Skip to comments.Dreamers Lawyer Up in Anticipation of Supreme Court Contest
Posted on 02/08/2018 4:53:41 PM PST by Cheerio
Two groups leading the legal fight to defend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program have retained the countrys most powerful law firms to protect DACA at the Supreme Court.
That the DACA case would attract top legal talent is not surprising, especially since the litigation has reached a critical stretch.
The University of California, which sued to stop DACAs termination in Sept. 2017, hired Covington & Burlings Robert Long, while Gibson, Dunn & Crutchers Ted Boutrous was retained to represent six DACA recipients who are individually suing the administration.
Long and Boutrous are veteran Supreme Court advocates who have argued major cases before the justices.
The high court appointed Long to argue a jurisdictional issue in NFIB v. Sebelius, the first Obamacare case, in 2012.
Boutrous argued the 2011 Dukes v. Wal-Mart case, and convinced the court to invalidate the largest employment class action lawsuit in American history.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
Top lawyers get top pay. Who is paying?
Let me guess, there argument will be something like.
“Yes, my parents robbed a bank, and then gave me all the money when I was just a minor. But it is not fair to make me give the money back, I didn’t steal it and I want to keep it!”
Let’s see, Obama can start an unconstitutional program but Trump can’t end it. Only if you have 5 or more Supreme Court Justices who can’t read.
They are illegal aliens, as their waivers expire they have no right to be here. Period. This is black and white issue, sob stories and all are irrelevant. They want to complain, they should talk with their illegal parents that put them in this situation. On the plus side they go home with some American education, healthcare, uplifting, and maybe can help fix their sh1th013 countries they came from and give us ours back. Bye.
So that are trying to argue that an executive order by Obama creating DACA has the same power as an inalienable constitutional right and no future President or even congress can change or revoke it? I’m sure some on the left would like to believe that, but I can assure them that it isn’t true....
There’s a legal protection for acting illegally?
Obama didnt issue a eo for daca. He simply adjusted his policy.
“...Top lawyers get top pay. Who is paying?...”
Soros and DNC....??
If they think they can sue the President for doing EOs they better bring a lot of money.
Ten cuidado con lo que deseas, soñadores.
Looks like we’ll find out if SCOTUS will hear the case on the 16th.
“Before taking executive action on immigration, President Obama stated 22 times that he does not have the authority to change immigration laws on his own.”
. . .
Records offered by Goodlatte and other Republicans show Obama repeatedly has made such statements. But the congressman goes a little off course in trying to quantify the times the president has said so. In a handful of the instances, the president was talking in general terms about executive authority that he did not relate to immigration.
So in the interest of precision, we rate Goodlattes claim Mostly True.
I would certainly reference the expert opinion of “Constitutional Law Professor” Obama on the issue. It’s one of the few times in his lying, parasitic life that he was correct.
I was thinking clinton foundation, but I like your, too.
It’s too bad these ***holes didn’t fight this hard in their own country.
FUNNY! THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY
The only way it’s a Constitutional program is if it is a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which according to 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) is not reviewable by any court. So the decision to rescind it is entirely up to the President. Also, the memorandum setting up specifically said the program does not confer any substantive right on any participant.
So this case is a slam dunk loser, and the dreamers are wasting their money lining the pockets of some greedy lawyers.
Wouldn’t be nice to see victims of illegal immigrants suing the government instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.