servetive states will find a way to challenge the law. they will find a plaintiff who does have standing and this will work its way through the courts again. this is a huge, huge victory for obamacare. but it is not the end of the story on legal challenges to obamacare. for sure. but the fact, this is the third time that the supreme court has found a way to keep the accordable care act intact. and they ve always sort of picked at something in the case, at this case, standing, to find a way to keep the law intact. you read my mind. exactly the point i was going to make. standing up three times gives it a good track record here. jeffrey toobin, thanks. jeff laid out the fact that alito and thomas. it s superinteresting that amy coney barrett sided with the liberals on this, given what she said before she was a justice about roberts initial decision on obamacare in the first challenge. it was a book review on it.
deal with lgbt people. what it says is but many foster care agencies are affiliated with churches. and so, if they have a religious objection to same-sex couples, they can say no gay people need apply. that s the message of today s case. that s an important point. everyone stay with us. we have andy slavitt on the phone with us. andy, it s good to have you. let s switch back to the obamacare decision being upheld for a third time by the supreme court. your thoughts, the house thoughts this morning. i think it a 7-2 ruling by a conservative court, that says, you don t have standing, is, in effect, get this out of my court, once and for all. i think that s where this case belongs. people have been a whirlwind over the last ten years, being told to be nervous, that their
they re saying the plaintiffs in this case, who were the republican-led states, the attorneys general of these various states, including texas, who had been challenging this law for several years, it s gone up through the courts. the supreme court here saying, they don t have standing to challenge this law. for now, the law will stand until, potentially, another challenger, someone different, brings a case. this is a significant victory, if you will, for the millions of americans who have gained health care coverage under the affordable care act. we ve seen president biden in just the first six months of his presidency, really focus in on the affordable care act. he celebrated the anniversary of the affordable care act, just a few months ago. he opened up the exchanges. he extended the time, that people could get on the exchanges, to sign up for health care, until august. so, this is a significant victory for the biden administration, that urged the supreme court not to strike this law
organizations, do not have to comply with the anti-discrimination laws, do not allow foster parents who are same-sex couples in this case, because it violates the first amendment, the free speech and the exercise of religion. i ll let you read more. jeffrey toobin, to you. this goes beyond philadelphia. way beyond philadelphia. this is real estate visiting of a significant preprecedent. why does this matter? this is a big legal cause of conservatives in america. telling religious institutions and religious people, they don t have to follow the laws that everyone else has to follow. think about the hobby lobby case of a few years ago. a big company, the hobby lobby company, which is a private company, owned by people who have religious objections to certain forms of birth control, which is usually covered by the affordable care act. the supreme court said, they don t have to subsidize
like this but president trump put forth this, you know, in my opinion a bogus pretext that he had to withdraw daca because it was unlawful. not because it was bad policy but because he was unlawful. that is not true. it is a lawful use of executive enforcement in immigration but he knows that daca is incredibly popular. that hundreds of thousands of dreamers are parts of our communities and valued by this country. so he wants the chief justice and the supreme court to do the dirty work for him saying his hands are tied. that is not true. the question is whether the court will see this as bogus pretext it is like the census case or go along with the president as they did in the travel ban case. jillian: do you agree? i agree. if they go like the travel ban, it is not appropriate to look behind what the, what the actual actions being taken is. everyone can agree, what the president can make these regulations, he can change the regulation. that is within the executive