here s the white house statement. citizens united was wrong when it was decided and as two supreme court justices have observed since, independent expenditures by corporations are threatening the health of our democracy. unfortunately, the court today missed an opportunity to correct that mistake. this is kind of a wake-up call to america. if we as a people believe that all voices should be heard in a fair debate, then we should stand up and do something about this. the obama administration is positioned in history to make a difference. either the country gets it or it doesn t. your thoughts? i think they should make a big deal of this. and i think in this election, people who have all of this corporate money spent against them should make it a central issue in the campaign. and say don t believe all that stuff. the fact that they re spending
constitution and precedent and all the things the supreme court is supposed to be our guide on, and to smack a sitting president that way, i really can t think of another example of a justice doing something that outrageous. and it s really as though he cast off his judicial robes and revealed himself today to be a partisan hack. i mean, there have been decisions before. he is the man who gave us george w. bush. he did use the 14th amendment, which had been passed to give rights to freed slaves. he used that to make george bush president, and in the process, disenfranchised a lot of black people who didn t have their votes counted. that was a special one. and said there could be no precedent. so we ve got a lot of history of scalia doing this. but this was the worst. michael medved, did scalia embarrass the court on this one? i don t think scalia embarrassed the court. what he was doing to an extent was stepping beyond a normal judicial role, but remember, the
that portion that the supreme court kind of held in terms of the constitutionality is that it allowed personalities driven by motives beyond the law like arpaio 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. we also cannot forget that president obama and his party had both houses in congress for two years and could have secured our borders and fulfilled the promise to fix our broken immigration system. your response, congressman? i kind of find it curious. other than myself and congressman pastor, who we have
the united states supreme court. and that we will move forward and now it has been validated unanimously by the united states supreme court. you know what this country needs? a real dose of honesty. why can t the republicans and the democrats just come together on this issue and start from this vantage point? we both have failed. your party and our party, we haven t been able to get it done. can we start over now? jan brewer is the baghdad bob of right wing immigration laws. she says the court upheld the heart of senate bill 1070, but it only upheld the right for the law enforcement to ask for documentation. brewer is proud of one key achievement. the ability to racially profile suspected undocumented immigrants. republican officials like brewer and sheriff joe arpaio, you have to ask yourself the question, are they really interested in real immigration reform? if they were, they would be praising the number of immigrant
insurance exchanges. 57% of republicans support 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 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