tv Americas Newsroom FOX News June 28, 2012 6:00am-8:00am PDT
interesting episode. it's one i would say fans have been waiting a few years for. >> really? good tease. >> uh-oh. >> joe, good luck on magic mike this weekend. >> thank you very much. >> brian: you'll stay around for the after the show show? >> yeah. >> steve: see you tomorrow. barbecue. >> all right. bill: it is 9:00 in our nation's capital. this historic day unfold anything washington, d.c.. the fate of president obama's signature legislative achievement hanging in the balance at this hour. this as the house get ready to vote on whether or not to hold the attorney general in criminal contempt of congress. but we start with the supreme court where we are awaiting a landmark decision we expect a ruling before the end of this broadcast. will the law stand, will it be overturned, will the individual mandate alone be struck down? there is high drama in this special edition of "america's newsroom." we will all remember this day. i'm bill hemmer, good morning to you at home and, jamie, good
morning to you. jamie: could be one of the biggest of our generation. i'm jamie colby. welcome that owl of -- to all of you. all of this started more than two years ago when president obama signed the bill into law. that signing ceremony sparking this now-famous line from vice president joe biden. [applause] bill: but the backlash from republicans came swiftly, and at times it was strong. >> the american people have every right to oppose this government takeover of health care without being lumped in with bigots and vandals by liberals in congress and in the mainstream press. >> it will remain of this body because of the unilateral, secretive, rushed process that's been use today force this bill on the american people. bill: now we are two years later. the supreme court has its say this morning, and we have team
fox coverage. shannon bream on the steps of the supreme court. mike emanuel live in washington on the holder hearing. steven hayes with the political fallout on both events coming up within a matter of moments here. first to shannon outside the court. want to go through the possible outcomes the court could give us today. start there, shannon, good morning. >> reporter: well, good morning, bill, and also i want to give you a look at what's going on here because in the last hour we've gotten a lot of company here. there are protesters from tea party, pro-life groups, even belly dancers taking a position. ultimately, today there is a brief, small window but a chance the court could say this case isn't ripe, we're not going to rule yet. more broadly, they uphold the law or keep all of it. in about one hour from now, we expect it to be very hefty opinion and very unique. probably we haven't seen another one like it in decades, bill. bill: in all likelihood. now, the possibilities we need to keep an eye on are what,
shannon? >> reporter: well, the possibilities are multiple because this we expect to be a fractured, split opinion. there could be multiple opinions within the opinion. there are several different, key issues that i know you all are going to talk about more in depth that will be decided today. ultimately, it comes down to does it all stand, does it all fall? some we are going to keep an eye on two justices in particular, justice anthony kennedy. he is up used as the swing vote, and during questioning in march he had very probing questions for both sides, but he did start out part of the day in the argument on the mandate saying can you create commerce so that you can regulate it, suggesting he was skeptical of the ability of congress to do that for this individual mandate. but heal gave weight to the problem that there is a problem with the health insurance market. also the chief justice john roberts. we believe he may be writing this opinion. he also had tough questioning for both sides. i think it would be unwise to try to lock in either of their
votes at this point, bill. bill: either one could be a wildcard or neither one, and that is part of the drama we await. shannon, we'll check back in at the supreme court. jamie? jamie: thank you. the whole case revolves around four questions the court is expected to answer. one is the anti-injunction act. if the penalty enforcing the individual mandate is a tax, can it be challenged in court at all before it fully takes effect? in other words, should the court be ruling on the individual mandate at all before 2014? then there's the commerce clause. does congress have the authority to enact the minimum coverage provision forcing americans to buy a product or face a fine? there's also the issue of several about. if the mandate is unconstitutional, can it be severed from the law and let the rest stand in finally, does the increased burden on the states of expanding medicaid violate the tenth amendment? all of that part of the court's dig and soon we will know -- decision and soon we will know
how they rule. bill: hang on to those four points, but in some way the people have already spoken. brand new fox polling shows the following: more voters still oppose the health care law than oppose it. as of now 39% favor it. that's the exact number we saw just after the bill was passed and signed into law more than two years ago, and today just under half oppose it. a bit of a drop from 2010, but that number at 49%. voters also divide over whether congress or what congress should do if the justices only today out the mandate. if that happens, 43% say scrap the entire law. 42% want congress to keep what's left over, the are not sure at 16%. jamie: and we want to give you some background on the health care overhaul. president obama signed it into law on march 23, 2010. it runs more than 2,400 pages and to date 39 -- or, rather, 59 of 912 provisions of the -- 92
provisions of the law have been implemented including a medicare drug rebate and coverage for those who have pre-existing medical conditions. bill: we have special coverage on the health care decision. this is a decision that will impact 300 million americans. at the top of the next hour, bret baier, megyn kelly, the judge, andrew napolitano, they help to round out our panel, extensive analysis of the decision, what it will mean both politically, legally and economically too, so stay tuned as we push forward on health care. and then there's the other story of the day. jamie: uh, yeah, it's pretty big too. also a big day for eric holder, the attorney general of the united states. he's facing a contempt of congress vote over the fast and furious investigation. mike emanuel live in washington with us right now. mike, good morning. this is also historic. what do we expect? >> reporter: well, jamie, everything in the house should get going around 12:30 eastern time, about three-and-a-half hours from now. we expect the house will vote first on the criminal contempt
resolution against the attorney general, then later they'll vote on a civil contempt resolution which, if passed, would allow the house to go to a judge to force doj to hand over fast and furious documents. last night at the white house was the congressional picnic, and we spotted attorney general eric holder there. before the picnic there were some tense moments as house members were debating moving forward with contempt. at one point darrell issa went after his democratic colleague, elijiah cummings. >> i believe mr. cummings has not lived up to his promise. i wish he had to the terry family. i believe in spirit he thinks he has, but in reality the truth, the full truth is too painful for, in fact, him to take on his own attorney general. >> reporter: as you can imagine, congressman cummings was not happy with chairman issa, saying his integrity had never been challenged before, jamie. jamie: what's the white house's position today about the attorney general? are they still standing behind
him? >> reporter: well, they obviously disagree with moving forward with contempt, and jay carney was asked about the process and also about the attorney general. take a listen to him. >> he has absolute confidence in his attorney general, and, you know, what you're hearing from me are the views of the president and the white house and the administration, that this is a political theater. it is a, you know, unnecessary distraction from the work that congress should be doing for the american people on the economy, on jobs. >> reporter: so the house will get working on contempt right after the health care takes center stage. jamie: mike, thanks. appreciate your report. bill: there are two major turning points that will happen today with huge political implications for both sides of the aisle. steven hayes, fox news contributor with me now, good morning to you.
first on health care, we're guessing here in large part. how big of a day, how important of a day is this for the presidency of barack obama? >> well, i think it's a huge day for the presidency of barack obama. he spent 18 months trying to push this, he campaigned on it, it's his signature domestic policy achievement. if it were to be struck down, it would be a major defeat for the white house obviously in terms of policy, but also in many terms of politics. it'd be difficult for this white house to explain why they spent 18 months pushing something like this, why a former constitutional law professor didn't understand the constitutional questions that were at play in the decision. you can bet that republicans will push that argument very seriously and aggressively if the law is, in fact, struck down. we're already hearing from mitt romney's team that they intend to argue that this was a distraction, that we spent 8 months when the president -- 18 months when the president could have been focused on jobs.
bill: it's interesting, too, to watch who rushes for the microphone first because there could be the fog of law when this order comes out and takes o some time to really digest and understand it. now, on the eric holder matter where does this story move after today's expected vote in the afternoon? is. >> well, the eric holder matter is interesting because it will no doubt be overshadowed by whatever the health care decision is. this is something that hasn't gotten a ton of play in the mainstream media, something that's been followed close are i by fox and by others but certainly not something that has received the kind of focus i think it should have in the broader media. and they will, i think, undercover it, won't report on it as much as it probably deserves and certainly will be overshadowed by the discussion of the health care. where does this go? i don't expect republicans to campaign on it much regardless of what happens, and i expect that it will be largely a partisan vote in the house this afternoon. bill: steve, thank you. stephen hayes with us today, and
we'll talk to you later this hour. thank you, steve. ten minutes past the hour. jamie: fox news alert for you on the economy. brand new numbers on jobs. the labor department is reporting a drop in the number of americans filing for new unemployment benefits. 386,000 people filed last week, a drop of 6,000 from the week before. bill: all right. 11 minutes past the hour, you know the eyes are on the supreme court set to rule in about one hour's time. we will know the fate of that law on health care. but in minutes, greta van susteren's live outside the court on the legal history that will be made today. jamie: and then we have to wonder how will republicans react. we're going to talk to one gop senator who will be there for the ruling. stay with us. >> the supreme court is going to rule on the president's health care bill which is making it, health care costs continue to rise and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. unless the supreme court throws
[ music plays, record skips ] hi, i'm new ensure clear. clear, huh? my nutritional standards are high. i'm not juice or fancy water, i'm different. i've got nine grams of protein. twist my lid. that's three times more than me! twenty-one vitamins and minerals and zero fat! hmmm. you'll bring a lot to the party. [ all ] yay! [ female announcer ] new ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. twenty-one vitamins and minerals. in blueberry/pomegranate and peach. refreshing nutrition in charge! that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they help save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs.
call today to request a free decision guide. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide.
bill: 9:15 now to our nation's capital, another fox news alert where republican lawmakers explaining how they will handle the health care decision depending how it comes down. just yesterday this is what we heard from the house speaker, john boehner, on the hill. >> if the court does not strike down the entire law, the house will move to repeal what's left of it. obamacare is driving up the cost of health care and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. our focus has been the economy, and it will continue to be the economy. bill: wyoming republican senator john barrasso is on his way inside the court on the steps right now. he's also an orthopedic surgeon. senator, good morning to you.
>> thanks, bill. bill: three months ago you were inside the court listening to oral arguments. what specifically do you remember from that moment that leads you to believe how the justices may rule on this case? >> i remember the specific quote which was that if they find this mandate is constitutional, it changes the fundamental relationship between the citizens and the government. and that would be a very heavy lift and a heavy case to have to make to change the relationship between the government and its citizens. bill: but as you know, it is difficult to read the tea leaves here. when you walked out of court that day, were you expecting victory on your side, or were you still not clear? >> well, you know, you're always cautious. you don't know what's going to happen today. i am going to respect the way that the judges rule, although no matter which they way rule this health care law is still unaffordable for the american people, and it is still very up popular. -- unpopular. bill: how will republicans
respond? >> well, if any of the law is still standing, the first everett will be to -- effort will be to repeal whatever is still standing. and then in a step-by-step way working, of course n a bipartisan way, the things that the president didn't do, then work with common sense reforms to lower the cost of health care in america. that's why this whole effort was started, because of the cost of care. we have to do things aiming to lower the cost of health care for american citizens because what people really want is the care that they need from a doctor that they choose and at lower cost. bill: two weeks ago it was thought that republicans especially in the house would go to repeal immediately. is that still the common thinking, or will you take a step back and consider what's -- if parts of the law still remain intact, you'll consider some of the parts of law that have been effective and already enacted for possibly millions if not tens of thousands of americans today? >> this 2700-page law is
completely unworkable. we need to get rid of all of it and then start again in a step-by-step fashion. you are not going to see the republicans come out with a 2700-page law, something that is so voluminous, it cannot be read, so incoherent, it cannot be understood. we want to work on things that lower the cost of care like buying insurance across state lines, like, you know, avoiding this discrimination that happens to people from a tax standpoint who buy their own health insurance. by making sure health insurance is portable and people can take it with them so they don't lose it when they change their jobs. and we have to deal with these, this lawsuit abuse that drives up the cost of care through all of this defensive medicine bill that is practiced by doctors all across -- bill: so in a word, whatever stands after today's ruling, republicans will work to repeal what's left on the table, correct? >> yes. and then actually replace it in a step-by-step way with common
sense reforms that work so that people can get the care that they need from a doctor that they choose, not that the government chooses or an insurance company chooses. bill: understood. does congress heed on that, or do you wait for mitt romney knowing there's an election in four months? >> well, obviously, mitt romney is our presidential candidate. he will take a leadership role. the house is going to move, i believe, to repeal whatever remains standing. bill: senator, thank you for your asylum. john barrasso about to head into the court. >> thanks, bill. bill: senator, thank you. jamie? jamie: there are lots of scenarios in play today, most important how the decision will effect you, your doctors and your hospitals. dr. marc siegel, part of our a-team, will be here and will the president's promise ring true? >> if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan. period. if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.
period. [applause] down here, folks measure commitment by what's getting done. the twenty billion doars bp committed has helped fund economic and environmental recovery. long-term, bp's made a five hundred million dollar commitment to support scientists studying the environment. and the gulf is open for business - the beaches are beautiful, the seafood is delicious. last year, many areas even reported record tourism seasons. the progress continues... but that doesn't mean our job is done.
we're still committed to seeing this through. you wouldn't want your doctor doing your job. so why are you doing hers? only your doctor can determine if your persistent heartburn is actually something more serious... like acid reflux disease. over time, stomach acid can damage the lining of your esophagus. for many, prescription nexium not only provides 24-hour heartburn relief, but can also help heal acid related erosions in the lining of your esophagus. talk to your doctor about the risk for osteoporosis-related bone fractures and low magnesium levels with long-term use of nexium. possible side effects include headache, diarrhea and abdominal pain. other serious stomach conditions may still exist. let your doctor do her job, and you do yours. ask if nexium is right for you.
bill: 9:23 now in washington, another fox news alert. we told you it was a busy day today. we are awaiting a major business announcement about news corporation, the parent company of the fox news channel, coming up at approximately 10:45 eastern time. neil cavuto interviews rupert murdoch live on the fox business network. here at the fox news channel we will simulcast that interview. mr. murdoch set to talk about splitting news corporation into two companies. again, this happens a bit later this morning. expect that about 10:45 a.m. eastern time, about 09 minutes from now. -- 90 minutes from now. jamie: we want the tell you
we're keeping all eyes on the supreme court at this hour as you are as well, and as we await this historic decision on president obama's health care law, we wanted to talk about what changes we will all see and how it could effect your insurance and next visit to your doctor. dr. marc siegel is joining me here. doc, good to see you. >> good to see you, jamie. jamie: how much input did doctors have on the obamacare law? >> very little. i've been writing articles about it, but the reality is the american medical association weighed in, they sat at a white coat ceremony, they made a faustian deal where he said, basically, we're going to make a doctors' fix for you where you won't get these draconian cuts from medicare that are looming over you every year. that never happened. there was an obamacare table, basically, where insurers came, drug companies, doctors, but
here's the key answer to your question: practicing doctors never believed that. we already knew that insurance was a big interface that we had to deal with every day, that government had too many regulations on us already, that we wanted to take care of individual patients, but they weren't going to get the services they need under obamacare. every practicing doctor i've ever spoken to was against this and surveys back me up on this. jamie: what i wanted to ask you is because you are not just a tv doctor, you have a very busy clinical practice. first, what have your patients been saying to you? what are their concerns? depending upon where the decision goes today, what's the one thing if it had to be rewritten that you hope america gets? >> i think patients are most concerned that their premiums are going to soar. if the individual mandate is struck today by the supreme court, predictions are that their premiums, my patients' premiums are going to go up 30% to cover all the bells and whistles of obamacare. all of the pre-existing conditions if that stays in. lifetime coverage, up to 26
years old, if all the bells and whistles stay in, somebody's got to pay for it. it's going to be the consumer. as a physician, i wish that insurance covered less. i want my patients to pay more out of pocket for nonessential services. i want insurance to be there when you're really sick. i don't buy the idea that reventive medicine -- prevent i have medicine is the key problem. i think that occurs in a gym, on a treadmill with a change in diet. jamie: there are some preventive measures in obamacare though. there are some primary care items that would be covered and many parents want their kids to be covered til 26. >> well, first of all, great point. some of these, i can cherry pick them, some it's very important they are covered. what kind of coverage? again, as i said before, what kind of coverage? if you're young and healthy, you need coverage if some terrible accident occurs. that's called catastrophic. jamie: right. >> but if we make our young
people pay the same premium as people that are really older and sick, diabetics, that's why premiums soar. we have to re-examine that if this law falls apart. jamie: we'll be doing that this weekend, sunday morning, house calls. see you then. i know you're passionate about this topic. >> thanks, jamie. jamie: we want the tell you as well, you can check out full coverage on foxnews.com. dr. manny and his team all on standby with full analysis when the dig comes in. bill: meanwhile, will that health care law live or die or somewhere in between? in a moment, greta van susteren outside the supreme court on what you need to look out for. greta's on standby there. and eric holder, will he be the first u.s. attorney general held in contempt of congress? that vote is expected within hours as well. was there a cover-up in operation fast and furious? >> have you and your attorneys produced internally the
materials responsive to the subpoenas? >> we believe that we have responded to the -- >> no. mr. attorney general, you're not a good witness. a good witness answers the question asked. are you receiving a payout from a legal settlement or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today. @ high schools in six states enrolled in the national math and science initiative... ...which helped students and teachers get better results in ap courses. together, they raised ap test scores 138%. just imagine our potential... ...if the other states joined them. let's raise our scores. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students.
i say could because they don't necessarily have to, but i want to let viewers see the possibilities right now. regarding the issues that are before the supremes. number one is this anti-injunction act which goes back to the 1870s. can a taxation provision prevent a court challenge until the law was fully in effect which means can you rule on a tax before the tax is applied if you define this penalty defined as a tax or not? that's number one. number two deals with the commerce clause, can congress enact the minimum coverage provision. that deals directly with the mandate. and then you go to number three, can the laws stand if you take the mandate out? that's the severability clause. and then number four, does the burden of increased medicaid funding violate the tenth amendment which relates directly to how washington interacts with the states and how the states and whether or not they're told to beef up the medicaid rules or not.
of those four do you believe the supremes address all of them, one of them or perhaps two or three? >> i think they, bill, i think they address all of them. but the big mystery is what are they going to say on each one of them. you know, that's the fascinating part. i actually think if i were to pick which one two do i like the most, it's the whole issue of severability, and let me explain what that is. it's that when congress passes a statute, it usually includes what's called a severability clause meaning if it's someplace down the road someone strikes something unconstitutional, for instance, here the mandate, the rest of the statute still lives. everything else in the health care statute would still live. without the severability clause what should happen if they strike any part of that statute at all, what should happen is the entire statute fails. in the final version congress took it out, and the supreme court should look to the
congressional intelligent, what did congress want. and it looks like congress didn't want the severability clause in. so i would expect if the mandate is stricken, you would expect the entire statute to go out the door. however, this is the supreme court, and they get to decide what they want. bill: indeed, they could. now two, weeks ago on a saturday night ruth bader ginsburg was quoted, apparently, she was at an event in washington, d.c., and she said if you cut off the head of the broccoli, what happens to the rest of the broccoli? if you toss out the mandate, does the law stand or not, and that appears to be a central issue. how did you interpret that report? >> you know, i'm smart enough not to interpret what the justices say out of court or even in court. i've been around the block enough, identify argued cases -- i've argued cases myself. i walk out the door thinking, okay, i know how the justices or the judges what they're thinking, what they're going to decide and then six weeks later or three months later i get a decision that resets my clock. no matter what the justices say,
don't read anything into it. only the nine justices know right now what's going to happen to that statute. by the way, i have to tell you if you hear the noise increase around here, bill, this place is wild. we've got people protesting, all sorts of things. not even just this decision, whether it's constitutional or not, i've even seen posters for world peace, so you're missing a lot of activity out here. be bill they -- bill: they cover all ground there today. also, perhaps, the most significant day and arguably the most politically-charged day for this court in 12 years, going back to the fall of 2000 with bush v. gore, would you agree with that? >> i would certainly agree. and, you know, the supreme court pays attention to what's going on. now, they shouldn't. they should only be deciding the case based on the record, the information that eat before them. but remember that in the arizona case just this week in the dissent justice scalia made reference to a recent executive order by the president which was a hint that they do pay attention to what goes on
outside the record, outside the court. but in theory they should be only looking at the law, constitution applying the facts and reaching a decision. but they do pay attention. and we like to think they're not political, but they certainly are not deaf. they certainly hear what's going on out here. bill: thank you, greta van susteren, we will talk to you next hour, all right? >> indeed. bill: thank you. we'll see you later tonight, 10:00 eastern time. full, comprehensive, complete coverage on the record with greta only here on the fox news channel. check that out in prime time later tonight. jamie: but don't go anywhere because we have a lot more on this, plus the decision could come right after the top of the hour. our panel here for more analysis. juan williams and mary katherine hamm of the daily caller and fox news contributor. welcome to both of you on this big day. >> thank you. jamie: more cay katherine -- mary katherine, let me ask you first. mitt romney is the candidate for the gop. he is standing by to see what this decision is.
how important is his response? >> well, i think it's pretty important. it would be ideal if it were better than the response to the immigration decision which was a little bungled. but i think that they're ready. i'm sure they've got several versions ready for what comes here. i think today his response is easier than down the road. down the road you get into, for instance, if they knock certain parts down, does he need to get into super specific stuff about what he would put in place because a lot of people say repeal-replace. i think there is the possibility that the voters get a little ill with, hey, you're only giving us repeal. but people are open to the idea of putting in modest reforms instead of this giant bill that they don't feel is workable. jamie: juan, so much money has been spent already on this initiative, the overhaul of health care. and the voters know that. so as we move closer to november depending on what happens if there still isn't a plan in place and it needs to be reworked, what do you think their reaction will be election
day? >> well, i think it depends on who the voter is, jamie. clearly, if you're looking at it from the republican perspective as marry katherine was just talking about, i think there's so much anger at t legislation on the right that i think the repeal effort -- and i think romney's going to be very clear and he has been clear that if elected he would repeal it -- but if you're talking to voters on the left or even in the middle and maybe even more specifically to voters who are on medicare and medicaid, i think that they are going to say, you know, exactly how much is this going to drive up my premiums, is this going to increase my taxes, is this going to decrease my coverage in any way. and that's where the replace part becomes critical, and that could be an energizer for people on the democratic side of the ticket. jamie: mary katherine, given the price tag of this overhaul plan that president obama has laid out if it is struck down and all that money had been spent, we know we're not going to get it back, chances are. the court won't be considering
that. [laughter] but if it goes forward and it costs what it costs, could we be looking even at another debt ceiling increase, and how do you think the public would react to that? >> well, i think that's been a fear since they did the first debt ceiling deal is that, oh, goodness, we just spend money so fast, it'll come up before the election again. so i think there's a fear of that. the cbo would have to score this on exactly what it would mean, because there was a lot of, shall we say, shifting about what this thing would actually cost, and they front loaded or they back loaded the costs so that we didn't see all of those. so it's up in the air what that would actually cost. but to juan's point, i think people are already worried about their premiums which have gone up since obama allegedly solved this problem, they're worrying about losing doctors which has been happening as people have made changes. so those are the things that are worrying people right now. jamie: all right. i want to thank you both very much. we appreciate the insight. big day, i know you're watching
it closely. juan and mary katherine, thanks. >> you're welcome. bill: 21 minutes before the hour as we await the top of the hour from the halls of congress to the highest court in the land to every living room across america, frankly, awaiting the supreme court's historic decision on the health care law. ed meese was the u.s. attorney general under president ronald reagan. he is live in a matter of moments, the decision only moments away. we'll get his reaction. this all coming after months of strong criticism from republicans. remember this? >> we need to wake up in terms of the issue that is at stake here. it is our freedoms that are at stake. why not make lunch more than just lunch? with two times the points on dining in restaurants, you may find yourself asking why not, a lot.
chase sapphire preferred. changed my life.aids i feel so much younger. my husband was able to hear little things again, like the laughter of our grandkids. it's amazing. i can have fun with my friends again. ready to reconnect with your friends and family? the aarp hearing care program provided by hearusa can help you get back to living life. call hearusa... your satisfaction is 100% guaranteed. aarp members enjoy exclusive discounts on a wide range of digital hearing aids for crisp, natural sound even in crowded environments, with a 90-day risk free trial from providers you can trust. i'm enjoying my freedom again. even conversations in noisy restaurants are easy. not an aarp member? join today. and then take advantage of the aarp hearing care program provided by hearusa. call hearusa ...
this is the next chapter for the rx. this is the next chapter for lexus. this is the pursuit of perfection. thiwith two times the points on dining in restaurants, you may find yourself asking why not, a lot. chase sapphire preferred. bill: breaking news yet again, only minutes away from the supreme court's decision on the health care law. it is 9:43 now in our nation's capital. with me at the moment is edwin meese, served as u.s. attorney general under president ronald reagan, he's also the chairman of the center for legal and judicial studies at the heritage
foundation. it's good to have you on, sir, good morning to you in washington. >> good morning. good to be with you. bill: you filed an amicus brief with the court, a couple of them, a friend of the court brief, staking your position on obamacare. and you argue strongly against the individual mandate. what's the strongest case you can make to suggest that is unconstitutional? >> well, first of all, the fact that individual liberty is one of the fundamental principles on which the constitution is based. and there is no authority in the constitution at all for the government to force people to buy something that whether it's an insurance policy, a health care policy or anything else that they wouldn't ordinarily buy. so it's matter of liberty, it's a matter of the enumerated powers in the constitution, and it's a matter of not extending further the powers of the federal government in an area where people feel very strongly about their liberties. bill: well, make the case.
if they disagree with you, you argue there is no limit to the powers of the federal government. whatwhat would be next, do you believe? >> well, i think, first of all, i hope very much that the court will not go beyond the powers the federal government already enumerated under the commerce clause. but if they should, then i think the next thing is for the people to figure out how we get our liberty back, whether it's a constitutional amendment, whether it's some other way. but don't forget this, you also have the constitution being interpreted by the congress, and it's my hope that should that happen the congress would act, recognize the danger to liberty and immediately repeal the entire obama act. bill: well, in your brief you also argue the government's having a hard time and just to take your words directly, having a very hard time trying to show that this is constitutional. how do you read that? >> yes, i think that -- well, i think that was true. i think it was certainly true in the arguments before the court during the oral argument period,
and that certainly was borne out by the way in which the justices questioned the solicitor general at that time. be. bill: as you know, it's hard to read tea leaves when you're trying to gauge questions and answers, and oftentimeses they can be wrong. have you entertained the possibility that you could be wrong today and, if so, what then? >> well, we would certainly hope that we are not wrong, and as to what -- entertaining that possibility, it's always possible. that's why i've never predicted what courts are going to do. i've learned that some 50 years ago when i was trying cases in traffic court. [laughter] bill: that would have been an interesting courtroom, i think, also 50 years ago. [laughter] sir, what is -- >> yes, indeed. bill: -- the suggestion that we are to take away from this ruling, whatever it is, about how politics has now been injected into the court? what is your view on that? >> well, don't forget politics has always been on the periphery of judicial decisions.
but it is my hope, and i think the court has tried most of the time -- particularly this court -- to follow the constitution and to carry out the founders' vision, and that is that the court would rule on the law and not on the basis of politics. bill: what do you think is the most egregious aspect of the law then, is it the mandate as you just pointed out? >> well, i think the entire law is wrong because it injects the government into an area where individuals have a very strong liberty interest, and that is being treated for illness or preventing illness, working with their doctor and other providers to to do that. and to have the government stepping in, i think the government has a long record of not doing very well in this field, and that's why this is such an important case. bill: if the administration could have a redo on that aspect of the law, how would it rewrite it then? >> well, i think this administration would not have the ability to rewrite this law because of their penchant for trying to increase the power of
the federal government. and that's really the issue behind this case. bill: sir, thank you for your time. >> thank you. bill: we all sit back and await, and i appreciate the fact that you did not offer a prediction. that's probably -- [laughter] smart legal move. sir, thank you. edwin meese with us in washington. >> thank you. jamie: well, bill, that historic decision is just moments away. the supreme court is set to make a landmark ruling on health care that could impact and will impact millions of americans. bill: our special coverage continues in a moment here including bret baier, megyn kelly, karl rove; judge andrew napolitano. a terrific panel of four in a matter of moments. exespeciallytive analysis of the decision on what it will mean politically, economically and legally. [applause] >> but we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it. away from the fog of the controversies. [ male announcer ] this was how my day began.
a little bird told me about a band... ♪ an old man shared some fish stories... ♪ oooh, my turn. ♪ she was in paris, but we talked for hours... everyone else buzzed about the band. there's a wireless mind inside all of us. so, where to next? ♪ so, where to next? but they can be really well thexpensive.ted a puppy, so to save money i just found them a possum. dad, i think he's dead. probably just playin' possum. sfx: possum hisses there he is. there's an easier way to save. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
jamie: fox news alert, everyone, we are just minutes away from the supreme court decision that will change the lives of millions of americans. chief white house correspondent ed henry is live at the white house. ed, what is going on in there? >> reporter: well, good morning, jamie. one of the fascinating aspects of this as white house press secretary jay carney noted yesterday, they're going to find out about this just like the rest of us. they have gotten no heads up on which way this is going to go. there are so many permutation as to whether or not the whole law will be struck down, whether the whole law will be affirmed and found constitutional or whether it'll be something in between, maybe a split verdict like we saw on the immigration ruling earlier this week. this has huge ramifications for consumers all around the country, as you noted, the millions of americans impacted by this.
but it's also going to be major political implications as well not just for the president, but this morning the obama campaign is already putting out releases about how, you know, mitt romney years ago talked about the importance of an individual mandate. they're talking about what they would refer to as romneycare just as republicans refer to the president's plan as obamacare. so it's unclear yet how the politics of all this will play out. about the only thing we know for sure is as monumental as this decision will be this morning, it is not going to be the final word. you've got republican speaker john boehner on the hill already saying that if all or part of this law is left in place by the supreme court, house republicans are going to move to try to replace it and knock it out anyway on capitol hill. you've got mitt romney saying if he's elected, he's going to repeal and replace. and you've had various lawmakers in both parties saying that once all of the fallout is measured in the days ahead, congress is going to have to take a look and see whether or not there are
pieces they're going to have to tweak, jamie. jamie: let me ask you, ed, you mentioned consumers. consumers are voters, and we know how voters feel about the health care law as it stands right now. new fox news poll shows that 39% are in favor of it, and many more, 49%, oppose. is the white house aware of that? are they talking about it, thinking about it and planning a strategy after we get that decision? >> reporter: absolutely. public opinion has been critical throughout this entire fight. it's one of the reasons why it took the president about a year and a half to get it done. he did not have public opinion on his side for much of this battle. you mentioned that poll where they take some heart in that is after all of the controversy there still is, as you mentioned, a significant portion of americans saying they like this law. so it's sort of split right now among the american people, jamie. jamie: ed henry live at the white house standing by for us and now to will with our all-star panel.
bill: it is 9:54 in washington. we are moments away from the supreme court convening, and sometime we believe between 10 a.m. and perhaps 10:15 or even 10:20 a.m. we will get the decision that is now before the nine justices. a case that was argued over an unprecedented six hours of open court back on this day three months ago. on the 28th of march. and here we sit in late june awaiting the response and the reaction from these nine justices that will have far-reaching effects on 300 million americans. it will also likely have an impact on a presidential election that is only four months away. it will have far-reaching economic consequences as well. as we await that, i want to bring in bret baier out of washington, megyn kelly, anchor of "america live" here in new york, karl rove, former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to president george bush and a fox news contributor in austin, texas, he is today. and the judge, andrew
napolitano, fox news' senior judicial analyst also here with us in new york and good morning to all of you. megyn, you covered the court. what is this day like for these nine men and women? >> well, to some extent it's the last day of school because this is the big day where they release the last and most important decision, obviously, of the term, and then they'll go off on their summer vacations, r civic duty, their responsibility to the american public, and that's why i would really be shocked if they punted this decision as they can do. i mean, they can punt the entire decision by saying it's not ripe. we have to wait until 2014 when the first penalties kick in. that's one to have arguments before them. it didn't go over well in court. i don't think it's going to be accepted by the justices, i think we'll get a ruling on the merit -- bill: there's also the suggest they could punt until october. >> i just would be shocked the they did it. they took it quickly, they allowed an unprecedented amount of time. i truly will be shocked the they
do anything other than give us a decision on the merits that i think they appreciate the importance of this ruling to the american people. bill: there are two ore cases set to be decided today, and we will likely hear them at the top of the hour, but it will be health care that everybody is anticipating here. judge? the fog of law cab dubious -- can be a dubious thing, and when we get the decision perhaps it trickles out, it'll take some time for us to digest it and understand what they -- >> megyn and i are smiling when you say the fog of law can be a dubious thing. it sounds like the opening line of one of justice kennedy's opinions. we may very well get an opening line like that. we are prepared to read as rapidly as our eyes and brains can what could be four or five hundred pages of opinion. it may be a while before we understand the reasons why they do what they did, but we'll probably know pretty quickly what the bottom line is. have they agreed to keep the case? have they agreed to decide
whether the mandate is constitutional or unconstitutional? have they decided whether this thing that the irs is going to assess as a penalty or a tax, and have they decided whether the congress can order the states to expand medicaid? we'll probably know pretty quickly what the answers are to those questions, but the reasons why may take us a little bit of time to digest for you. >> let me give you a scene setter as we're watching the exterior of the court. the justices are taking their seat at the bench, the chief justice will be in the middle, and then they'll fan out in order of seniority. all of the reporters are in a satellite room. the decisions get boomed out overhead, they hear the justices reading from there, but they get the opinions immediately in that press room. so, but not before the court reads it. so we have to wait. so it'll all happen simultaneously. the justices -- whoever's written the majority opinion in health care will read an excerpt, and normally whoever's written the main dissent will
read -- bill: i want to get to the politics in a moment. bret baier in washington. when you think about monumental days in the history of washington, d.c., this is one of those that ranks right up there. what is your feeling in our nation's capital now knowing the anticipation of this moment's been building for weeks? >> bill, i tell you every place i go people say to me, what's going to happen? what's your guess? when you go any place in washington, that's what they say, what do you think the ruling's going to be? how do you think it's going to come down? i'm talking everyone. cab drivers, everyone is saying, what is it going to be, 5-4? it is a talk of the town, not just the country. you know, you talk about historic moments. you know, 828 days ago president obama signed this into law. 828 days. since then a lot has transpired, and we saw the historic midterm elections in 2010. this is going to be quite an event. bill: bret, thank you. stand by to you, karl, the judge
and megyn with me in new york. it is 9:59 as our special coverage now begins of the historic ruling of health care and obamacare from the u.s. supreme court. this a fox news alert, 10 a.m. in washington. good morning, everyone, i'm bill hemmer, and today is the day. this is it. we are minutes away from the u.s. supreme court's health care ruling, a decision that will affect millions of americans, something that has been debated for years, passed into law more than two years ago, argued before the u.s. supreme court three months ago and today the decision expected any moment. on this historic day bret baier is with me, megyn kelly, karl rove, and the judge, andrew napolitano. to karl rove in texas. it was thought about a week ago that republicans even today would quickly move to repeal any measure of this law that is left standing on behalf of the nine justices. is that still considered the belief? or do republicans, especially on
the house side, take a step back, take a measure of the moment and proceed carefully? what is your sense on that, karl? >> well, i do think they proceed carefully, but i do think the goal is replace, repeal and replace. i think we saw this from the republican party standard bearer in his comments yesterday. mitt romney saying if the supreme court strikes down part of it, they'll do part of my job for me, but indicating clearly replace. i think the republicans don't want to be seen making the same mistake that president obama apparently is felt to have made by moving too fast to get something big and comprehensive, so i expect we'll see a slower movement. but i think the response to the decision is almost going to be as important as the decision itself. the republicans appear to have settled on a policy of repeal the balance and begin to replace it with a sensible, well-considered package of legislation. the president has two different avenues possible, one to accept
it and try and find a way to achieve his goal and the other to run against the supreme court. democrats on both sides of that question arguing that he ought to do one or the other. but we don't yet know how the white house -- bill: does mitt romney or barack obama run for a microphone, or do they keep their powder dry for a while? >> well, the president has to comment first. after all, it is one of his two big initiatives. so he'll have the comment on it. romney can probably wait for the president to speak before he responds, but the president's in a hard place. they're commenting on this, his bill, he'll have to comment pretty quickly. bill: all right. the court has started, the first opinion being read in a case, the united states v. alvarez. we expected that today and one other guidance from the supreme court, and then we await the health care law. if we could, i want our viewers to see the following four issues before the supreme court. we'll put them on the screen so you can follow along with us. the questions posed to the court deal with the anti-injunction
act which goes back to the 1870s and, specifically, it asks whether or not a taxation provision can prevent a court challenge until the law is fully in effect meaning are you taxed yet, and if you are not, can the judges rule on that? >> basically, is it right to decide today or do they have to wait until later? bill: and that could be 2014 or beyond. item number two, the commerce clause. dealing directly with the mandate. >> basically, can the congress force individuals to engage in commerce as a condition of living here. bill: next clause, severability. can the mandate be severed from the law and then if effect, can the law still stand?
. >> does the burden of increased medicaid funding violate the 10th amendment? this is what the states argued, all 26 of them especially to medicaid and whether they have increased funding for it, based on a ruling. >> will congress say to the 50 states, you will increase the taxes and spend the taxes as we told to you do, or are the states soverign or immunity from such a command by the congress. megyn: we are getting news out of the high court. this is the stolen valor act that makes it illegal. they have struck that down as unconstitutional. an unconstitutional part of the first amendment. we are just getting this in
now. bill: our fox polling came in yesterday afternoon, some of the findings were fascinating. 49% surveyed oppose the new law still to this law and 39% favor it. 60% believe the individual mandate that we just talked about to buy insurance is a violation of individual rights. >> reporter: that's interesting those polls have not changed since april of 2010. the severability clause is interest nothing this case and will determine whether the court decides to throw the whole bill out or not, and the law, rather. in the bill as it was written the severability was taken out of the bill, and if in the oral argument justice kennedy brought up the question of if they decide to shoot down the mandate, but keep the rest of the bill, is the court, in essence making a new bill? he raised that point in oral argument, and it's a question question for whether this whole law gets shot down. bill: karl rove in austin, if
the law is left intact does mitt romney have a stronger hand campaigning for four months or not? >> look, the american people are practical people. if the court upholds the law, then, frankly it's going to move a slight advantage to obama. there will be some people who don't have strong feelings about the law one way or the other. they may feel slightly for it or against it but the court determining that it would be constitutional would end the argument for them. there are two important points in this polling, one is the number of people who strongly oppose the law out number those who strongly support the law by basically 2-1 or better in some polls. and the second thing is is that this is the only major piece of social legislation that i can find in the modern history of the country that has become less popular after it passed. if you find things like open housing, the civil rights act, or social security or medicare, after they were passed by the con they became more popular.
not this one. if you look at the polls in a couple of weeks leading up to its passage, 41% in favor, 44% opposed. you see from the brand-new fox poll that the favorable numbers have deteriorated for this bill. bill: i want our viewers to know that we are getting word from inside the court that chief justice john roberts is now reading the decision on the healthcare law. bear in mind 59 of the 92 provisions of the law have already been implemented. took to see whether or not the value of time continues to be accepted by more americans or rejected as karl was making the case right now. we are watching blogs, our email, we have producers inside the court and we believe any moment right now we will find out how these nine justices rule on this single most important legislative law passed by this president. we have breaking news here on the fox news channel, the
individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional. this was a part of the law that was at the center of the oral argument three months ago on this day when the justices hammered away at the white house and the administration's attorney, questioning the validity of the individual mandate and asking the following pointed question, if you can legislate healthcare, where can the federal government be stopped? shannon bream is live outside the supreme court now with more. good morning there. >> reporter: good morning, we've just got even the opinion, i'm just getting a first look at it. it us authored by the chief justice john roberts. he has long specifically going to the commerce clause and whether the mandate is okay whether the commerce clause. he says this compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product on the ground and that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. he says it cannot be sustained
under congress' power to regulate congress. that means the mandate is gone. we'll take a look and i'll try to get to the rest of it. we are going to get to severability. bill: we talked about the fog of law, and to our viewers at home, be patient with us as we work through this. megyn you're seeing something now. megyn: we are getting conflicting information. as we follow scotus blog.com which covers the high court they say despite what shannon just read that the individual mandate is surviving as a tax. this is not confirmed by us yes, this is according to scotusblog who has the opinion. they had challenged this individual mandate and the government defended it on a couple of grounds, they said they could do it under the commerce clause under article one of the constitution. number two they said we he can do this to individuals, force them to buy insurance or pay a penalty because we have the ability to pass the people.
according to this. i haven't seen the opinion, they are reporting that the individual mandate survived as a tax, so it may have been struck down under the commerce clause power but spared under the taxing power. everyone is still trying to figure this out. it's very fluid right now. gregg: also, judg. bill: was the word tax used in the 2400 page law. >> no it was not used. they said was it a tax or was it a fine, and it was a fine because people can be fined. bill: be cautious with us, we are trying to do the best we can right now as we sort through it. megyn: it may not be correct right now. bill: it may take several minutes or even beyond that to under all this. there are reporters still inside the courtroom trying to sparse the language. back to shannon with the papers in her hand.
>> reporter: as we initially read, under the commerce clause this mandate will not be upheld and it's not going to be upheld under the necessary and proper clause. we are going through the language on the tax and whether or not this would be a part of the congress' power to tax. no under the commerce class, no under necessary and proper. we are getting to the tax now and getting to that portion of the opinion and there is conflict on what we say here. under the first two arguments as megyn said the mandate doesn't survive. we are trying to read now from the chief justice's opinion about whether this survives as a tax. neither the affordable care act attaches any legal consequences. stating the individual shall obtain insurance or pay a penalty does not require this to be red as a penalty. it's not a penalty. the court is saying we do read this as a tax. under the direct tax clause we are -- tax on going without health inch shaourbs is not like
a capatation or other direct tax. we get into more complicated language on the spending clause. bill: let me interrupt you, only because i want you to get a chance to get a good look at that now. there is also word coming down now that the medicaid provision, this was item number four is limited but not thrown out, not invalidated, that was the medicaid provision that required states to beef up the rolls to cover more people under th the insurance clause. the mandate should to be constitutional. and chief justice john roberts according to this report joins the justices who represent the left-leaning side of the court in that decision. megyn. megyn: that is huge. that is huge. listen, for the folks at home who are interested in what is going to happen to this law, you don't care whether it's upheld under the commerce clause or upheld as a tax. the question is, is has the
individual mandate been upheld or has it not. it appears that the answer is the law will stand, the individual mandate which is the hart of the funding mechanism behind the law will stand, not under the commerce clause powers of the congress but under the taxing power of the congress, which was very controversial because this administration has represented to the american people that this was not a tax, they had said all along this was not a tax, but whether they got into court and needed to justify congress' behavior they did a 180 and argued to the justices that they could do this under the taxing power and it appears that the chief justice, a george w. bush appointee has joined with the left-leaning justices on the high court. bill: we don't have the vote total yet. headline alert chief justice roberts says the mandate is not a valid exercise of commerce's
power under the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause. shannon has more. >> reporter: as we told you at the top, no under the commerce clause, no under necessary and proper, but yes it appears under the taxing power. this is the key line, the affordable care act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may be reasonably characterized as a tax, because the constitution permits such a tax it is not our role to forbid it or pass upon its wisdom or fairness. that language from the chief justice sounds like no under commerce, no under necessary anr under the tax provision and the power of congress to tax that that particular reading, this survives apparently because of that language, because the constitution permits this kind of tax, not a role to forbid it or pass upon its wisdom or fairness, that is on page 44. bill: how many pages are there? is it several hundred, by the
way? >> reporter: i say a couple hundred. it's broken into several different 50 to 60-page opinions. a couple hundred. bill: keep reading that. i'll get to karl rove. and the judge. >> reporter: here is the bottom line from scotusblog. the mandate is constitutional, chief justice roberts joins the left of the court. the entire affordable healthcare act is upheld as constitutional, with the small exception that the federal government's power to terminate the state's medicaid funds, if they are not spent as the feds command is -- bill: that was item number 4. to carl rover in austin, texas. based on what we are learning, based on what we know or think we know. >> it would be an extraordinary step if the court tosses it out on the grounds that it was sold to the country on, that the
government had the right to compel everyone to purchase insurance as a condition of being alive. instead upholds it on the basis that this is a tax. if this is actually the decision it's a boost for the president. it is -- but it doesn't make the controversy go away, in fact it probably enhances the controversy, because like so many other things connected with this act the premises upon which it was sold, this is not a tax, you can keep your plan if you want it, it will reduce the deficit, all these things turned out not to be true, and they are upholding it on the grounds that it was not sold on. bill: dissenting justices include scalia, kennedy thomas and alito. it appears at the moment that kennedy was not the wild card justice on this. it was chief justice john roberts. who leads on the appeal does the house go first or do they work in concert with mitt romney and
allow him to. >> the house has passed measures that started to chip away at this. i think they will likely hold a vote on repeal before now and the election. clearly this now will turn to a dispute between the two candidates for president, with president obama saying i've now been vindicated by the court and governor romney saying it may be constitutional but it's unworkable, unaffordable and wrong for the country and i'll appeal it. bill: i think it was yesterday when mitt romney was on the stump in virginia he said, quote, my guess is they are not sleeping real well at the white house tonight. that is yesterday and today is today. chief justice roberts saved -- his vote saved the affordable care act. that is the latest line from the blog. karl standby from american crossroads down in austin, texas. back with megyn and the judge in new york. megyn: the court found a which to avoid giving congress this
huge, sweeping power that it was claiming it had under the commerce clause, to regulate you, even if you never stepped foot in commerce, saying just sitting on your couch never seeing a doctor they could regulate that if ultimately you needed a doctor and somebody else had to pay for you. the court has rejected that and limited congress' power under the commerce law. this is very rare to do to say that. but to the extent this congress was seek being to expand its powers to regulate people's lives, under the commerce clause their wings have been clipped on that argument. however, the taxing argument, which people were not paying a lot of attention to has resonated with this court, most importantly with the chief justice of the united states and so our viewers know, the way they decide when they go back into conference after the argument took place, the justices sit down, only the nine of them go into the room, the chief justice starts the discussion as the most senior justice he is given the opportunity to speak and cast
his vote first, and they go around the table in order of seniority. one wonder on that day at this moment if chief roberts changed this country being the first by saying i believe the law stantion on congress' taxing power. bill: bret baier this is the headline for the moment. a major victory for the obama administration the u.s. supreme court on thursday ruled that barack obama's signature healthcare law is constitutional. in washington your reaction now? >> reporter: this is an amazing moment for the obama administration. and the fact that we as court watchers, and all the reporters, were focusing in on justice kennedy as the swing vote here when it was really the chief justice, john roberts who was the swing vote, and is the decider really on upholding obamacare, as its written as we've been talking about. remember in the immigration vote people looked back and said is this an indication that roberts
could be sided with the left even on another case. and people said no, it's apples and oranges. it's euptding interesting, as this case was argued before it became law. president obama said this was not tax, no way it was a tax and he said it repeatedly. his legal team fought it as a tax an made that case in court and this is what has upheld it appears his healthcare law. bill: to the politics of this. remember in the senate it was a party-line vote not a single republican senator voted in favor of it. 34 democrats in the house voted with republicans. not a single republican voted in favor of it. shannon bream has a couple hundred pages in her hands now. what did you find out. >> reporter: there was so much focus on justice kennedy that he might be the swing vote. it's kennedy thomas and alito.
this is part of the decent. you've extended federal power to virtually everything. all of us consume food and when we do so the federal government can prescribe what its fault must be and how much we must p pay. this does not empower the government to say when and what we will buy. that is essentially what this act seeks to do with respect to the purchase of healthcare, it exceeds all federal power. a strong decent there, but it includes kennedy, justice kennedy goes with the decent on this. often viewed as a conservative, it was the chief justice who clearly was the deciding factor in this. bill: shannon, thank you from that. we are getting record from the white house. president obama will talk about this. his first comment coming within about one hour. we'll standby for that at the white house. you wonder if medicaid if that is struck down how more americans are able to access
insurance if the roles at the state level are not increased. juan williams with me now fox news political analyst, juan, your reaction. >> i think it's a big day for the obama administration. i don't think there is any way to get around it. this is a tipping point in terms of public perception of the law. for so long we have heard the critics loud and clear in terms of the excess of the law and potential for damaging relationships between patient and doctor. now we see that the court has affirmed that it is constitutional as a tax, i think you're going to see people now become accustomed to the idea, and focus more on the benefits that attach to the affordable healthcare act, including closing the doughnut hole and protection for young people under 26, allowing them to stay on their parents' insurance, i could go on. all those consumer-friendly features will come into sharper focus as people become accustomed to the idea that this is the law as affirmed by the
supreme court. it is vindication for the president as his signature legislative victory during his first term and i think it puts mitt romney and the republicans on the defensive to say, not just we repeal it but why do we think we can do a better job than what has been a historic, historic struggle to try to provide healthcare across the country for everybody. bill: as you know over the past few months there has been common ground spoken publicly on behalf of republicans and democrats that some of the provisions are good things. also the insurance companies too have voiced yet again their favor for them. the judge is back with me now. specific question on how you fund, or find insurance for more people at the state level if the medicaid provision is declared unconstitutional? >> i don't know how you do it and candidly, bill, we have not yet seen that part of the opinion. megyn: they haven't held it unconstitutional. >> it appears what they have
held unconstitutional are the punitive aspect of it, the federal government withholding other money that it owes to the states on other issues if the states don't comply. megyn: this is from chief justice roberts, there was one provision of this law that required a huge medicaid expansion in all 50 states and said to the states if you don't do it, if you don't put all these poor, lower income folks on your medicaid roles you're going to lose your existing medicaid. this is what the chief justice has written. quote, nothing in our opinion precludes congress from offering funds under the healthcare act to expand the availability of healthcare and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. what congress is not free to do is to penalize the states that choose not to participate in the new program by taking away their existing medicaid funding. so they can't use that stick on the states of saying, if you don't do what we want you to do, expand these roles you're going to lose this existing medicaid
funding. >> that is a victory for the 26 states that sued the federal government. bill: what you both are arguing here is is what is being printed on this blog. the constitution requires the states have a choice, they have a choice about whether to participate in the expansion of eligibility. if they decide not to, reading here, they can continue to receive funds for the rest of the program. >> the fact that chief justice roberts, because he summarized what he's written in three lines. the affordable healthcare act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. the individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of congress' power under the commerce clause, that clause khors congress to regulate interstate commerce not to order individuals to engage in it. in this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income. stated differently, congress' ability to regulate human
behavior is limited. but congress' ability to tax and spend is unlimited. megyn: couple of important points here, the court's decision to issue, to rule as they did on medicaid is going to be a big deal. this act covered the very poor and sort of the next level up, middle class, to lower middle class. those were the ones who are covered by the expansion of medicaid and then these exchanges set up by the states. if the states had the ability to keep their existing medicaid programs and not expand them, and we are still figuring it out but if that is what the meaning is of this ruling that they don't have to expand their medicaid rules as congress told them to do, then where are the very poor going to get the healthcare that the congress put in place for them? as i'm reading it that may be in jeopardy now. i want to make one other point. the taxing power, president obama on abc news,
september 20th 2009, george stephanopoulos, this is a tax increase about this law president obama no. that's not true, george. for us to say you have to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. nobody considers this a tax increase, and on and on he went and repeatedly said this was not a tax increase. when they went into court they said something very different and the supreme court accepted that legal argument. bill: and the way this tax is expected to be implemented i think it's fair to call it a tax now regardless of what the debate was three months ago. megyn: it's being taken out of your tax refund. bill: correct. that is now the government will collect it. >> it's the most bizarre tax in the history of the country. it is not related to your income, it is related to your behavior. it applies to what they commanded you to do. and that command they are not allowed to articulate under the commerce clause.
we have to read this and study it. there may be parts of it that are inconsistent with other parts. we won't know. bill: in general terms medicare covers all americans. medicaid covers the poor. that's the program we just discussed here on item number 4 for expansion. back to shannon bream in a moment. first bret baier. you just touched on this moments ago, the historical perspective of this court, when chief roberts sides with the left-leaning members, the left-leaning justices on the court. 28 minutes into this decision, give or take a few, how can we analyze that? >> reporter: one thing is clear, presidents do not know what they are going to get when they nominate someone to the supreme court definitively. down the road when they are nominated. justice roberts was nominated by george w. bush. he has twice in two big case,
none bigger than this one we've heard sided with the left of the court, the liberal block. this is reminiscent of president bush's father who appointed justic justice seuter who sided with the left side of the club. earl warren and justice black man, many of those justices sided with the left side of the court. it was not predictable. this is a major and historical perspective for the chief justice in this big of a case to side as he did today is a major, major moment for this court, and in perspective of president bush's nomination. bill: justice kennedy reading a decent we're told he started with the following phrase inside court, quote, the act is invalid in its entirety. that from justice kennedy who arguably had the most pointed questions for the government lawyers three months ago.
greta vagreta van susteren on the courts of the supreme court. what is going on around you. >> a lot of protestors. behind me what happened inside the supreme court is rather significant. a huge win for the obama administration. what is so fascinating, i know we've been talking about it on air is when the statue was passed no one wanted to go near the word tax with a ten-foot pole, that is a poison word. the democrats were very specific it was not a tax. when it got down to florida, and i was in the courtroom that's when the lawyers got into it and said, woul woe, this is a tax and that is different because that is expansive power on the part of congress as opposed to the commerce clause. the chief justice says, just because they called it something else, the politicians, didn't call it a tax, that's like forbidden, just because they called it something else doesn't mean it isn't a tax.
the supreme court as far as i can conclude reading this very voluminous desist, this is a tax, and congress can tax. huge win for the obama administration. bigger win for the lawyers, they sat back while the politicians said this wasn't a tax. it was the lawyers that went in and said this is a tax enabling the court here to agree with them and say it's a tax. bill: we went through four questions posed to the court one hour ago. one of them on severability, greta apparently was never even addressed and did not have to be addressed because the mandate was upheld. >> that's right. bill: the item of severability is can the law stand if the mandate is taken out? i don't believe that was even addressed by the justices because item number 2 was upheld, is that accurate? >> that's irrelevant. the whole question of severability was only relevant if the mandate was tossed out. now what i haven't gone through exactly is this whole medicaid expansion issue. i don't think that was declared
unconstitutional. i have to read through this. there is limitation on it. the severability clause only came into effect, as least as i understand it if the individual mandate clause were declared unconstitutional. then the question the court would have to consider is do we toss the whole statute out. obviously that did not happen. bill: greta, what is your view, 25 minutes into this on the point that bret was making a moment ago, about chief justice john roberts? >> well i could say rather flip, he's made up for making that mistake at the swearing in. remember that little faux pas, being flip. that is just being sort of flip and clever. bill: remind us about the swearing in. what was that moment all about. >> remember he got the wording wrong an had to go to the white house and reswear him in. so and that was a little bit of a faux pas on the president's inauguration day. i'm being flip. these justices always surprise us. we think we can predict what
they are going to do. i know there is profound disappointment on one side. everybody expects because he or she is appointed by a specific president to walk in lock step with that person's political persuasions. it's not an easy job. he'll take a lot of heat from the people who don't like it. it is to some degree a surprise. we think of him as a more conservative justice, and a more conservative justice who is more inclined to batton down the hatch in terms of the power of the government. he did do that with the commerce clause. now we notice is a tax, congress can tax. bill: i want to get you the dissenting opinions, because oftentimes you can find clues and so much information in a dissenting opinion as we found out on monday with the ruling on senate bill 1070 in arizona. they write in part now, the act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and
in denying nonconsenting states all medicaid funding. it continues. these parts of the act are central to its design and operation, and all the acts and provision wos not have been even ablgted withou enacted without them. in our view it means the entire statute is inoperative. megyn: we need to figure out what is going on with this medicaid ruling. if you have people who are getting healthcare through this act from the medicaid provision, which the court has technically upheld, but seems to have given states and out clause on, saying -- juan williams is in my ear. if they are saying to the states, you don't really have to comply with the medicaid provisions of this healthcare act then you're talking about tens of millions of americans in states if they choose not to follow the affordable healthcare act who are no longer going to be covered.
where are they going to go? before people get ahead of themselves, there is a lot of question here about how this shakes out. that could be a very problematic piece of the ruling for the administration. i also want to say, politically the obama administration is celebrating this as a big victory, and to the extent the individual mandate is upheld it absolutely is. we are getting comments from top republicans, dave schweikert from arizona said the supreme court just woke up a sleeping giant. the election just changed. it just rolled back to 2010, it was driven bioobamacare. if you have millions of americans who aren't going to get medicaid coverage. and middle class americans ho*r going on the state exchanges and
penalized if you don't buy insurance there is a real question how that plays out in terms of their taxes being increased. bill: these were resisted by many american governors and state housess that have a ma skwro*ert of republicans in charge now. and health and human services, the department out of washington is responsible for moving along the exchanges at the state level. it's my understanding that they are way behind the eight ball in states who have rejected this. >> the legislature voted to do it. governor christie vetoed the legislation saying he's going to wait until the supreme court ruled. governor christie was vindicate edda since he doesn't have to set up exchanges because if he fails to do so the state will not suffer any adverse financial consequences by that decision. bill: what does this ruling, based on how we understand it now affect somebody like chris christie and the people of new jersey. >> it means the congress will
have to address how it provides healthcare to people when it has ordered to the states to do so and the states are free to resist that order because the order has no teeth to it, because the congress can't enact any financial consequences. bill: are you saying that new jersey can still do what it wants? >> without having read the opinion, as megyn and i have not read it. on the basis of the information we are getting it appears as though we can and it appears as though someone like governor christie has triumphed here, he didn't spend the money to challenge it as 26 other states did, he signed a -- vetoed a piece of legislation putting it into place and now the feds have lost the hammer with which to compel him to put it into place. bill: you mentioned new jersey. virginia strong resistance. georgia, the state of florida who really led the charge on this case. megyn you mentioned politics. i want to get back to bret on that. back to greta on the states of the supreme court.
>> i have to tell you, the entire media is camped out here and to our great surprise suddenly the sprinkler system turned on here and we all got sprayed with water. and it's a mad scramble. people with cameras, people with laptops, we have done the mad scramble, we all got a little bit of a wash here. that was a little added touch i guess to defeat the heat here, a little local color here on the court. look, bill this is a very long decision and we are all trying to assemble it and get some grasp on it in very short order. it really does, when you sit down and read the entire decision we may back off some of our thoughts and have additional thoughts as well. we all sort of should put the brakes on a little bit. we have the headlines as to what this is. we pretty much know this is a huge win for the obama administration although the states will announce a win as to the medicaid aspect. this is a complicated decision.
the legal stuff, that's done, now it's the politics. bill: a couple of things x need to determine here. i'm going to get back to shannon bream in a moment with regard to the states opting out and whether or not they are legally bound to increase their medicaid, and also whether or not the phepblt that could come apenalty that could come as a result of the tax or not. shannon bream will answer that in a moment. i'm hearing frommed henry at the white house that the president will be out with a statement not within the hour but expect to see him within a couple of hours. >> reporter: bill, i think they are digesting this just like we are. i don't want to let go with what megyn and the judge were just touching on, because i think we arwe are starting to get a full appreciation of where this may be going. if in this ruling as we now believe the states can opt out. there are many states that you just mentioned that sued to get out of this law already. so many states will already make
that choice. if there is a choice to in fact opt out you don't see a way for the federal law across the board to hold its own, to stay together. so there is really a question about whether this is a positive, as much as we've been saying over the last 40 minutes or the obama administration. and i think that that is the key point. and on the politics side of it, you're also right in saying that the right will be fired up. we saw how much the healthcare law fired up, as i mentioned before, the midterms in 2010. this will only increase that turn out on the right. for someone like mitt romney, who had a hard time in the primary shoring up his right, this possibly could be the thing that shores it up more than anything else could. bill: bret thank you. standby there, we saw 2400 pages what two years and three months ago, this is the decision today. i want to guess it's 200, maybe 250. to both of you, we had talked
about this all week, knowing that we would get an announcement from the supremes, but not truly understanding the impact of the ruling, what the practical application could be. are we any closer to that now. megyn: megyn: not right this minute. it's going to take a while. the best lawyers are look at this right now, and trying to digest it. i'm in contact with the lawyer who argued the case right now, he's trying to digest it. i want to caution the vires, it's very early, we haven't had a chance to read this thing, we are getting exceprps. the affordable healthcare act says you have to impose a mandate, if you buy insurance and you don't we are going to penalize you and take money out of your tax return. and you have to go to these state-run exchanges sort of like the way expedia works where you can go on and say, i want this. this and this.
the states set up the exchanges, you choose your healthcare from that. many have done that, many haven't in the wake of this supreme court case. but the medicaid part of the act is huge and it's supposed to cover 17 million poor americans, to give them -- the very poor already have medicaid. this made it 133% ever the federal poverty level and get coverage, that is another 17 million americans. did they just lose that coverage because the supreme court said, states, if you don't want to comply with that, you don't have to. bill: the argument was over the 10th amendment and what washington could tell the states to do or not tell the states to do. >> this is a very big deal in contemporary jurisprudence. how haren to the state governments county congress reach. the supreme court has built a dull and said you can't reach into those state governments, make them raise your taxes and
tell them how to spend their taxes and punish them if they fail to do so. bill: back to shannon bream, it's been a couple of minutes. i don't know how much you were able to get through. are you able to illuminate any of the ideas that we are exchanging here in new york? >> reporter: let's talk about medicaid, the fourth and final issue argued here. a number of states brought this lawsuit specifically on the medicaid issue arguing all of the millions of new people put on medicaid under the new law, they continue afford it. they said they would be penalized in some way if they didn't take them on. what the chief justice says is that basically nothing in our opinion pre sraoud precludes congress from offering funds. what congress is not free to do is penalize states that choose not to participate in the program by taking away their funding. the states were arguing that there is a provision in the law, the existing law that allows the secretary of hhs, health and human services, it sounds like it would be secretary sebelius
here, allows them to say, listen, states if you don't take all these new people onto medicaid under the affordable care act we'll yang all of your immediate care funding not just those associate el associated with the new people coming on to the rolls but everybody already on your rolls. they said it was coercive and unconstitutional. the chief justice says, yes it's okay to require that they take the new people on. what we dermis the secretary, sebelius cannot apply the statute in a way to withdraw existing medicaid funds with failure to provide with the rest of the healthcare law. he's taking that threat off the table saying i don't find that constitutional. it is constitutional to put the people on the rolls. bill: does that give the states the option to opt ou opt out or not. >> i don't see anything in the language where they could opt out. it takes away the threat that
they feared in court f we don't take these people on the rolls we are worried they will yang all the funding. it's a mixed bag. the justice said that part of the law to take on mull the medicaid patients, that is constitutional. what he is saying i will let the secretary yang all the funds if the states don't participate. so far i don't see anything here that says, hey, states it's a free role for you, you can opt out. bill: we will redouble our efforts to repeal this job killing law, that's from the right. ed henry is on the north lawn of the white house. what has the white house said today. >> there is no other way to describe this as shock and celebration here. there are a lot of administration officials we've been talking to in recent days who were bracing for the opposite outcome. i'm told the president will be out in the next couple of hours here at the white house to talk about this. they are clearly celebrating
it. patrick gaspart who is now with the democratic national committee a few minutes ago sent out a proceed taeupb. it's constitutional, the next word parts with a b and rhymes with richest. they are celebrating and suggesting that their critics have been wrong all along. john cornyn, the republican senator, speaker of the house john boehner, mitch mcconnell, they say this is proof for them that it's time for congress to step in and repeal the law. would that be an over reach by republican stph-s will the american people in the middle of this campaign say look we've been fight th-g out for a couple of years, the court has spoken, move on or will there be an uprising by the public around the public saying congress, you better step in here. that is going to be a big question now as this is fought out on the campaign trail. bill: marco rubio republican
senator, quote, what is important to remember is what the court rules on is whether something is constitutional or not not whether it's a good idea. while the court has said that the law is constitutional it remains a bad idea for our economy and i hope that in the tphaul we will have a majority here that will not just repeal this law but replace it with real solutions that will insure more people and will cost a lot less money, end quote. that from marco rubio. they mentioned mitch mcconnell and john cornyn, expect this reaction to come in throughout the rest of the hour here. we have not heard from mitt romney. we weren't expecting to at this point. but certainly when he is free to make a statement, or to evaluate his response we will get that to you. bret baier is standing by, karl rove is down in austin, texas, megyn kelly and the judge with me here in court. to karl rove now in austin, take more of this in, karl and help
us understand this provision regarding medicaid. based on what you have heard and understand at the moment, how does that provision stand today? >> yeah, let's put it a little bit in context. again, i haven't read the opinion, but the law essentially says this. half of the people who would be covered, new people who would be covered under the affordable care act would be covered by an expansion of medicaid. medicaid roles would be expanded by roughly one-third, that equals half the people who would be covered. the federal government would say states you have to lower your eligibility requirements there by taking in more people and for the next, i think it was five years, we'll pick up the tab. after that it reverts to the normal formula in which you pick up in most instances the majority of that cost and the federal government gives you money, and apparently what the court said today was, it sounds like what the court said was you can't use the threat of repealing all the money in order to make the states do that. bill: karl thank you. standby for that. it appears based on what we are
reading right now, we'll continue to go through this and get a better understanding of what the court said, we are awaiting a major business announcement about news corp., the parent company of the fox news channel. i wanted to go to my colleague neil cavuto joining me now with a very special guest. >> thank you very much. you have heard it here the supreme court of the united states has upheld by and large the healthcare act that became law, that became, depending on who you talked to a big burden to business, or a big boon to business. we thought we'd check in with the ceo of a very substantial business that has a very substantial benefits plan in his own right, he also happens to be my boss, rupert murdoch. mr. murdoch good to have you. >> thank you very much r. >> reporter: we have a lot of corporate developments. i want to get your reaction to the supreme court essentially saying, mr. president, you
didn't go too far, this thing is fine, the machine date is fine, what do you make of it? >> following the supreme court hearings i'm a little surprised, but it's clearly will be seen as a big victory for the president, they'll all be doing high-fives at the moment at the white house. on the other hand every poll showed it's not a popular bill, so we're going to the election and fight it there, i imagine. >> reporter: do you worry -- a lot of businesses have said that with this law or not healthcare and premiums, and the cost of providing benefits to workers would continue to soar. the administration has argued, yeah, but for guys like you not as much now that this healthcare law is protective. what do you think of that? >> i don't think it will affect our business very much, but certainly i think it's been shown that it's going to add
tremendously to the national budget. worry about this entitlement culture. we've seen where it's taken greece, we see where it's taking france and spain today. so on a political level i worry about it, but of course i'm for all health services being available and possible. >> reporter: were you in that -- before we get to corporate particulars, were you in that crowd that said this law, if it were shot down, you would have seen premiums rise substantially more than they've been rising? >> no i don't think so. i do believe there are a lot of things in the medical profession, and all the health services which seem to be outrageously expensive and going up too fast. >> reporter: bottom line it's a
don deal. >> but it's a mess. this bill -- i met someone the other day who actually read the bill. he said it was two and a half times the length of war and peace and that was a democrat who wasn't in favor ever it. >> reporter: and that one didn't end well, that particular book. let's talk a little bit about what you're doing today, because in the middle of these big, national court headlines and congress maybe holding the attorney general of the united states in contempt here you go announce that you're going to be splitting your company in two, one focusing on the broadcast part of the business, the other by and large the print publishing side of the business. i'm always wondering, rupert about the timing. obviously you knew this date was coming. did you want to get this under the radar or what? >> no, no, no, we are not that good at planning it. having come to the decision that we would have a board meeting,
and see if they agreed to pursue this option, we wanted to do it this week, we thought on a friday is bad because it won't get reported. only bad news gets reported on a saturday. and next week is a bit of a nonweek with july the 4th in there. >> reporter: what brought you to this point? you had resisted these overtures in the past. >> i've been getting advice from both sides. >> reporter: your president has been messing this. your chief financial officer. >> i do believe that they will benefit from it. what brought me to it was after i've been 58 years building a company, gradually, you know, i
realized the logic of it and how all the companies would be better managed and we'd be a lot better in every way. >> reporter: obviously the more attractive or profitable side of this business is the broadcast, is the side that includes -- >> fox news. >> reporter: where we sit right now. and the publishing -- >> spending money on new buildings like this. >> reporter: we aren't cheap to keep. let me ask you about who runs that business on the publishing -- i know you're going to run both companies, on the print side, who is going to run that? >> we don't know yet. we have great division heeds whether it's in britain or australia or here, some of them very new, in fact they are all new in the last six months in those positions, and we've got really great management right across the whole company. >> reporter: do you --
>> maybe we'll pick someone from fox news i don't know. >> reporter: it's a big family, it's a big family. cynically one could look at this. rupert and say, well he won't be doing this if not for the hacking scandal, and that prompted this. maybe it's a which to keep any litigation, any of that on the publishing side, since that's where it originated in britain, and you can divorce the more lucrative, profitable part of the businesses from that. and had it not been for the hacking scandal you would not be here. >> no it has nothing to do witness at all, at all. this is not in reaction to -- this is looking forward to what is best for our companies and best for our shareholders. >> reporter: are you over the worst of that, by the way the whole hacking thing. >> this is going to take at least a year to do, when you split companies up, and we would hope we'd be over the vast bulk of it by then. >> reporter: britt i be broadcasting you have a 39 stake
in that. regulators have been looking at that saying they didn't think you were fit to take this over, to buy it out right. >> no regulator said that at all. >> reporter: there are a number who are moving against you doing that. >> a number of people on the parliamentary committee threw that in. when asked if they had any evidence they said no. >> reporter: do you still want a bid for them to buy it out right. >> no, i think we've moved on in our own thinking from that. >> reporter: okay. >> there are billions and billions of dollars, if britain didn't want them, there are places to put them here. i'm much more bullish about america than england. i would be a lot more reluctant to invest in new things in britain today and i would be here. >> reporter: as a result of what you went through? >> no, not at all. just the english.
[laughter] >> reporter: it has nothing to do with the euro and the mess. >> oh, yeah, it has everything to do with the euro. >> reporter: interesting. >> i think europe is in for a very, long, tougher haul. and semirecession, if not real recession. and i just hope we don't get into that here with these vast expansions of government expenditure. but we are going to be energy independent in a few years, if the government doesn't get in the way that is happening very fast now. liquid natural gas will be available for your car at $1.68 a gallon. we've got things to be very bullish about in this country. >> reporter: you're not optimistic will europe but very optimistic about america. does it have to do with who ever
is in the white house. >> it has a lot to do with whoever is in the white house. we'll see if president obama gets reelected, whether he'll turn left, be more pragmatic, we'll just have to see. >> reporter: he got a big win today. >> it may not be a win when it comes to the election and people are voting. we don't know i'm taking a medium and long-term view about this country, not an immediate view. >> reporter: let's look at what you're going to do with this new split company. now of course you've been mentioning and the shares have been rising, i'm a news corp. shareholder, we like that when that happens. do you think if you have a separately traded stock for the publishing arm that it doesn't perform as well? >> oh, it will certainly in the present climate of thinking in the markets it will carry a lower pe ratio, certainly, those
earnings, absolutely. >> reporter: would you invest more? >> net, net, net the shareholders who are here today will be a lot better off. >> reporter: the environment then for the media has looked better here, advertising revenues look very strong for you, you've had a strong political year. are you optimistic for just the media in general this year and next? >> in this country? yes, i think so, but it's changing, you know. we've seen what's happened with search advertising, it works, and it's flooded with money, which was previously in newspapers, particularly sunday newspapers, big monopoly ones, which we didn't have any, and they have been