Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
The court rules the supreme court's decision will have an impact that every single American.
Michael -- is one of the lawyers arguing against -- Obama's health care law before the High Court.
And today he took got justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Arguing that the individual mandate.
-- -- -- -- Went straight.
The company says you borrowing my colleagues example.
You can't buy a car.
The mission control.
I don't want the car with a mission control it's less efficient in terms of the horsepower.
But I'm forced to do something I don't want to do by government regulation.
You -- not forced to buy a product you don't walk and I agree with -- That since the government regulates all markets there is no limiting principle on their -- purchased when they put these in.
-- melody controls on either side sort of forced me to -- you find me.
-- on -- pasteurized foods foods that don't have certain pesticides but -- others.
There there is government compulsion in almost every economic decision because the government regularly so much -- just.
It's as a condition of life that some they -- elegance.
Minnesota may I have a point my apartments here.
Michael -- how do you answer that just.
Obviously if you decide to buy a car the government can tell you what.
Did tell the card companies what's in the car the difference here is the government is trying to tell you to buy the car in the first place.
And -- Justice Kennedy pointed out that the fundamental alteration.
Of the relationship between the national government and its citizens.
Never before in our history is the government presume to tell us go ahead and buy products you don't want because it's gonna help other people.
-- Justice Breyer asked a question which is slightly different from those he's he asked -- a -- -- it.
-- to the federal government could not order vaccinations.
If some terrible epidemic was sweeping the nation.
And your answer was what whether the government could or -- vaccinations across the nation.
There's an old case called -- and where that.
People were doing a horrible things to women violence against women in the court said look it's a terrible activity but it's not an economic activity.
And what you can regulate under the commerce clauses economic activities.
Vaccination is not an economic activity it's protecting the health and welfare of the citizenry.
In our system that's done by the states the states can control and obviously will control.
Any kind of nationwide epidemic but this is an even easier case because the analogy here would be.
Can you force somebody buy a vaccine for somebody else in other words I'm not the problem I'm not the one who's creating the problem but I have the solution that the government used and that's the key thing to understand.
The reason they're compelling the uninsured to buy this insurance as congress found was to lower health insurance premiums.
Because they're bringing in a whole bunch healthy people into the risk pool and that way bringing down the health insurance premiums to counteract the fact that they brought in all these sick people who obviously -- gonna drive up health insurance premiums.
I -- the viewers may wonder when.
Why you know why your argument is -- know that Paul Clement has argued for the states who represent the NF IPSec correct and and a tour today is why they have party to this litigation.
I -- the NF idea then for individuals all of them are either sole proprietors -- small businesses who don't think quite sensibly.
That they need health care and if they did need health care -- -- of a catastrophic nature not this kind of essential benefits Cadillac plan that the government's forcing on them.
Which includes wellness programs and contraceptives and all those sorts of things so they've decided they would much rather pay the doctrine of their own pocket.
Then pay seven to 20000 dollars in insurance premiums.
And the government.
Even though they're only going to spend 500 dollars for health care.
Is making them spend 20000 dollars for insurance premiums they don't think the government can ever force should buy a product and they sure don't think the government unfortunate by product.
That is way too expensive for the vowed purpose of helping other people.
Is this a person regarding the Supreme Court.
Knows the -- -- -- what did they say any does it change from time to time or is it ain't any different the Oregon in appellate courts -- it out -- the first aside this.
There's nine very intelligent people eight of whom ask a lot of questions and very aggressive so you're spending a half hour basically being.
A ping pong ball between the justices because some of them are trying to make a point some of them are trying to about the points.
All my previous cases -- come -- 54 so this was not an unusual experience for me actually.
Did -- have a sense said did any of them starting made up their minds which imminent mean nothing to stop them from doing that I mean this is part of the whole process.
But did you -- good when you listen the -- questions regarding it thank this justices RD decided.
Well look obviously these people thought about these issues.
Many of them have written on the commerce clause previously C have a good sense of who's coming from where I think they all take the responsibility particularly at a piece of major legislation like this very seriously and so they're gonna think about it.
And and you said it before it's true it's -- suckers game to think that the questions are necessarily gonna tell you how they're gonna vote.
But I do think you generally tells you what they're concerned about what they were concerned about here was.
Where does the government get this power how can you square with the language of the constitution.
And if they can make you buy this product how can how can we stop them from making you buy any product when it's convenient.
And I think that's where the government failed to address the concerns of the justices it really couldn't answer any of those questions.
And there's your first a strategy going into the courtroom to give me a lot people talk about the fact that justice -- is thought to be the swing vote the uncertain what which of course.
That could all be voodoo we could be completely nuts about it and and it can be dead rock.
But I'm curious if you know you've sort of thought like in preparing fear I -- that you did exactly most out of the nine with Justice Kennedy.
Well you know everybody can count and I'm sure you want to make sure that.
People who you think might be on the fence about this that you address their concerns in particular.
Justice Kennedy is your piece before indicated was pretty straightforward about is this pretty serious concerns about.
The government's position and its ramifications.
So sure where I stood up I tried to.
Tellem that there were no limitations on the government's argument here and if you let him do this -- you can let him do basically anything and since we're based on a system of the federal government has limited and enumerated powers.
He would -- did undoing the constitution -- In any greatest exciting case to -- It's they're -- fun but this one was particularly interest and I've I've treated say that I don't thank you.
Filter by section