Obama-Appointed Judge: Ken Cuccinelli
‘Not Lawfully’ Named USCIS Director
Breitbart Politics,
by
John Binder
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
3/2/2020 4:53:11 AM
A federal judge, appointed by former President Obama, has ruled that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli was not previously “lawfully appointed” to his job as Acting Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).In a federal ruling on Sunday, U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss sided with the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services — an open borders lobbying group — by stating that Cuccinelli had not been lawfully named to head USCIS in an acting role and thus his policies implemented during his tenure are void.The ruling states: Plaintiffs, five individual native Honduran asylum seekers
Reply 1 - Posted by:
MMC 3/2/2020 5:53:02 AM (No. 334156)
Where do these judges come up with this stuff? Who is doing the filing ? Under what jurisdiction can a judge all of a sudden come up with this type of ruling? Who is the puppet master fomenting dissent?
32 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
franq 3/2/2020 6:12:09 AM (No. 334164)
Just like the judge that struck down NC voter I.D., which was passed on a referendum. Next time some idiot lib tells you we live in a "democracy", ask them how one person can override the votes of millions.
50 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 3/2/2020 6:26:32 AM (No. 334168)
Nice to see our hacks in black getting so desperate that they've started working on Sundays....
27 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
bpl40 3/2/2020 7:17:37 AM (No. 334196)
Can't a swift EO fix this?
16 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 3/2/2020 7:26:37 AM (No. 334204)
Maybe this judge should do some factchecking on himself and his Boss Obama. Obama had an entire cabinet full of czars who did the real work of government for him while the figureheads just smiled for the camera. These judges need to be smack down hard, and everyone seems scared to step up to the plate to fight for the constitution.
31 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
privateer 3/2/2020 7:44:14 AM (No. 334219)
How about this: NO judge appointed by zero is actually lawfully appointed, since zero was never lawfully president. It's past time to prove that and cancel all these charade appointments. Even if I'm wrong, how about making some noise like doing that is a possibility. Make the Won's retirement a little less comfortable.
34 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
DVC 3/2/2020 8:04:21 AM (No. 334242)
Any explanation on what is the basis for "not lawfully appointed" other than this damned Obama drone didn't like it? Nothing mentioned in the article.
16 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
jacksin5 3/2/2020 8:58:34 AM (No. 334279)
We will continue to go down this road until SCOTUS passes down a definitive ruling that Federal District Courts have no standing in ruling on Executive Branch Decisions. If these "Legislators in Black" don't get slapped down firmly, every decision by PDJT will continue to be delayed until appealed to the Supremes.
16 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
StormCnter 3/2/2020 9:01:06 AM (No. 334282)
This was the basis for the ruling:
The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq.[1]) is a United States federal statute that establishes the procedure for filling a vacancy in an appointed officer of an executive agency of the government during the time before a permanent replacement is appointed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vacancies_Reform_Act_of_1998
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
cor-vet 3/2/2020 9:12:54 AM (No. 334290)
Call him a CZAR and let him just keep doing his thing. The left loves Czars, even Bolshevik Bernie!
6 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
bighambone 3/2/2020 9:51:30 AM (No. 334337)
Chances are if this matter ever makes it to the Supreme Court the federal law cited by poster #9 and changes made to that law in subsequent legislation may well be found to be unconstitutional as interfering with the President’s constitutional authority to temporarily fill top positions in the executive federal agencies.
7 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
mc squared 3/2/2020 10:10:45 AM (No. 334366)
One has to wonder how 5 Hondurans had the means to bring their case to a district court. With that kind of dough they'd be kingpins back in The Olde Country.
8 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
MDConservative 3/2/2020 10:40:19 AM (No. 334388)
Nice story...but what are the facts? What is the reason the judge found the appointment not legal? Story doesn't say. And as for the five plaintiffs...this doesn't mean their applications are approved, either.
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
MeiDei 3/2/2020 12:52:42 PM (No. 334487)
To address #7's question: a poster after the original article mentioned a 210-day appt. being the legal limit. Supposedly Cuccinelli didn't serve longer than 210 days. I haven't checked to see if that is so - yet. Right now I've got company with another visitor scheduled very soon after this one leaves. So i
'll leave you to it or perhaps one of our other super sleuths will have the answer.
1 person likes this.
Neck-deep in the swamp!
Even DJT didn’t know how deep it is!
Drain that swamp!
1 person likes this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
kdog 3/2/2020 4:28:38 PM (No. 334694)
The Trump Administration always loses in the lower courts where the plaintiff's find "their" judge, and the media trumpets the news. When the administration triumphs on appeal.....crickets
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)