conservative position. now, i would have said yes, that is a reason that you want to uphold the law. however, the only way that you can defend the mandate is by invoking the commerce clause and if you you do you have destroyed the idea of america as a government of enumerated powers and thus i would have overturned it. i m just trying to explain what i think ran through his mind. sean: i underand it that. i actually agree with the dissent of scalia, kennedy, alito and justice thomas here on the commerce clause they said you cannot regulate commerce that does not exist but they were far more scathing in their remarks that frankly you can only determine as being aimed at the chief justice that the tax argument is bunk. the court cannot rewrite obama care to make the tax argument work. they referred to it as feeble being the tax argument. they said there is a mountain of evidence against the tax
would fly making it legitimate that is constitutional in the supreme court as we found out. as we look at the issues you would like to see the media ask the president himself. you sold this as not being a tax and in fact it is a tax. i think it is a big deal. when i look at the dissent, governor, i m amazed at the language that is used and that is you can t regulate commerce that doesn t exist. and, of course, i m talking about justice thomas scalia, alito and kennedy here. you cannot rewrite obama care to make the tax argument work. they call the tax argument feeble. strong words really directed at the chief justice the tax argument makes no sense. mountain of evidence against the tax argument here. i guess my question is now that a precedent has been set what does that mean constitutionally to you. i have been making the case
now, i would have said yes, that is a reason that you want to uphold the law. however, the only way that you can defend the mandate is by invoking the commerce clause and if you you do you have destroyed the idea of america as a government of enumerated powers and thus i would have overturned it. i m just trying to explain what i think ran through his mind. sean: i underand it that. i actually agree with the dissent of scalia, kennedy, alito and justice thomas here on the commerce clause they said you cannot regulate commerce that does not exist but they were far more scathing in their remarks that frankly you can only determine as being aimed at the chief justice that the tax argument is bunk. the court cannot rewrite obama care to make the tax argument work. they referred to it as feeble being the tax argument. they said there is a mountain of evidence against the tax argument.
the tax argument makes no sense. these are his fellow justices saying that. i agree entirely what the dissent on that. it is very clear that roberts was just straining to find something and in fact he he picked the third line of defense for obama care by the proponents of the bill. one that was so weak that they themselves devoted only 21 lines in the brief. and came up new mexico. hardly occupied any of the oral debate. everybody knows that was the weakest of the three defenses and that is why i think everybody is so seston initialed. a tax is something that you do to raise revenue. a penalty is something that you do to deterp conduct. when you run a red light you get a notice. it doesn t say you are now assessed a speeding tax. you are assessed a speeding penalty. the reason why i think the dissent was is so scathing on the attempt to equate a tax with a penalty in the mandate
which eight justices voted their principles. one justice gave us a political ruling. i m happy with the part of the political deal we got and unhappy with the deal he gave the other side. i should say this is a broad reading of roberts s behavior. none of us are seeing into the man s mind. it s possible he was persuaded by the tax argument on one side and persuaded by the commerce clause on the other çside. i don t think anyone who reads this opinion can reach the decision that he was persuaded by it. i think most of the people who were so outspoken after the oral argument looked like it was going the other way were insisting and demanding he make a political ruling in order to effect the legitimacy of the court. that s what e h did. i think everybody knows that s what he did. people who like the outcome like that he did it. i don t know how much they respect that. i like the part he gave me.