constitutional as the rest of them. this was the hot button issue. no question. and so in some respects, those who do have a chip on their shoulder so to speak would say, good, we can move forward from here. don t you see it that way? yeah, and that s what i think is the most disturbing about that portion that the supreme court kind of held in abeyance in terms of constitutionality, that is it allows personalities driven by motives beyond the law like abio and others, to use that discretion that the court has given them in this interim period to basically take away people s rights and abuse people s privileges. the bush administration couldn t do it, the obama administration ran into a filibuster. how much responsibility is on the congress now to get immigration reform moving? i want to play this for you. jan brewer is blaming the democrats for not getting immigration reform passed. here she is.
congress. his enforcement action rarting children of undocumented immigrants is another major reform. the president has offered solutions and policy changes while the congress has done nothing. the only thing the gop has offered really is racial profiling on a state level. mitt romney told a crowd of top donors today, i would have preferred to see the supreme court give more latitude to the states, not less. this is the closest he came to offering an opinion about the ruling. his wishy-washy stance on immigration has led to scenes like this. protesters gathering outside romney s fund-raising luncheon in arizona today. it shows the importance of immigration reform. arizona was smack down to try to get its own immigration policy in new crimes to target ilgrnlts. racial profiling. this is an issue to be decided on the federal level. it s interesting how a right wing court said no state rights
providing subsidies on a sliding scale to help individuals in families who cannot afford health insurance. the supreme court has three basic choices. number one, uphold the law, strike down the individual mandate, strike down the entire law. those are the three options. but even if the supreme court strikes down just the individual mandate, it basically guts the health care law. without the mandate, there is no way to pay for the most popular provision that all americans should be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. i m joined by wendell potter director and vice president of cigna, now with the center for public integrity and author of the book deadly spin. good to have you with us tonight. those really are the three basic choices that are available here to the court. if the court strikes down the individual mandate, but not the requirement on pre-existing
did he embarrass the court on this one? i don t think scalia embarrasssed the court. what he was doing to an extent was stepping beyond a normal judicial role, but remember, the president of the united states, when he had the justices in front of him at a state of the union address, also went way over the line in attacking the supreme court in a state of the union address. i wish the entire process could be less politicized. attacking? he gave an opinion. he said he was worried about the ruling. he attacked the ruling. the job of the president whether he likes the ruling or not, is to say this is the law, i will enforce it. it is not to give his opinion. you re willing to say that scalia went beyond? this is a very unusual be an activist judge. let s throw the word activism in there because actually it can be applied to both sides at various times. it s no activism because it s
their own state officials made the best arguments. michael, what s this mean for health care coming up on thursday? who knows? anything could happen. there s a lot of speculation now that the chief justice roberts today when he was announcing these decisions said we will have the rest of the decisions that are ready. which may be an implication they re going to punt and delay this health care decision until after the election. wow. that would be a big move. it would be a huge move, and very unusual, and by the way, it would leave the country in the lurch because there are a lot of provisions of obama care that are supposed to come into play before they they would render their decision. it would be good because health care is working. most of it doesn t go into effect until 2014. we re talking way down the pike. but i do think that playing with it, playing with this decision is a political football, a politicizing of the court.