Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
We'll work -- courses before the long -- -- and it's.
-- That's democratic senator Dick Durbin a federal judge dealing a major blow to the core present Obama's health care law.
Ruling the government cannot force Americans to buy health insurance -- the mandate in the law.
Ken could -- belies the attorney general at a Virginia and I I talked in the -- this morning about that.
Can -- -- -- good morning to you and thank you for your time.
But most believe.
Pleasure to do -- most believe this winds -- the US Supreme Court the way the court is seated today.
Does that work for you or against you.
Well I sort of jokingly tell people that I expect the case to end up 54.
I just don't know which side will win but.
We will see and I do think it'll be -- -- at every level of appeal.
It is the nature of an unprecedented case.
That day you don't you don't get 90 rulings on these kinds of cases and congress and the president have never tried to exercise -- power like this ever before.
To order people to buy a product so.
This is truly unique and and so predicting what the court will do his little difficult.
If I were a betting man I'd still bet on -- I just.
Wouldn't that everything you in which he will be close what will you encourage a fast track the Supreme Court have you taken a position.
Yes and we're having discussions with the department justice about that setting aside what anyone thinks about.
The legality constitutionality.
Of the health care law.
The fact of the matter is the uncertainty about what's going to actually be implemented is a huge cloud over our economy.
And we want to clear out as many impediments as possible.
To allowing businesses to start having some certainty so they can make decisions about hiring and investing as quickly as possible and get our economy don't.
Okay in the Washington Post this morning a record attorney general Catherine -- -- the health and human services secretary.
They write -- the following opponents claim the individual responsibility provision is unlawful because it regulates an activity.
But none of us is a -- when it comes to health care all of us need health care eventually.
That's their argument it is that a legal argument I must say -- No absolutely not why doesn't appeal to the heart and and I have and I have one too.
Like everybody else but my first job as attorney general is to uphold the constitution.
And they don't seem to be is interested in that as I am and -- were absolutely committed to that if you.
Really think about what's at stake in this case it's not about health insurance it's not about health care about liberty.
And it's about protecting against the over each of the federal government because if they can do this.
They can use the same power to make you buy a car to make you buy a house to make you buy closed anybody's particular food and that does -- and his independent attorney general -- secretary could write the exact same day another -- -- the liquids are they gonna say -- same thing.
But what holder argues that if you don't have the mandate in the math doesn't add up and he's probably right on that point based web well Lisa Guerrero set out.
Absolutely you -- that particular -- laws be stricken from the law or does it all have to be thrown out.
-- it yes it can.
It could be stricken from the law but none of the insurance provisions would work even the federal government acknowledged in their briefs that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
The rest of the insurance scheme won't work because that's how they're financing -- they did it that way unconstitutionally.
Instead of taxing everyone which while no one really likes to be tax.
Is at least within the power of congress to do that -- they -- Social Security that's -- Medicare.
But not this they didn't want to have a tax vote they wanted to try and do it and run.
And of course while the bill is in process they said -- and attacks this is an attacks and now they've run the court.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- what we heard yesterday from the White House and get a little bit today is that they believe he found a friendly judge in Henry Hudson in the state of Virginia.
They also argue that three different courts have heard challenges.
To have gone in their favor only won his gun in your favor.
What would you -- Well that's only half true.
The two judges they site -- ruling in their favor on the individual mandate.
The order to buy health insurance ruled our way.
Meaning there's all rulings against the federal government on the tax argument itself so they're two constitutional arguments here.
Ordering people to buy health insurance.
That's called the individual mandate.
And the penalty for not buying it which there are doing now is attacks no judge in America.
They're over 44.
Judges have ruled against them on the tax argument and to have ruled for them on the individual mandate.
That just points up what a close call this is and that the Supreme Court not only.
Will that should ultimately decide this and we hope that'll take place sooner rather than later.
Some predict maybe June of 4012 bottom of the condor can wait that long but we shall see together.
I can could you -- the attorney general there in the state of Virginia sir thank you thanks the morning thank you lottery act.
Filter by section