Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Legal perspective on health care ruling

Details

  • Description

    Law professors analyze SCOTUS decision

  • Duration 5:18
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Special Report

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

For a legal perspective let's bring into law professors.

Paul -- Paul Rothstein from Georgetown University Law Center.

And Jonathan Turley from George Washington University Law School gentlemen thanks for being here first I wanna get your thoughts on this ruling overall Johnson first -- What -- -- extraordinary lineup most -- were predicting 54 but not exactly this 54.

What's astonishing to me is is the damage done to federalism it's a strange thing Roberts builds up federalism.

And then proceeds to pretty much destroy it mean he he says this is not something that you could do under the commerce clause.

-- and that's a good thing for those people and myself this is right for -- insurance for elect myself to believe federalism that was not excellent thing to say.

But then he proceeds to show how the taxing authorities can resolve -- circumvent should federalism.

It's hard to see what's left.

But it's also hard to see the limiting principle fruit Roberts was the one with the other just saying what's the limiting principle can do -- -- commerce clause.

And you are left reading -- single what's the limiting principle.

It's a ten tax me can you know it he estimated the oral arguments can I have a law that requires fueled by cell phones.

And he clearly thought there was no but then you're left reading his opinion saying look and I have a tax if you don't buy a cellphone in other words you don't see the wording in there that.

That doesn't.

Set the precedent that it could be that the federal government could say you have to buy this otherwise your tax that's right but it also reduces federalism do type a -- no -- it's very impressive.

Unless you just go around it which is what do you do what he did.

-- I think it Roberts believes that putting this power on the taxing basis rather than on the commerce clause basis somehow limits the federal government and in what it can make us all do.

I think somewhere secretly.

He thinks if future cases come up where they try to abuse the taxing power use it too much.

That he can -- the federal government down.

Which he felt was not gonna be so easy -- you OK the commerce.

Power here so -- no one expected.

The shift to the -- power from the commerce power.

I think it's kind of ingenious and I think it's what enabled Roberts to go with the liberals who here I've got a principle which is no limit to federal government.

You know he he wrote the majority and in in that he'd he'd linked to the tax issue -- you're talking about he also wrote this.

The court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act under the constitution bad judgment is reserved to the people.

And some conservatives are looking at that saying.

Well this is his -- way to say that it's all about the election.

Well I think so I think they did have that than I on the election but I think Roberts was very intense.

I'm not having this case breakdown along the traditional partisan five to four lines.

He knows the court is getting a reputation for being partisan.

He really wanted to lay that thought the -- in -- and I think he did to some extent because he joined the liberals.

What does this this is the second big court case in a row immigration and now this case.

Where John Roberts sides with the liberal block of the courtroom.

Well and also he also voted on this stolen valor act case today with liberal side.

But what's strange to me is that he essentially amends the statute he puts in this opt out.

It's option for states which is something that a lot of members rejected did not make it into law.

He's grafted on in -- may cause serious problems with this I'm not too sure this is such a success unless it's a success like a crash landing is still -- landing.

-- you know in the Obama may regret does victory mean if if these states opt out.

How is this going to be sustainable.

Neither resistance was -- based on two premises getting young people to help make it financially viable.

And have it uniform.

-- justice Ginsburg said that she thought that the act was largely the law was largely unscathed that she was leaving the courtroom but you're saying possibly not.

Or valuable -- I think it is a big victory for Obama.

Personal states cannot opt out of the mandatory you know buying of insurance is they can opt out of -- ended Medicaid but they're not going to because they get a huge amount of money if they opt into it so it.

And mr.

kinda foolishly and extremely political they're -- they're gonna take that money so I actually think this is a big victory for Obama.

Less than ten seconds does this what does this mean for John Roberts is Chief Justice are people going to be looking at him saying.

As a conservative appointed by George W.

Bush.

Is he someone like Justice Souter was for George H.

W.

Bush he's not a Justice Souter -- for people who -- federalism this was a a moment then he came off as -- this was a long standing friend.

Who came out of nowhere.

And I'm not sure what's left of federalism as a result -- thing.

I think the return he makes himself at least look like he's very open minded and not doctrinaire not political and -- -- and he makes the court.

Look like that too to the extent that he could gentlemen thank you very much for coming in today.

Load More