is what the president was basing his defense of the statute on, and the taxing authority, even in oral argument they ran away from the whole idea that this could be a tax. john roberts is the um spire, he calls the ball and strikes, he called it a strike, the decent called it a ball. i sided with the decent here, i think clearly this was an over reach. to rewrite the statute and making it a tax, i think under cuts not only the credibility of the white house here, who is saying this wasn t a tax, but i think also it was a stretch legally cheeking. chip merlin i m going to quote clark nealy, he says it s a terrible mistake and the supreme court has forward the most significant expansion of federal power since the new deal. does that concern you? i disagree with the premise. i think we ll have problems with the commerce clause in the future because of them finding that the commerce clause was inapplicable to enforce this act. the truth of the matter is republicans were calling this a
exchanges. a lot of states are behind the 8 ball as i understand. your republican rick scott, they are perhaps not as advanced in setting of these exchanges as other states might. it s my reading of the law if you do not set up these exchanges washington will do it for you. that s what we re going to make that decision, we are working with the senate president, the speaker of the house, and with governor scott. and i m proud of governor scott for not taking money and getting wrapped up in something that we firmly still believe is unconstitutional. bill: the statute reads kathleen sebelius. the secretary of health and human services, shall, quote, establish and operate the exchanges for the states. isn t that frightening? federal government over reach at its best, it really is. bill: there is a line in here from the new york times article that the expansion of medicaid under the affordable care act could increase the state s tab to $1.1 billion by
patti ann: the critics say the supreme court made a major mistake with this healthcare ruling, despite the support of john roberts, the conservative chief justice wrote it is reasonable to construe what congress has done as increasing taxes. such legislation is within congress power to tax. dissenting justices wrote, to say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. judicial tax writing is particularly troubling. we have jay sekulow chief council for law and justice, and chip murray. thanks for joining us. judicial rewriting is troubling. do you agree with that. i sure do. the president of the united states says this is not a tax. he said it throughout the entire debate as the cases were moving forward in litigation. it was the congress clause which
i understand and i m glad that the commerce clause restrictions were put in place, we argued aggressively on behalf of almost 120 members of congress that there was no commerce clause authority, that we won. but at the end of the day a stat aourbgts th statute, the affordable care law is now the law. mitt romney said yesterday, the supreme court may have said it s constitutional, but it doesn t mean it s good law. the ra ramifications of this are significant. patti ann: thank you. bill: more of that to come. a new green energy company planning to file for bankruptcy after receiving tens of millions of your tax dollars in we are live in washington to figure that one out. patti ann: a hit-and-run that could have turned deadly. we ll have the video that police are using to catch a driver on the run. i m not angry, i m a little confused why they didn t stop. [ engine turns over ] [ male announcer ] we created the luxury crossover
five justices, including the chief justice decided rewrite the statute. the word tax never appears in the statute. it is a tax on the middle class and the greatest middle class tax increase in the country. no tax cut here, big tax increase. to say this was the republicans, please. the defense of the statue was by the solicitor general of the united states and he was the one who said this was the commerce clause authority and i m glad the five justices said does not apply and would not be covered under commerce. patti ann: he said congress may use its taxing power as an incentive to have people do things they don t want to do. this will have growth stifling uncertainties. people are very worries about the precedent this sets. what do you say to them? i would say to them that while congress taxing power increased the authority under the commerce clause has