labelled as big got and treated as such by governments, employers and schools. adding the court s ruling will be used to vilify americans who are unwilling to ascent to the new orthodoxy . when those of us warning the rest of the american people pay attention to the sacrificing of first amendment freedoms this isn t chicken little. we have very good reason to be concerned about this. reporter: one new york times columnist says it s time to abolish or greatly diminish tax-exempt status for religious groups that quote dissent from friday s decision. the aclu has announced it will end its decades-long defense of the religious freedom restoration act saying quote religious liberty doesn t mean the right to discriminate. thissies we founded the united states of america. people got on boats and came here because they wanted the right to disagree with the government in connection with their religious beliefs. reporter: though many of the left say those talk about religious libert
there are a lot of clues in the structure of the opinion it was a late switch. strong signals that chief justice john roberts may have flipped his vote. decide with the liberal block, to find the mandate and healthcare law constitutional use of congressional taxing power. after initially agreeing with conservatives to throw out the entire law. this looks like verbal opinion. the other notables a spent is they point out the tax issue wasn t discussed as argument. so that suggests it might have been a late-breaking development. as legal scholars continue to digest the opinion, some assert that the dissent many reference to ruth bader ginsberg s quote dissent is telling because she didn t write one per se. however, she did break from the majority opinion on key issues. so what she wrote could be characterized form of dissent,
court watchers going over this opinion by the supreme court. very closely in the past 24 hours. strong signals tonight that the chief justice may have flipped his vote in recent days or recent weeks after siding with the conservative side of the court to throw out all of the president s healthcare law and changing it to side with the liberal side of the court to uphold obamacare. let s bring in the panel. start there. john stossel, fox business network. juan williams, columnist with hill t hill. syndicated columnist krauthammer. charles, thoughts about this reading the verbiage and about john roberts motivations? i m not sure that we will ever know. there is one piece of psychological evidence that f you want. justice kennedy read his dissent, i wasn t in the room but it was described wildly, demeanor angry or agitated. we know the guys live with divided opinions all the time. you might expect that if he
felt there was a reversal or even betrayal. but that is wild speculation. i think i should stop there. we will never know. i think what to me bret: we may know. well, in our lifetime, perhaps. you know what is remarkable, you don t get any leaks out of the institution. the administration ought to learn. they held this so closely there wasn t anybody in the country who had a clue what was going to happen with the way it worked out. there is nobody who predicted it there weren t leaks. it s 50 people or more who knew this. you have that in a congress or white house and everything leaks. we ought to entrust the people with stusnex and other cyber attacks. the ruling was as the ruling was. this is not to just go back in the motivation too much. if that is what happened, if the legal experts are right. reading as they read that dissent could have been the majority, what does it tell
other side effects include indigestion, stomach pain, upset, or burning. pradaxa is progress. having afib not caused by a heart valve problem increases your risk of stroke. ask your doctor if you can reduce your risk with pradaxa. the dissent does seem in places to have at least at one point been majority opinion. you can see verbal clues. another notable aspect is they pointed out the tax issue wasn t discussed at argument. so that suggests it might have been a late-breaking development. there are a lot of tale-tell clues that dissent started out as majority. there could have been five votes for overturning the mandate. at some time late in the process, switched a vote or came off the fence. bret: legal watchers,