workaround but since Trump stupidly appointed an acting DHS head improperly...that failed

I'm pretty sure the current supreme court would rule differently
But hell daca is illegal to begin with
By the way what was arbitrary and capricious about what the President did?

A judge may rule that decisions are “arbitrary and capricious” for several reasons including:

• There was a clear error of judgment.
• Or, there was an absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.
• As well as the action was not based upon consideration of relevant factors.
• Additionally there may be an abuse of discretion.

Arbitrary And Capricious Decision - TSGLI Lawyers | TSGLI Application | TSGLI Claim

In administrative law, a government agency's resolution of a question of fact, when decided pursuant to an informal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), is reviewed on the arbitrary and capricious standard. Arbitrary and capricious is a legal ruling where in an appellate court determines that a previous ruling is invalid because it was made on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of circumstances. This is an extremely deferential standard.

Substantial evidence[edit]
A finding of fact made by a jury or an administrative agency in the context of APA adjudication or formal rulemaking will be normally upheld on appeal unless it is unsupported by "substantial evidence." This means something "more than a mere scintilla" of evidence.[1] It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."[1] Under the "substantial evidence" standard, appellate review extends to whether there is any relevant evidence in the record which reasonably supports every material fact (that is, material in the sense of establishing an essential element of a claim or defense). Appellate courts will not reverse such findings of fact unless they have no reasonable basis in the evidence submitted by the parties. In other words, they will not reverse unless no one submitted any testimony, documentation, or other evidence which directly or indirectly (i.e., through reasonable inferences) supports a material fact, thereby implying that the finder of fact must have engaged in impermissible speculation with no reasonable basis in order to reach a verdict. If the parties presented conflicting evidence, appellate courts applying a "substantial evidence" standard assume that the jury or administrative agency resolved the conflict in favor of the prevailing party, and in turn, appellate courts must defer to such implicit findings about which side's witnesses or documents were more believable, even if they suspect they might have ruled differently if hearing the evidence themselves in the first instance. This is a highly deferential standard.

Clearly erroneous[edit]
Under the "clearly erroneous" standard, where a trial court (as opposed to a jury or administrative agency) makes a finding of fact, such as in a bench trial, that finding will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed" by that court.[2] For example, if a court finds, based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, that a defendant broke a window by throwing a 30-pound rock over 100 feet, the appeals court might reverse that factual finding based on uncontradicted expert testimony (also presented to the lower court) stating that such a feat is impossible for most people. In such a case, the appeals court might find that, although there was evidence to support the lower court's finding, the evidence taken as a whole—including the eyewitness and the expert testimony—leaves the appellate court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed by the Court below.

 

[22lcidw]

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.
You like the way that rulings went, so you’ll stay quiet. You don’t have the integrity to admit “yeah I liked the outcome, but the ruling was total bullshit and unconstitutional”.

Lower court Repub Judges need to up the game with Progressive Socialist EO's. We don't see that to often.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.

That statement is loaded with ignorance. It is simply false. If your dumb ass wants to defend that load of shit that established that alleged precedent you claim, present a link to that Earth shattering, Constitution destroying case.

Such a precedent would allow a President to rewrite the entire Constitution, if he/she wanted to! Didn't think that far ahead did ya, shit for brains! A president would not be bound to any law but his own internal restraints!

Hey look, it’s the grouchy old ****, back from changing his diapers here to spread Christmas cheer.
Hey fuckface, clearly you get a raging Hardon when you see my screen name as you grab your walker and do double time over to the computer to respond.
as usual, your premise of “Such a precedent would allow a President to rewrite the entire Constitution, if he/she wanted to!” Is completely nonsensical. Your such a hamfisted retard, pounding shit out that I’m not even sure what you are talking about.

For clarity, what I was referring to was that for some reason, courts ruled against Trump rolling back, cancelling out, and undoing previous Obama executive orders. That’s absolute bullshit. One president absolutely can do this. The next president, Biden I’m assuming, would be totally within his right to reverse any Trump executive order.

First, your dumb ass claims the following;

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.

That statement directly above of yours is declarative stating a power exists that no POTUS has ever had, and would be unconstitutional on its face. When called on your stupidity, you wrote this rambling piece of garbage contradicting what you initially claimed:

For clarity, what I was referring to was that for some reason, courts ruled against Trump rolling back, cancelling out, and undoing previous Obama executive orders. That’s absolute bullshit. One president absolutely can do this. The next president, Biden I’m assuming, would be totally within his right to reverse any Trump executive order.

What you termed as "nonsensical" is what you contradictorily wrote, fool! You're just trying to cover your ignorance kid and seeking cover with a lie. You reverse that initial claim "For clarity" as you state but actually to cover your bare ass from critiques displaying your blatant stupidity and ignorance.

BTW, your ad hominem is at the third grade level, at best, and displays your lack of development when used as an initial shield for you lagging maturity and insecurities.

So is it your argument that a president cannot resend another president's EO?

So is it your argument that a president cannot resend another president's EO?

Read this cited sentence directly below VERY carefully.

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.

My response to that claim was that it was BULLSHIT, FALSE, INCORRECT! Future Presidents are not bound TO THE LETTER OF AN EARLIER EXECUTIVE ACTION. A later President can alter, edit or RESCIND something such as an E. O. just as Trump did to Obama's DACA E.O. Nothing I wrote can be construed counter to that! Beef_Supreme displayed he was full of shit when he wrote that sentence above when he claimed "...one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc." So to answer your question, NO, Beef_Supreme was the one that made the supercilious statement based on his ignorance of the facts.

Go to this site below if you care and peruse the E.O.'s and see how often they are edited or just outright revoked.
~~ Executive Orders ~~

 

[Lesh]

Beef_Supreme displayed he was full of shit when he wrote that sentence above when he claimed "...one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc."

I don't believe he said that and if he did he has since corrected it.

Keep up

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Beef_Supreme displayed he was full of shit when he wrote that sentence above when he claimed "...one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc."

I don't believe he said that and if he did he has since corrected it.

Keep up

He wrote it in his post #2 following your OP! Perhaps you should be the one to keep up instead getting into something you haven't thoroughly grounded yourself with the ENTIRE litany of facts of the exchange between myself and the other "person". You might want to do due diligence FIRST and get up to speed if you reply!

 

[Claudette]

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.
You like the way that rulings went, so you’ll stay quiet. You don’t have the integrity to admit “yeah I liked the outcome, but the ruling was total bullshit and unconstitutional”.

I agree since Obama sure didn't have the power to bring those kids from South America to the US so we tax payers could support their asses. He broke the law and he knew it when he did it.

He wrote a completely illegal EO to do so. The SC should kick every one of these DACA people right back to South America

 

[wamose]

This is the type of bullshit ruling that makes it imperative to have more constitutional (Republican appointed) judges. Democrats appoint judges solely on political criteria. That's why they hate Republican apointees so much. Democrats are afraid of our constitution.

 

[Lesh]

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.
You like the way that rulings went, so you’ll stay quiet. You don’t have the integrity to admit “yeah I liked the outcome, but the ruling was total bullshit and unconstitutional”.

I agree since Obama sure didn't have the power to bring those kids from South America to the US so we tax payers could support their asses. He broke the law and he knew it when he did it.

He wrote a completely illegal EO to do so. The SC should kick every one of these DACA people right back to South America

Well since Obama didn’t “ bring those kids from South America to the US” we can safely ignore your partisan bigotry

 

[Claudette]

The court should tell us again how one presidents executive actions forever bind future President, congress, etc.
You like the way that rulings went, so you’ll stay quiet. You don’t have the integrity to admit “yeah I liked the outcome, but the ruling was total bullshit and unconstitutional”.

I agree since Obama sure didn't have the power to bring those kids from South America to the US so we tax payers could support their asses. He broke the law and he knew it when he did it.

He wrote a completely illegal EO to do so. The SC should kick every one of these DACA people right back to South America

Well since Obama didn’t “ bring those kids from South America to the US” we can safely ignore your partisan bigotry

Oh but his illegal EO sure did. He knew it was illegal when he wrote it. The SC should kick every one of those kids back to South America. God knows how many millions they have cost we the tax payer.

 

[justinacolmena]

Wolf's appointment was illegal and every ruling he made was as well

Wolf was going to force POTUS out of office after a failed impeachment and a rigged election.

Wolf's out, and Trump is still in. Next?