i'm the president and general counsel and the represents the jane doe intervener that you heard.rning and joined the solicitor general in defending the president's exercise of the constitutional prerogative that has been exercised by his many predecessors over the last 50 years to set the priority in immigration enforcement. his guidance issued in november 2014 was simply an exercise of the long-standing authority. the justices this morning seemed very concerned in the questioning about whether the state of texas had the right to even be in court to challenge the exercise. other questions also reflected confusion about the state of texas is challenging in its briefing as it must under the law if the president has the authority through the homeland security to determine how to raise enforcement resources and identify priorities and to determine certain folks will be low priority and will not be removed even though that is a protection that can be invoked at any moment. 90 minutes of argument went fairly quickly because of the many issues involved here all of them revolving around

jango intervene -- we represented the jane doe interveners, as you heard. we were granted argument time this morning and join to the solicitor general and defending president obama's use of his presidential prerogative which has been executed by many of his predecessors to set priorities and immigration enforcement. his guidance issued in november 2014 was an exercise of that long-standing authority. the justices seemed concerned in vigorous questioning about whether the state of texas had the right to be in court to challenge that right of enforcement discretion. their questions also reflected confusion about what exactly the state of texas is challenging since it had in its briefing as it must, that the president has the authority through the secretary of homeland security to determine how to arrange and enforcement resources to determine that certain folks will be low priority and not to be removed even though that is a protection that can be revoked at any moment. 90 minutes of argument went fairly quickly. because of the many issues involved, all of th

thomas: the jane does are the only intervenors who sought to intervene and be parties in the case.nitially, the judge and district court denied that intervention. we took an appeal and he was overruled. the many eligible for dapa should be eligible for court. fore will be 45 minutes each side. on behalf of the united states, 35 minutes and i will have 10 minutes on behalf of the jingo intervenors. have 30e of texas will minutes and the house of representatives, which has appeared as a friend of the court, will have 15 minutes. into theces will go decision-making process and we expect an answer by the end of june as to whether the state of texas has the right to contest the president's exercise of executive discretion and if it has the right, whether what they did is consistent with the law, as we believe it is. this will be the first time i argued before the supreme court but i argued in other federal courts. this is obviously at a different level, but i look forward to speaking on behalf of our clients and the many others who deserve the temporary relief announced by president oba

thomas: the jane does are the only intervenors who sought to intervene and be parties in the case. initially, the judge and district court denied that intervention. we took an appeal and he was overruled. the many eligible for dapa should be eligible for court. fore will be 45 minutes each side. on behalf of the united states, 35 minutes and i will have 10 minutes on behalf of the jingo intervenors. have 30e of texas will minutes and the house of representatives, which has appeared as a friend of the court, will have 15 minutes. into theces will go decision-making process and we expect an answer by the end of june as to whether the state of texas has the right to contest the president's exercise of executive discretion and if it has the right, whether what they did is consistent with the law, as we believe it is. this will be the first time i argued before the supreme court but i argued in other federal courts. this is obviously at a different level, but i look forward to speaking on behalf of our clients and the many others who deserve the temporary relief announced by president o

intervening, that affected people like the baltics and estonia, like that. [speaking simultaneously] john micklethwait: europe has dug its own grave. jane harman: but the eu has structural problems. it does adequate financing mechanism across the nation when they don't meet their obligations. it doesn't have good mechanisms to deal with migration and refugees as we are seeing. the poor thing is falling apart. it is also leadership crisis. angela merkel has been spectacular until there was this huge pushback against her moral position on refugees. she seems to have retreated. her voice is very much missed. ian bremmer: you said in the middle east, obama is absent leadership, should have done more, give examples. in europe, merkel clearly looking for leadership from the united states. obama said it is not our problem. is that a failure, not to step out and do more with american values? >> the bush administration failed when it did not do anything about the baltics. that was a problem solved by people like president putin and richard holbrooke. we should have shown the same leadership in syria. that failure to do so, which is a collective european failure, is now what is so damaging to euro