tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 16, 2016 8:31pm-8:42pm EDT
>> everybody tries this is being on by the experience. it's something we want people to have familiarity with it. and understand where working on. >> other any legislative or regulatory issues involved in this? >> i think it is so new that there is not a lot that applies to it. that is part of why we want to educate people today. we don't want people to make assumptions that they may or may not be correct or know what the technology is, we would rather have them come and experience it. >> what your scene is hdc. >> congratulation to the class
of 2016, today's your day of celebration and you have earned it. >> the voices crying for peace and light because it your choices make all of the difference to you and to all of us. >> do not be afraid to take on cases where new jobs, or new issues that really stretches your boundary. >> respect your summer broad with real ships instead of internships and the specter of living in your parents basement after this graduation day is not likely to be a greatest concern. >> this month watch commencement's speeches in their entirety from colleges and universities around the world country by business leaders, politicians, and white house officials. on c-span. >> the supreme court today sent back to the lower courts challenges brought by religious
affiliated nonprofit groups to the affordable care act contraceptive mandate. here's reaction from the white house press secretary, josh earnest. >> let me start by saying that we obviously were pleased with the announcement from the supreme court today. it will allow millions of women across the country to continue to get the healthcare coverage they need. so this obviously is an outcome that we e pleased to see. our concerns about the continued vacancy on the supreme court persists, in this case based on again the announcement from the supreme court it is not obvious that an additional justice would have yielded a different result, but i have not heard anybody make the argument that leaving
the supreme court of united states short staffed is somehow good for the country. the argument that we've heard from republicans is, they do not want to confirm another one of president obama's nominees to the supreme court. they have made that declaration based solely on partisan reasons. many republicans are having a tough time explaining it to their constituents why they refuse to do their job, simply because republican leader in the senate has requested that they do so. there are presidents of both parties that made a strong case for fulfilling their constitutional duty. it it was president reagan who observed that a vacancy on the supreme court did not serve the american people well.
president obama has made exactly the same case. >> as for the substance of the issue, are you confident that the administration will compromise at this point? >> i think what is true is that administration has to put forward an accommodation that ensures that women nationwide have access to healthcare, including contraceptive coverage, coverage, without pay i might add. while also protecting religious liberty. we are pleased to announce this accommodation and to demonstrate that we were committed to both principles. now what is also true is there may be another process that plays out, because ultimately that was the announcement of this. will obviously continue to
engage in the process, but we are pleased with the announcement today and the supreme court that protects the ability of millions of women nationwide to continue to get access to their healthcare. >> with the current supreme court term beginning to wind down the court today moving forward on the healthcare law, contraceptive mandate, we are joined by washington post supreme court correspondent, robert byrne. what did the court say today? >> will the court said that for right now they're going to stay out of it. the court said that it appears there is a compromise that is possible in which these groups would not be offended by what the administration was trying to do in providing contraceptive care to the female employees. and that there was a workaround that was in play. but the government, the court
said all of that should be accomplished in the lower courts, not at the supreme court. so it sends all of these cases back and with hopes that a compromise could be reached. >> remind us our viewers and listeners what the underlying issue was that the plaintiffs had. >> the issue is that the affordable care act commonly cared obama care requires an players provide female employees of contraceptive coverage. churches, places of worship, are exempted from that. but religious groups such as universities, charities, or hospitals are not exempted. the administration made an accommodation for them and said that if they objected to providing this coverage and told the governments that, then the government would make other arrangements to have the
insurance company pay fort without it without any kind of involvement by the groups. the group said that was not enough. that even even notified their insurance companies or the federal government of such an objection set in motion the fact that these women would still get the contraceptive coverage that the groups disagreed with. so it was a bit of a standoff. all but one appeals court around the country rule for the obama administration and said the accommodation was enough. the supreme court today though throughout those decisions and basically said to start over. >> if they had decided to leave the current decisions alone, those decisions would have stood and you would have had different rulings in different parts of the country, correct? >> that is right.
there's only one appeals court so far that rolled the accommodation was not enough. but it still would have meant that the lot was interpreted differently in different parts of the country. >> your tweet about this issue, the scotus reporter on twitter, the shorthanded supreme court sends the obama care back to the war case. the eight members of the court, what, what does this say about the current status of missing one justice? >> well i think it means that there clearly wasn't a majority on either side of this case in the court was looking for a way out of it. today's opinion was only three pages. it was unanimous. the court went out of its way to say that it was not deciding anything on the merits of the case. it was just sending it back. if it had split for dashboard as you would say, then all of those rulings would have been interpreted differently across the country. so the court is doing some very unusual things to try to avoid those four-four ties. in this case, if loaded its own idea of a compromise in march
and then asked boast sides to respond to it. that is what today's ruling is based upon. >> and the headline the supreme court sends obama care case back to lower courts, any idea of the road forward in terms of what these plaintiffs can do, what the courts may do in the coming months and years? >> well, it is a little unclear. i think it think it is unclear to the groups too. the court does seem to think there would be some negotiation between the parties, the administration and these groups that have been objecting to this. at the same time, time, the court made it clear that it expected the law to be fulfilled so that women got this coverage. in fact fact it said that with the parties in this case, which range from the diocese of pittsburgh, two small colleges
across the country to a group of nuns called the little sisters of the poor, it says that the government can go ahead and take this as notification that these groups object to providing this coverage and that government can then go ahead and try to find a way to provide it on its own. >> robert burns covers this up in court and writes about the court for the washington post, you can read more at washington post.com apollo's reporting on twitter@scotus reporter. thank you for joining us. >> you are very welcome. thank you. >> the supreme court sent challenges back to the lower courts on the healthcare law nt