we can stipulate is, i think a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the constitution? the reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. in the law of torts, our tradirks our law has been that you don t have the duty tow rescue someone if that person s in danger. and here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty tow tell the individual citizen that it must act. and that is different from what we have in previous cases. that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way. greta: shannon bream was inside the courtroom. she joins us from washington. shannon, what was it like? reporter: it was very, very rapid fire, for two hours today. normally, of course, there is a one-hour argument. but today the court gave this a lot of significance, taking two hours to talk about this mandate. and justice kennedy had to kn
anything wrong with broccoli. shannon bream outside the court. what happens today, shannon. a doubleheader. reporter: they get to the issue of severability. does the law stand if the rest of the justice strike down the mandate. they have three different attorneys arguing that case. bill: on the issue of the mandate and what we heard yesterday what clues are we now getting from the justices and the arguments and questions they pose? reporter: everybody is looking what justice kennedy had to say considered the swing vote. he had tough questions for both sides. it is clear some of the justice staked out where they will probably vote. justice kagan seemed especially open to the government s excuse or excuse me, gument if you don t want to get into health care you still have an impact on the economic stream of commerce. here is a little bit of what justice kagan had to say. aggregate of all uninsured people are increasing the normal family premium congress says by $1,000 a y
the government in this what we can stipulate is, i think a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the constitution? the reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. in the law of torts, our tradirks our law has been that you don t have the duty tow rescue someone if that person s in danger. and here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty tow tell the individual citizen that it must act. and that is different from what we have in previous cases. that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way. greta: shannon bream was inside the courtroom. she joins us from washington. shannon, what was it like? reporter: it was very, very rapid fire, for two hours today. normally, of course, there is a one-hour argument. but today the court gave this a lot of significance, taking two hours to talk about this mandate.
people. here is a little bit of that. everybody has to buy food sooner or later. you define the market as food. everybody is in the market. therefore you can make people buy broccoli. bill: not that there is anything wrong with broccoli. shannon bream outside the court. what happens today, shannon. a doubleheader. reporter: they get to the issue of severability. does the law stand if the rest of the justice strike down the mandate. they have three different attorneys arguing that case. bill: on the issue of the mandate and what we heard yesterday what clues are we now getting from the justices and the arguments and questions they pose? reporter: everybody is looking what justice kennedy had to say considered the swing vote. he had tough questions for both sides. it is clear some of the justice staked out where they will probably vote. justice kagan seemed especially open to the government s excuse or excuse me, argument if you don t want to get into health care you stil
justice kennedy today asking some key questions. can you create commerce in order to regulate it? when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this what we can stipulate is, i think a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the constitution? the reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. in the law of torts, our tradirks our law has been that you don t have the duty tow rescue someone if that person s in danger. and here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty tow tell the individual citizen that it must act. and that is different from what we have in previous cases. that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way. greta: shannon bream was inside the courtroom. she joins us from washington. shannon, what was it like? reporter: it was very, very rapid fire, for two hou