politics

Ugh. This is why I hate summary because there's always someone who is like "you didn't explain EvErYtHiNg so you're wrong!" While you're trying to flesh things out you always miss a ton of things too that neither one of us touched on, and I didn't because it increases what needs to be talked about when what I originally said was correct.

entire wall of text

I hate this term because it shows that people are trying to oversimplify something that is in itself complex. Additionally, you're trying to point out things but you didn't cover everything either. Which is why especially here, this annoying. You're basically trying to make an argument of "you explain too much" and "you didn't explain enough". It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't argument that you're trying to make. I'm calling you out on it because you are attempting a no correct way to answer line of questioning. I'll give you this reply, but you keep going on this thread like this, I'll just block you. I don't have the time for childish game. If you have a point make it, if you don't stop beating around the bush. That's all there is to it.

a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed

That's not correct. I'll point to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 5 USC § 3345. You seem smart enough, you can figure out why Sec. of State quitting and the deputy becoming acting would trigger such a response.

someone didn't pay attention to trumps presidency at all

Again, I'll point to the many failures on exclusive authority during that term. Namely you can see the multiple failures along the regulation of coal that failed exclusive authority. Acting has only nonexclusive duties for the 210 day period and the extended period of 300 days on inauguration. Hence the failures on rule making.

what you're missing is that during that time the president can just not due what the law says and these things can take years.

Yes, this is why enjoining an EO exists as a measure for the courts. Immediate relief is something the claimants can seek when bringing the issue up to the courts. That's why you hear emergency relief often with controversial orders.

Secondly even if a judge blocks an EO the president can still do it the judge has no enforcement mechanism.

The enforcement is via Congress at that point. If a just rules something as violation of the Court order, that's easily handled by Congress.

worcester v georgia

Just so we're clear the Nullification scandal, Jackson indicated he was ready to march troops into South Carolina and shooting the government if need be. That was with eye to Georgia daring them the exact same thing. We'd revisit that willingness to march troops into the State and start shooting State Government members about thirty years later.

So just, so we're clear the Worcester you cite, we got ready to have a preemptive war over the matter. I'm not sure the argument you're providing holds a lot of water here in that "they can do what they want to do with no ramifications". Clearly getting shot at by the Army is a ramification that at the time neither party wanted to try out. But we did give it a go a bit later.

abraham lincoln did it w/ habeus corpus

Yeah. Thing called the Civil War.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Was kicked to Congress, like I said it would be. Was mulled and Congress decided to take a pass. But that's not free from consequences. Additionally, Congress had indicated to FDR to wrap that shit up with the alphabet groups. You'll note how many of them didn't last. CCC still a thing?

biden can easily deal with blinken, its called firing and assigning a temporary individual to the role

Again see FVRA.

not like he has a lot of time left there'd be no time to confirm a new individual anyways

Again see FVRA, carry over has a lot more impact in the first 300 day period than having an acting position.

Now Harris is, she's the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken

That is just plainly incorrect.

You're entire 'civics' lesson ignores the historical realities of the presidency and EOs

And you covered zero of them either. I've provided more context to the examples that you gave. But the reality is that "the historical realities of EOs" is a complex issue. But apparently you don't like walls of text.

especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential powers which expanded this ability by conferring it judicial backing

I take it that you are referring to Trump v US. None of that has any bearing on the matter of what Bliken does or doesn't do. If Biden simply just withheld funds and gave everyone the finger, he'd still be subject to Congressional review of his actions and possible impeachment. That is not being free of ramifications.