Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

White House warns Supreme Court not to overturn Obamacare

Details

  • Description

    Could a ruling to strike down the law disrupt Medicare distributions?

  • Duration 6:08
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

FoxNews.com LIVE

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

All right speaking of lawyers one of the best this -- decrees of former deputy assistant attorney general.

And he joins us now and Tom want to talk to you about the latest court filings by the Obama administration.

Before the Supreme Court.

Administration lawyers are warning.

Of quote extraordinary disruption.

If Medicare is forced one wind countless transactions based on payment changes required.

-- What he's referred to as obamacare.

On what's going on here.

Well the government clearly is positioning itself for the possibility of a defeats.

They are making arguments about the possible consequences of an adverse ruling but at least -- My opinion the constitutionality.

Of obamacare should it turn on whether or not there's some administrative hassles.

With coping with an adverse decision in other words the constitution says what it says the statute rises or falls depending on what the constitution says.

And if there are adverse practical administrative consequences from the decision.

So -- it.

-- you don't find one of the nine justices on the nation's highest court I'm not sure -- entirely appreciate it.

The administration trying to tell me look if you rule against me it's really going to be a problem for us and it's gonna -- a hundred you know million.

A monthly payments from hospitals and other providers I'm not sure I want to hear that what do you think.

Well -- it's any consolation.

The court gets told these sorts of things all the time sometimes they happen to be true sometimes they might be a bit of an exaggeration.

But certainly lawyers government lawyers in particular we'll often advise the court about the practical consequences of a decision one way or another and honestly there's no problem.

With advising the court about what the ramifications might be but -- to go one way or the other but I think in a case of this magnitude.

Where again the question is what does the con constitution authorize congress to do.

I think these sorts of practical -- -- -- arguments may not have as much force as they would in another context.

This is a momentous.

The legal.

An intellectual and constitutional.

Question.

And there are decent arguments on on both sides of it and that's what the supreme court of the nine justices care the most about it will certainly set a precedent.

When it comes to the commerce clause for perhaps you know the next hundred years but it does -- strike me Tom is reminiscent of what happened.

In the first couple of days of April when the president hauled off in a news conference I believe it was instead it would be unprecedented.

Floor of the nation's highest court to the rule a law passed by cons by congress.

Unconstitutional.

Isn't that what the Supreme Court is they -- didn't do.

I agree a 100% I thought -- -- -- -- somewhat odd comment for the president to make particularly given that of course he used to be a professor of constitutional law you're exactly right that courts can and -- strike down congressional enactments is unconstitutional.

I don't want to say all the time but fairly often in fact as well enshrined -- -- well enshrined in our system of government for hundreds of years and I think by.

Injecting this concept into the political debate that.

Somehow it would be improper or unprecedented was the word the president used for the court to step -- do this I think did leave a misimpression.

With the general public about what the courts proper role here of course the fifth circuit issued an order that gave the administration a chance to clarify the president's remarks and of course the attorney general came back and personally attest that he said well yes.

We're not quarreling with the court's power to strike this down so I think.

They erased the misimpression in the end but you're right the administration was clearly angling in trying to figure out ways that might be able to spin the debate a little bit in its favor.

Clarification by the conservatives that you lovely polite way to put it it was more personal review wasn't it.

I mean immediate orderly lies you've got two days to deliver us a three point page single space explanation is whether the president believes that -- The court system the federal courts have the right of judicial review and of course.

You know.

Millions of pages have been written about the right of the federal courts on judicial review dictating all the way back to Marbury vs Madison.

That that's exactly right and look the attorney general gave the only answer he could have given the only answer there is that it's entirely proper for courts to strike down.

Acts of congress is unconstitutional.

-- when they exceed the bounds and should you know I mean he should have said.

My boss got it wrong that one line would have been perfect -- you know look and given and I listen by the way to every word of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

On this subject as I was anchoring our radio coverage of it which was on -- tape delay basis and it was fascinating to listen to Imus that.

I don't know how much of that you got to listen to.

But what's your sense of where the court may be headed.

Well I think there can be no question that the defenders of the law.

It came out a little bit worse for the Wear I think there -- a lot of speculation going in a lot of perhaps misplaced optimism.

Within the administration.

That they would.

Pick off one of the swing justices -- -- -- -- get Justice Kennedy you're getting justice that frankly many people didn't even regard as a potential swing justice such as Justice Scalia or chief Justice Roberts and certainly from the tenor of the questions there was a lot of skepticism about the administration's position now of course.

Got to take it all with a grain of salt these are questions after all it.

All us -- who all had experiences where you go -- and you think the arguments going one way in any opinion says something different.

But at least if you read the tea leaves and look at the evidence that's available to us now there's no question that there is deep skepticism expressed by members of the court votes that the administration needs so we'll see what happens we have about a month or two before we'll get a decision in all likelihood.

Yeah I used to -- courthouse saying wow I really won that motion and then two days later I get the order and process that.

All right sounded -- great to see -- former deputy assistant attorney general thanks for being with us thank you -- take care.

Load More