the federal court filing is even more extreme than that. they have taken the position that the president s company cannot be investigated, that those who may have conspired with him to commit financial and other crimes cannot be investigated, that the whole state proceeding must be stopped in its tracks. among other things, there is a federal law going all the way back to the founding, actually to 1793. it s called the anti-injunction act. and it says that no federal court can interfere with an ongoing state proceeding. so that when the judge finally has to rule on this outlandish claim you cannot investigate criminality on the part of the president, his company and his cronies, the judge will have the obligation under the anti-injunction act, 28 usc
the original challenge on this case. we were actually at the original challenge. liberty university and private individuals, liberty council filed the suit back in march of 2010. we were the very first private lawsuit in the country. i argued at the district court and the federal court of appeals. and in 2011 the court of appeals didn t address our merits of the case. they ruled that the anti-injunction act prohibited them from getting to the merits bee asked the supreme court to review that mountains and liberty s case was the very first day of the three days of oral argument on the anti-injunction. when the court ultimately made its ruling it ruled in our favor and that s where we are now, breathing new life into this case, having the rehearing, directing the court of appeals to now address our issues. if the court thought that there was no merit in our issues, or if they simply did not want to be bothered by obama care again they do have easily denied our petition for rehearing, b
nice to have you with us today. good to be with you. jenna: how strong is liberty s case here? well, first of all it is entirely appropriate and expected the case would go forward give the fact that the supreme court removed the roadblock that the fourth circuit used earlier to stop it, namely anti-injunction act. jenna: just so our viewers know more about that the basically the 4th circuit said, listen we ll not hear this case until the tax goes into effect in 2014. once it does we ll hear it. the supreme court said, we ll hear it. earlier challenging said it is not a tax. it is a tax as far as individual mandate goes. on the merits they don t have a very easy road but i think their arguments have merit. what they re basically saying is the way which the statute requires you as an individual and you as an employer to purchase insurance infringes on your religious liberty about. they argue it is both because the statute sort of implicitly requires
i m not putting kennedy in but three brilliant conservatives and one independent right leaning guy was going to reflect the rest of the country that believes that way? that doesn t make sense. they tore him apart in their dissent. they tore him apart and he knew he was going to be torn apart. there is nothing left of the tax argument after you read the dissent. bill: right. he himself admitted. there is an element of his decision, there is this thing called the anti-injunction act where you are not allowed to sue the government over a tax until and unless it s already been implemented. obviously that would apply to this. so, in other words, the entire suit against obama care is invalid. how does roberts get around it? he actually writes that for the purposes of the constitution, it s a tax. but for the purpose ever the anti-injunction act, it s a penalty. that s completely illogical. bill: he had to know it was illogical. i m going back.
penalty or tax, whatever it is, so the case can t go forward. so on the first day of oral arguments, administration argued that the penalty was not a tax, it would not be affected by the anti-injunction act and therefore it could go forward. greta: the obama administration argued that. exactly. justice roberts said, today you re arguing this penalty is not a tax, and we all know you ll be here tomorrow arguing that it is a tax. which is it? the next day the administration did say if you don t decide that this is justified under the commerce clause, then please consider it as a tax. you know lawyers will say, your honor, you should decide this because of a, if you don t because of a, you should decide because of b. this was their b argument, the fallback. greta: and interesting, even though it s unusual what the chief justice did procedurally, he is the chief justice. this is the supreme court, and