Federal judge rules Trump can't reverse Obozo's decree removing fed lands from oil exploration

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/judge-restores-obama-era-drilling-ban-in-arctic

In 2015 and 2016 your former emperor, Obama, used his infinite power to decree that American companies wouldn't be allowed to explore for oil or gas in vast parts of the Alaska, U.S. territorial waters off its shores.  He also decreed that virtually all U.S. territorial waters off our East Coast were similarly off-limits.

In a logical world, what one president/emperor does by executive decree, any later president should be able to reverse with the same power.  And President Trump did that, allowing small parts of those areas to be leased for exploration.

Minutes later, dozens of so-called environmental groups sued to overturn that decision.

Now a make-laws-up-as-you-go Democrat judge, Sharon Gleason--appointed by the emperor--has RULED that Trump "exceeded his authority" when he reversed the emperor's decree.

That's right, citizen:  According to this hack, any federal land Obama used his unlimited power to decree as off-limits to exploration canNOT be reversed by a later president.  Instead she ruled that the law says those lands will be off-limits forever. 

That's right, citizen.  This judge says federal law gives presidents the power to remove lands from oil exploration...but astonishingly, that later presidents don't have the authority to reverse such earlier presidential decrees.

If that sounds insane, you're right.

 

As this Democrat hack put it in her written ruling, "The wording of President Obama's 2015 and 2016 withdrawals indicates that he intended them to extend indefinitely, and therefore be revocable only by an act of Congress."

Really, you hack?  "He intended them to extend indefinitely"?  

I'll bet $100 that Barky's royal decree didn't say a word about "I intend this withdrawal to last forever," cuz that would have allowed too many Americans to see that he was making laws up to suit himself--something the Constitution supposedly prohibits.  Instead, Gleason just pulled this "He intended them to extend indefinitely" out of her ass.

You may well wonder why I'm so confident this is what she did.  Simple:  If "extend indefinitely" had been part of Barky's decree, the royally corrupt judge would simply have quoted the damn decree.  But she didn't--cuz it ain't there.

But hey, I could be wrong.

You gotta love those Democrat judges, eh?  If the law doesn't specify something critical to an issue, they're eager to just make up whatever enables their party to get what it wants.  Cool, huh?