Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Did Justice Roberts rewrite Supreme Court precedent?

Details

  • Description

    Continued fallout from health care ruling

  • Duration 6:22
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan throwing down the gauntlet over the weekend blasting the ruling -- Supreme Court justice.

John Roberts that upheld most the president -- Obama's health care law Ryan also laying out the case for the upcoming repeal vote.

In the house.

I'm very disappointed in the ruling I think.

The Chief Justice had a contorted logic and reason to come up what this ruling we think we can still repeal this law if we win this election and that's basically what Chief Justice said it's now up to the American people -- -- congress.

The president and even Supreme Court.

The American people will be the judge and jury of this law come November.

-- mealy is with the institute for justice and he joins us live Clark thanks very much -- -- century the Supreme Court has set down precedents that.

Give divergent legal meanings for taxes.

On the one hand penalties on the other they're not.

According to the Supreme Court and never have been interchangeable yet Roberts.

Suddenly makes this decision giving them -- and convertible status.

Did he not only ignore Supreme Court history but essentially re right.

The clear text of a wall written by congress.

It.

Absolutely he did -- this wasn't ends oriented decision that is best I can tell was written for the sole purpose of avoiding a conflict with.

Congress and he rewrote the law he -- Supreme Court precedent.

The word penalty has mentioned in this -- eighteen times it is not a tax is a penalty this law is unconstitutional.

You argued in your column which I read that the Supreme Court authorized the most significant expansion of federal power.

Since the new deal those -- your words.

I'm forgive me but isn't it just the opposite I mean after all the -- found.

Both the individual mandate and Medicaid mandate unconstitutional.

So for decades to com.

But the power of congress to compel people to do things under the commerce clause will be reined in and that.

Power of congress to force states to do things restricted aren't these.

Enormous significant new limits on federal power.

I don't believe so those portions of the opinion in my opinion -- -- -- -- -- reasoning and an explanation of its the commerce clause.

Is not binding on future courts and as all litigators now.

The key is not what -- court said but what it did and this court upheld the largest expansion expansion of federal power.

In 75 years.

And it -- -- on the basis of a tax theory that is completely open ended and will provide no limits on future government action that is an absolutely astonishing result.

In upholding this blatantly unconstitutional law.

He explained something today which is confounded me if it is indeed a tax and so declared by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction until 2014.

Under the anti injunction act which was originated.

Is 179.

For two centuries.

Didn't the court -- it declared it attacks have been legal obligation.

To defer the case or dismiss it until such time.

As -- -- is actually paid in 2014.

Absolutely -- the the the conflict where the anti injunction act is just one of many internal conflicts of this decision.

It is utterly on persuasive it is completely -- oriented and unfortunately this was the result of confirming to the Supreme Court.

Eight Chief Justice who pledged that his primary commitment would be to judicial restraint.

And deference to congress we just -- the bitter harvest of that pledge.

Now why do you think Roberts did this in you know the stories that are floating around why do you think he did it.

Well I don't know I mean I don't want to dismiss the possibility that he was actually convinced that the law was attacks and therefore constitutional.

I don't buy it I think the decision is extraordinarily and persuasive and not if I may say so.

At all in the style of what we've come to expect from a Chief Justice roberts' opinion.

It's it's it has no style it has no spark it has no panache.

It almost feels like a just a dull grind through the law in a very on persuasive way.

I think he did it to avoid a conflict with the other branches I think he was trying to be statesman like I think it's a disaster for the American people this unconstitutional law should not have been upheld.

Do you think he cared more about preserving the integrity and reputation of the institution of the Supreme Court.

And he's the chief obviously.

-- he did about.

Upholding the rule of law and follow -- the constitution.

I don't know but it appears that way and if that was his desire I think he's made a terrible mistake.

Because this decision is completely on persuasive.

It is blatantly and internally contradictory.

It upheld an unconstitutional law and it did so under the banner of judicial deference and restrain -- when the real value here should have been commitment to limited government and constitutional.

Protection of liberty.

You know -- did write a couple of things that.

Have now been interpreted as clear swipes at the president and Democrats -- Regis one of them quote it's not our job to protect of people from the consequences.

Of their political choices elsewhere he referred to political leaders is.

Quote those who can be thrown out of office if the people dis agree with them.

I don't call language like that from a Chief Justice.

Do you and what was the message.

Well I don't and unfortunately I think it's a cop out it's essentially.

Putting on the plate of the -- electorate the voters the obligation to get rid of this expensive unpopular and blatantly unconstitutional law.

But it was the duty of the courts this law was unconstitutional.

And the highest duty of our judges is to enforce constitutional limits on government power.

The Chief Justice failed to do that last week and as I said before we are reaping the bitter harvest.

Of a commitment to judicial deference that elevates.

Restraint and deference to the other branches above enforcing constitutional limits on government power and that is wrong.

Well as they say there are a lot of conservatives who really hailing the decision because it limits the commerce clause -- it limits the power of the Fed's overstates.

And to wait and see how this thing plays out Clark merely good to see it thank you.

My pleasure thanks happening.

Load More