Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Reactions still pouring in after the supreme court's surprise decision on presidential president Obama's health care law.
Chief Justice John Roberts who sided with the liberal justices.
On the High Court to validate the loss so.
How are the media covering this landmark ruling let's bring in.
The Alan Colmes show Rich Lowry the editor of the national review and a Fox News contributor.
-- many liberals did not much care for John Roberts until this ruling all of a sudden he is the best thing on the Supreme Court since sliced bread is is that how using.
-- -- -- -- Let the legacy of -- Supreme Court and a court and -- justice is more than just one decision.
More than just one moment of time and John Roberts is very young in his work on the court has many years ago.
And -- you know we make a mistake to judge any justice.
By one particular decision I know that.
Conservatives conversely a gonna have to have attacking him to one even called for armed resurrection before he took it back.
You know the -- not supposed to be a partisan court it's supposed to not judge upon whether -- -- as good or not but whether or not it's legal and that's what John Roberts that well.
That are rich let me read for you part of the opinion it Justice Roberts wrote when he -- -- with the liberals because some say.
It's a very conservative opinion we haven't on the screen here I believe that he'd -- he wrote.
The framers created a federal government of limited powers and assigned to this court the duty of enforcing those limits the court does so today.
But the court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act under the constitution.
That judgment is reserved to the people what do you think about that rich.
I mean that's all fine and correct and in isolation is actually -- the problem here John.
Is that in order to uphold the law he went in in -- you wrote key sections.
-- the law he redefine the mandate as attacks.
Ignoring about nine decades of president and how the court considers these matters -- he -- wrote.
The Medicaid provision he created a new law that probably would not have passed congress if you had had had.
Congressional Democrats have to admit this thing is attacks on.
Lower middle class people.
Without health insurance they're probably never would have passed congress and none of the Democrats will even admit now this attack so ironically and I think perversely.
John under the guise of judicial restraint.
He rendered an activist decision that really wrote the law and is not his role to -- -- a 101 senator and what I -- although I can't prove it.
Is that part of that the motivation this decision was playing to the media and no link.
That liberals who want to -- practically in new memorial monument to him on the mall between the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorial there -- three.
Op Ed pieces separate op Ed pieces praising him and just one newspaper the Washington Post yesterday.
Whenever a conservative.
Does some thing or anybody to something at a court that one side doesn't like.
That side -- calls it an activist judge an activist judges a judge that does something the other side doesn't like to whatever he was gonna do somebody was a column and activist judge it is about the role of the court once again this is key.
Two -- partisans always vote conservative to do whatever conservatives -- -- did.
You're not but Alan really -- the law he wrote rewrote the law which is the very definition.
And activism look but he sat down either vis a talented jurist and decided this thing has constitution under the commerce power -- I disagree with them but that's a legitimate judgment.
Rewriting the law is not.
The role of the -- we had to do today that whether you agree with -- -- that's not what he changes that well here -- is and attacks he said it's legal in this way.
The court determines that it is attacks even though both the Obama.
White House and now the Romney campaign is saying it's not attacks although Romney called -- -- when it was Romney care Massachusetts.
So now becomes new call during the that they pan oh hole -- on hold unnecessary if it coverage though rich some.
Conservative analysts are saying look.
What the Chief Justice did is -- for all time the idea that you can.
Employ the commerce clause to force Americans to buy something that did not pass under this ruling.
And by calling it -- -- he makes it possible for a future senate to overrule thing to throw it out on on a 51 vote majority.
Is that possibly elegant -- -- what he gave with one hand he took away with another and I don't think it has a lot of meaning to say.
You can't compel people to buy -- products under the commerce clause we turn around say OK but under the taxing power is just -- the key question is whether the federal government.
Has that kind of so called plenary police power to reach hinted individual lives and that manner.
Or not and he went through verbal -- gymnastics to say yes it could despite all that verbiage that conservatives like.
And look at these attacks the drafters of the law would have known its attacks they didn't.
They still lovely this attacks the lower court someone -- the lower court this thing was adjudicated.
A lot for coming up Supreme Court might set its attacks no one did and again he -- nor the president.
For how the court interprets these matters to come up with convoluted -- -- if if he had said.
It under the commerce clause the government -- for if you.
Dubai is certain product conservatives like yourself would also be apoplectic and say how dare the government force us to buy anything under the commerce clause you have -- when we actually now is that you have clung on to justify the law.
I make this distinction I would've disagreed with it.
But I wouldn't accuse him of activism of going in and changing the law was your talent even even liberals admit that's what happened to say that you're afraid I think decision I don't know -- No -- saying good when that.
That congress passes a mandate.
And a penalty.
To turn around saying oh no sorry guys it's actually attacks when congress passes.
This Medicaid requirement on the states and say no guys actually didn't pass requirement you passed an optional expansion of Medicaid.
That is changing the law and is not what we have a Supreme Court saying -- -- have that the house and that's kind of for.
Forcing you to buy something under Connors who would be a radical departure and and it changed and you have.
-- for the first time ever of the commerce clause the government saying you must.
Purchase a particular product I can't imagine that that would not be the good -- right where we're gonna Sicily this -- -- -- every right channel -- that's the key thing that's the kind of discussion going on all over America thank you both and we'll be right back thank you very much.
Filter by section