tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News July 1, 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
>> people don't want to work. >> unions and partisan politics are crippling a real recovery, and we reveal the businesses booming. >> is your company hiring. >> join lou dobbs, as he hosts a fab network special: out of work. tuesday, on fox news. >> chris: i'm chris wallace and the supreme court upholds obamacare. handing the president a victory but giving mitt romney a new issue. we'll find out what president obama thinks of the court's decision and how health care reform will work in the real world. the white house chief of staff, jack lew. then, republicans strike back. promising to wipe the law off of the books. we'll discuss the g.o.p. plan for repeal and replace. with the senate's top republican, mitch mcconnell. plus, obamacare and the 2012 elections. we'll ask our sunday panel how the core's big ruling will play
on the campaign trail. all, right now, on fox news sunday. ♪ and hello again from fox news in washington. >> chris: and hello again from fox news in washington. the supreme court issued its historic ruling in obamacare this week. but, that didn't end, the intense debate. joining us from new york, to discuss the ruling and how the law will be implemented is white house chief of staff, jack lew. welcome back to fox news sunday. >> good to be with you, chris, good morning. >> chris: now that the court has upheld obamacare, does the president feel that the law is safe or does he believe it must clear another hurdle in the november election to take full effect. >> one thing that is great about our system is when the supreme court rules we have a final answer, the law is constitutional. it spans -- we will proceed as we were proceeding to implement the law and, that is what the american people want is for the divisive debate on health care to stop and we already see it
was the implementation to date of the health bill there are benefits and people are seeing in their everyday life, when their kids graduate from college and before they get a job they still have health insurance and if people are on medicare and fell into the doughnut hole and have $600 of bills to pay on prescription drugs they are covered and families with children with preexisting conditions don't have to worry about whether they'll qualify or hit lifetime limits. what we need to do is get on with the implement implementation and what is what we need to do. >> chris: you say the debate should stop and you know it is not going to stop, republicans including mitt romney are talking about repeal and replace. are you saying that is wrong. >> anyone who wants to repeal it has to explain to the people i just described, why they will lose the benefits they are already getting. why their kids will lose coverage on their health insurance and why the doughnut hole will come back and as far as the debate goes, i understand, there remains disagreement. the question is, you know, if you want certainty and to help the business community and individuals, that -- as we're
going forward, come things down and say we'll give it a chance and implement it and that is what we do once we have a law passed in the congress and the supreme court uphold it. now, others might choose to have a debate. i think the american people want us to focus on the economy and creating jobs and moving forward. now, we have sent congress plans, if they would have enacted, would have increased jobs, in firemen and policemen and, enhancing and building our roads and it is time to worry what this american people want to us worry about. >> chris: but a lot of republicans and mitt romney believes that having all of this regulation and having all of these taxes and all of these mandates, in fact, is hurting jobs. a lot of business men say i don't know if i can hire somebody because of the fact it will cost me more money because of the health care. >> if there is going to be a debate about taxes, we welcome that debate. under the administration, we have cut taxes from middle class families $3600 and in this very
health care bill it cuts taxes for middle class families another $4,000 and the only thing in this bill that puts a burden on individuals to pay more, is a penalty for those who can afford insurance and choose not to buy it and to be clear, that is 1% of the population. in massachusetts where this was tested in the plan, the governor romney put in place, 1% of the population, ended up paying the penalty. the congressional budget office looked at this, and when they looked at the federal law, they said that that would be roughly the same amount. 1%, for the other 99%, it means the security they and their families will have comfortable and the benefits they get will offer better coverage, and it means they don't have to worry that if somebody gets sick they'll lose their health insurance. we should get on with implementation. >> clayton: >> chris: during 2008, the republican national committee, since the ruling by the chief justice, the mandate is a tax, they have put out a video noting
what the president said to voters when he campaigned in 2008. let's watch. >> president barack obama: if you are a family making less than $250,000 a year you will not see your taxes go up. >> president barack obama: you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase. >> president barack obama: any form of tax increase. >> chris: question, didn't the president break the promise? >> chris, you go back and you look at the laws that have been enacted since the president has taken office and we have cut taxes for those families. reduced their taxes. the only people -- >> you have raised taxes -- >> that is not what the supreme court said. the supreme court said it was constitutional and doesn't matter what congress calls it. >> chris: wait a minute. i don't think that is -- >> choose not to buy insurance. >> chris: they call it a tax. >> actually, technically what they said is congress has many powers and there is a commerce clause and taxing powers and it was constitutional. and that is what they said and it doesn't matter -- >> i can't let you go there.
it specifically said it's not constitutional under the commerce clause, they said it is constitutional under the tax and as to the question about raising taxes for the middle class, if i may, sir, look at the record. the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates that in 2016, 4 million americans will pay the mandate penalty or tax, and 75% of those people will make less than $120,000 a year. and, the ceo says between 2012 and 2021 those folks will pay 27 billion dollars in additional taxes. so... >> chris. if i may -- >> let me finish my question and i promise i'll let you talk, the middle class is taking quite a hit by what the supreme court said is a tax. >> i think if you look at all of the laws enacted in the last three-and-a-half years you would see the families had a tax cut and all of the independent analysts, whether the congressional budget office or others, would validate that there has been a tax cut -- >> i'm not arguing that.
all i'm saying, this is a tax increase on the middle class of $27 billion, over the next ten years. >> no, what this is, this is a law that says if you can afford insurance, and you choose not to buy it, and you choose to have your health costs in a burden to others you will pay a penalty so that you will pay your fair share. that is what the law says. for the 99% of the people who buy insurance, or who get it -- the tax cuts that are in the act. they are not going to be affected. keep your insurance and don't pay any kind of penalty. for the very few people who decide to be free riders and not have insurance and still have their costs go into the system so the rest of us pay it there is a penalty. it's not a burden on the middle class. >> chris: well, again, the nonpartisan cbo says 4 million americans will be paying that tax, by 2016. and, let's look at what a chief justice roberts called it a tax. it will be collected and enforced by the internal revenue service.
what you pay is calculated as a percentage of your income. and, here's what the president's lawyer, the solicitor general, donald pirelli told the court in defending the mandate. >> not only is it fair to read this as and exercise of the tax power but this court has an obligation to construe it as and exercise to the tax power if it can be upheld on that basis. >> chris: if it looks and quacks like a duck it is a duck. >> chris, it has been a long time since i practiced law and one thing about our judicial system, you can make argument to the court on multiple grounds. that is what don was doing, there's a lot of ways to look at this and it was set up and it was not called a tax but there are powers congress has and you can justify a law under multiple ways, the court took that route and it is a penalty, defined as a penalty under the law and something people choose, whether or not to be subject to. most americans want health insurance. 99% of people will take
advantage of the fact that they have affordable coverage that can protect their families. for the 1% that choose not to have insurance, they don't control whether they are going to be in an accident or struck by illness. if they end up in a hospital, and they have to have expensive treatment those costs will be borne by other people who pay for insurance. the penalty says you cannot be a free rider. you cannot go without any payment. and, the penalty is that payment. very few people will choose it and in massachusetts 1% of people chose to pay the penalty instead of having insurance, people want health insurance. >> chris: i want to move on to something else but i have to ask one last time, there are lots of taxes, sir, people either choose to pay or not depending on their actions, a cigarette tax i don't pay because i don't smoke and somebody else pays because they do smoke and there are plenty of taxes that are discretionary in terms of what your behavior is, would you agree that in chief justice roberts' ruling, he said that this is constitutional only
as a tax? >> i would say what the opinion said, is there are multiple powers congress has to make law and this law is constitutional. >> chris: that is not what he said, sir, but i'll move ahead and the court said states don't have to expand medicaid as obamacare requires. a number of republican governors -- medicaid, rather. a number of republican governors say they may opt out and if they do what happens to the millions of folks who are going to fall end the mandatory expansion of medicaid up to 133%, of the poverty level and doesn't that in fact prevent, if some of those governors opt out, prevent universal coverage? >> chris, for the life of me i don't understand why a governor would refuse to let the people in their state take advantage of medicaid coverage that is 100% paid for out of the federal budget. >> chris: only for the first two years. >> and then, it is close to 100%. it is like -- in the 90s% range.
i think if you look at the history of medicaid in the 1960s when it was created and 1990s when the child health program was put into place, over time, states all choose to come in. now, it doesn't all happen at once. i think the vast majority of states come in right away, that is the right thing to do and what i think most states will do. governors will have to make their decisions, the whole law is built around states having a lot of flexibility, to implement the whole health law in different ways that are -- work in their own states and we have proposed legislation to give more flexibility, to the states. this is a law that will cover millions and millions of people, who don't now have health insurance. and, i hope that the states come around, and, those few states that are slow to accept this coverage, and, add it. >> chris: what would you say to a governor who is considering now that they have the options, decides, i'm not going to get involved because i think it will cost me done the line?
>> i think those governors have to answer to people in the state. look at the people who will be eligible. these are working people who are low wages, who don't have health care. and they are exactly the kind of people most governors should want to help. >> chris: let's start -- let's talk about the politics of this. governor romney says he'll end obamacare day one of his presidency and says it raises taxes $500 billion and says, it cuts medicare $500 billion, and adds trillions of dollars to the deficit. are you happy to see obamacare be a referendum in this election? >> i think, the facts are different than that. the congressional budget office made clear, that the health care law saves, not spends money, and it puts important mechanisms in place, to help get control of health care spending, more broadly. when he was governor of massachusetts, governor romney put in place, and, massachusetts actually is one of the states
that will be eligible almost medially because of that. and the american people, i don't think, want to have the debate again and want to be pulled back into decades of debate to get to where we are. we now have a law, the law is constitutional. we should implement it. the president has said on many occasions, that he wants to work across party lines if there are things that can be done to improve the law. that is the conversation we should have been having and need to move on and deal with the economy and jobs and put or efforts, on creating opportunity for americans to be employed. >> chris: i'm going -- we are running out of time and i have a couple of quick questions on other issues, the justice department told the house on friday that it will not prosecute attorney general holder on the house's citation of holder for criminal contempt. did the president approve that decision? >> well, executive privilege has to be invoked by the president. and, then the justice department relied on an opinion from the reagan administration, which is that you don't prosecute once executive privilege is invoked
and the justice department made the decision, as has every administration. relying on the opinion. >> chris: does the president think it is right for the justice department no ignore the house's citing of holder for contempt? >> i think that we have made clear that we think that the actions of the house were political, they were not based in fact and you go back to what is at issue here. the facts of fast and furious. it was a bad procedure to run guns to mexico. it started in the bush administration in the regional office. the attorney general didn't know about it. when he learned about it he stopped it because it is wrong. he has given all of the information to congress, to understand what happened up until that point. and there is now a fishing expedition for documents that get well beyond finding those facts. and every administration... >> chris: i'm going to move on, but we do have to point out, the fact is that in february of 2011, two months after the border patrol agent brian terry died, it was the justice
department that sent a letter to congress denying that the operation existed and that created some of the confusion. >> and, chris, just to finish that story, the attorney general made clear he did not know about it before that. that letter would not have gone if the attorney general in washington knew about it. something bad was going on. the justice department recognized it, the attorney general stopped it. the policy... >> chris: it took 11 months for the justice department to retract the letter and if i may ask you one last question, sir, in the investigation of national security leaks that the pentagon has ordered all of the top relevant officials to preserve all of their documents, the director of national intelligence says, relevant agents must take lie detector tests, as chief of staff have you ordered either of those steps with your staff? >> well, chris, i can't speak to the details of how investigations are being responded to, because as you know, those details themselves are classified. but, i can tell you -- >> no.
no. no. wait a minute. it is out there that the pentagon is ordering documents be preserved and the dni is having polygraphs -- >> there will be full cooperation and the -- you know, the fact of the matter is, that, you know, the president feels very strongly that we need to find out where these leaks happened, and he relies on classified information, every day, to make life and death decisions and there is nobody more concerned about where it goes on, than the president. >> chris: does he feel so strongly he'll agree to questioning himself? >> chris, i'm not going to speak to the details of how the investigation will be handled. >> chris: we'll have to leave it there, thank you so much for joining us, as always. it is good to talk with you, sir. >> pleasure to be with you, chris. >> chris: up next the g.o.p. responds, how republicans will try to repeal obamacare and what they would put in its place. mitch mcconnell after a quick break. place. ♪ place.
you want to save money on car insurance? no problem. you want to save money on rv insurance? no problem. you want to save money on motorcycle insurance? no problem. you want to find a place to park all these things? fuggedaboud it. this is new york. hey little guy, wake up! aw, come off it mate! geico. saving people money on more than just car insurance.
>> chris: we want to get the gop view of this week's big >> chris: we want the g.o.p. view of this week's big decision on obamacare, joining us from his home state of kentucky, senate republican leader mitch mcconnell and senator, welcome back. >> good morning. >> chris: you just heard white house chief of staff jack lew say the court has spoken and it is time to move on. are you persuaded? >> he's doing the best he can with a really tough situation. the president said it was not a tax. the premium court which has the final say, says it is a tax. the tax is going to be levied, 77% of it, on americans making less than $120,000 a year. so it is a middle class tax cut. a tax increase. beyond that, chris, the core of
the bill is worth reminding people, half a trillion dollars in cuts, to medicare, that is hospitals, nursing homes, home health care, and the like, $500 billion tax increase, and the cbo says it is a job killer and will cost the economy between 800,000 and 1 million jobs. this is the single worst piece of legislation that has been passed certainly in modern times. and, will be an issue, big issue in the fall election. i think the chief justice basically said this is up to the american people to decide, we have one last chance here, to defeat obamacare, and we can do that in the november election. >> chris: now, since the supreme court chief justice roberts came out with the ruling, declaring that the mandate is actually a tax, you have been hammering the president for imposing a new
tax, on the middle class. but, mitt romney has a mandate in his massachusetts health care reform plan and the people in massachusetts paid for than $20 million last year in that mandate, penalty tax, whatever you want to call it, so isn't that a romney tax on the middle class. >> i have two thoughtsnumber one that was a massachusetts decision, not a national decision. and, number two, every democratic senator voted for obamacare. it passed with not a vote to spare and every, single democratic incumbent on the blatt was t blood was to decide though bill and it was deeply unpopular with the american people and the senate races across america will be a referendum on the job-killing health care tax increasing measure. >> chris: if i may you didn't answer the direct question, if the obama mandate is a tax on
the middle class isn't the romney mandate a tax on the middle class. >> i think governor romney has to speak for himself about what was done in massachusetts. i can tell you that every, single democratic senator voted for this tax increase, and, 500 billion dollars cut, in medicare, and, it will be a huge issue in 2012 and, chief justice -- the chief justice said it will be decided by the american people and that is why we have election and will have one the first tuesday of november. >> chris: let's move on. if voters elect a republican president and this republican senate, your top priority will be, you say to repeal and replace obamacare and i want to drill down into that with you. one of the keys to obamacare is it will extend insurance access to 30 million people who are now uninsured. in your replacement how would you provide universal coverage?
>> well, first let me say the single best thing we can do for the american health care system is to get rid of obamacare and get rid of the half a trillion dollars in medicare cuts and the get rid of the half a trillion dollars in taxes an in other words, the single biggest step we could take in the direction of improving american health care is to get rid of this -- >> if i may, sir you talk about repeal and replace, how would you provide universal coverage. >> i'll get to that in a minute. the first step we need to take is to get rid of what is there. this job-killing proposal. and that has all of these cuts to existing health care providers. secondly, we need to go step-by-step to replace it with more modest reforms. there will not be a 2700 page republican alternative. we will not take a meat axe to the american health care system. we'll pull out a scalpel and go step-by-step and make the kinds of more modest changes that
would deal with the principal issue which is costs, things like interstate sales of health insurance, right now, you don't have competition around the country in the selling of health insurance, and that is a mistake and things like lawsuit reform, billions and billions of dollars are lost every year by hospitals and doctors in defense defensive medicine -- >> we are going to run out of time and i want to ask what specifically will you do to provide universal coverage to the 30 million people who are uninsured? >> that is not the issue. the question is, how can you go step-by-step, to improve the american health care system. it is already the finest health care system in the world. >> chris: you don't think -- >> our friends on the -- no, we're not going to -- >> you don't thing people being uninsured is an issue. >> i'll tell you what we won't do. turn it into a western european system. that is exactly what is at the heart of obamacare.
they want to take -- have the federal government take over all of american health care. the federal government can't handle the health care it already has, medicare is in trouble already and medicare is in trouble already. we need to clean up the health care, the federal government already is responsible for. before we start immodestly trying to make over all of american health care. >> chris: but -- >> a big step in the wrong direction. >> chris: let me ask you another question, obamacare guarantees that people who have pre-cysting conditions and don't currently have health insurance cannot be denied coverage because of that preexisting condition. if you repeal obamacare, how will you protect those people with preexisting conditions? >> over half the states already have high risk pools that deal with that issue. that kind of state innovation ought to be encouraged by the federal government. i don't think anybody thinks the federal government can take over this whole area. all of the health care for 300 million americans. and make it better. we can't even handle the health care we have already got.
this is the kind of thing that ought to be dealt with at the state level and we ought to encourage that. >> chris: but insurance companies say they cannot afford to make this deal, that they are going to take anybody, even if they have a preexisting condition. unless they get all of those customers, millions of customers from the mandate. >> that is what these state-based high-risk pools are for, chris. exactly what i'm saying. >> chris: and you are saying that that would take care of people who don't have insurance, who want to get insurance, but are being denied it because of a preexisting condition? >> i'm saying that this ought to be dealt with at the state level by the state-based, high risk pools that over half the states i believe have already developed. >> chris: even if you win a majority in the senate, chances are that democrats are still going to have enough voights to be able to conduct a filibuster, and some of your republican colleagues are suggesting that the way -- even with the republican majority, not a filibuster-proof majority you can undo obamacare, is through a
budget process called reconciliation. where you only need 51 votes. now, that is what the democrats use, the 51-vote, reconciliation to pass obamacare. would you consider using reconciliation to undo? >> yes, the chief justice said it is a tax, taxes are clearly what we call reconcilable, the kind of measure that c be pursued with 51 votes in the senate and if i'm the leader of the majority, next year i commit to the american people that the repeal of obamacare will be job one. by the way, i think we will also be insisting that we have a vote on obamacare again before the election. but, in terms of achieving it, it would take a different senate with a different majority leader and a different president. but, yes, it could be done with a simple 51 votes. >> chris: the reason i ask, when they were passing obamacare, through reconciliation you were upset with it and called it secretive and anti-democratic and hyper partisan.
why the difference? >> well, the first time it passed the senate it didn't pass through reconciliation, it got 60 votes and there were 60 democrats and 40 republicans, they were able to pass permanent law. look, reconciliation is available because the supreme court now declared it a tax. they've unearthed the massive deception that was practiced by the president and the democrats, constantly denying it was a tax. you heard the president, chief of staff continue to try to deny it was a tax, just this morning and the supreme court, the chief justice made it clear, it is a tax and as a tanks it is eligible for reconciliation. >> chris: i want to ask you, finally, about chief justice roberts ruling. some conservatives are calling him a traitor. for saving obamacare and some other conservatives are noting that he sharply occur tails congress's ability to use the commerce clause to regulate everything. he sharply curtailed the federal
government's ability to tell states what they have to do. or punish them if they don't. how do you read the roberts ruling? >> well, it was deeply disappointing. i think justice kennedy got it right. and found both the individual mandate and the medicaid mandate unconstitutional. and said clearly congress would not have passed the rest of it without those two pillars which he found unconstitutional. he and three others, four of them, justices agreed that the whole thing should be replaced. i'm sorry that didn't happen. this was a huge mistake for the country. the chief justice declared it a ta tax and upheld it and now the american people have the final decision and i'm confident will give us the votes to repeal it. >> chris: and do you not see anything for conservatives in what justice roberts said about the commerce clause? about the federal ability to dictate to states what they must
and must not do. >> i agree with that and the other four justices felt that way as well. >> chris: i have to leave it there, senator mcconnell, thanks for coming in, always a pleasure to talk with you and we'll stay on top of this debate straight through to november. >> okay, thank you. >> chris: our sunday panel tackles the future of obamacare, chief justice roberts controversial ruling and later what it means for the 2012 presidential race. 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. ( dog barking )
you know one pill each morning treats your frequent heartburn so you can enjoy all this eat land of ours has to offer like demolition derbies. and drive thru weddings. so if you're one of those people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day, block the acid with prilosec otc andon't get heartburn in the first ace. [ male announcer ] one pill each morng. 24 hours. zero heartburn. it should >> it should be clear by now i didn't do it because it was good politics. i did it because i believed it was good for the country. >> the supreme court's ruling did absolutely nothing to improve the president's failed health care law. it remains unworkable. unaffordable. and very unpopular. >> chris: president obama taking advantage of a second chance, trying to persuade voters they will like obamacare while
republican senator john barrasso is having none of it and it is time for our sunday group, brit hume, fox news senior political analyst. liz marlantes of the christian science monitor and shannon bream who covers the supreme court for us and charles lane from the "washington post" and, chief justice roberts closes the legal avenue to overturn obamacare. how secure is obamacare as a big government program that will go forward. >> as a political, legislative earth matter it is more vulnerable to repeal than before for the reasons you discussed with senator mcconnell. this being a tax, opens the possibility that it can be dealt with, acted on, repealed using budget reconciliation, no filibuster allowed, a simple majority of 51 is enough to undo the law, so furthermore, in
terms of the popularity of the law, in jack lew's interview with you, as classic illustration of this. this is going to do nothing for the law's popularity, already unpopular it turns out it will involve a sizable tax increase and the administration is terribly earring n-- eager not o have it get around and, the law is on shakier ground than it might have been, say upheld under the commerce clause it would have been a different thing. >> chris: how secure is obamacare. >> i'm not totally sure that i agree with that. it is unclear exactly how easy it will be for republicans to repeal the whole thing, using reconciliation. i mean, perhaps now because the mandate has been labeled a tax, that portion can be repealed but there are other parts of the law, you know, the directive to insurance companies, you cannot deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions those sorts of things that have to be dealt with and if they can't get that through reconciliation it
may hang out there and be a bigger mess, republicans talk you about defunding it, it would create a bigger mess, mitt romney and the republican senate will be responsible for having -- >> wait. this is a way -- this penalty/-- which we now know is a tax was a way to fund the whole provision that says you cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and i don't think there is any reason why it can't be done under reconciliation. they are inter twined. >> if democrats can block other parts it creates a bigger mess, anyway, i'm not sure it will be necessarily so easy, even with 50 republican votes in the senate. >> i want to dig into the chief justice's ruling and i want to ask you, shannon, basically the same question i asked mitch mcconnell. the legal world is debating the long term effects of the roberts rule and on the one hand, he saved obamacare and that is a
big deal and the bottom line and the other hand, he appeared to set new limits on what congress can regulate or not under the guise of the commerce clause and set limits on what the federal government can mandate, states have to do, in terms of its long-term constitutional implications, how do you read the roberts ruling? >> i think it will be so tough for anyone who wants to tackle a similar program under the similar argument and will have a tough time and will not be an easy opinion for anybody. and a lot of folks see it as a 1-4-4 decision and if anything there was -- >> meaning the chief justice was here and you had -- >> right. and it will be tough to, you know, look to it as a top precedent for making any similar arguments. it is tough language, the commerce clause, cannot regulate an individual from cradle to grave and reeled that in and talked about the fact it is a tax and constantly turned it back it sounds like to the legislative process and he said the court doesn't express an opinion on the wisdom of the
affordable care act and that is reserved to the people and several references means it goes back to the legislators, if you don't like them address it with them. >> chris: let me ask you a question about that. because you know the court far better than i do. is it unusual for a justice to say we may not like this but it is up to the voters and seems like an invitation to say, overturn obamacare but you have to do it at the polls. >> and some people say it is a minefield, to folks who supported the law and they said, they didn't like it. he upheld it an provided a lot of tools an outs for those who don't like it anyways to go after it and it does sound unusual but he ostensibly said, i don't go to the merits of whether it is a good law, take that up elsewhere. >> chris: charles you are a long time court watcher. how significant is the ruling? >> well, you know, i have been watching john roberts ever since he was arguing cases, as a lawyer. and i've always had the impression that, while everyone else is playing checkers, john
roberts is playing chess and what he has done in this brilliant opinion is sacrifice a pawn called the individual mandate to put the entire society in check and has done that by getting two liberals justices to agree with him in a 7-2 ruling that there are serious limitations on the federal government's ability to use its spending powers to get this states to cooperate in welfare and education programs, which is how every state works and a lot of things including education and medicaid and et cetera and has done that and gotten liberals to applaud him for it and now, next term when voting rights act section 5 and affirmative action is before the court and he votes with the other conservatives to strike them down, all the liberals who might otherwise complain have to acknowledge the fair minded states man, john roberts, was involved in that decision. this is a man of great brilliance and all of those conservatives who are griping about the ruling need to give it a second thought. >> chris: shannon, as our court watcher there is a lot of
chatter in washington now that perhaps roberts switched his vote, that he was on -- first on the conservatives he switched to the side of the so-called liberals, on the court and that he may have been coddled by outside liberals, saying if he went with the conservatives it would show how partisan the court was, 5 conservatives voting down a democratic president's big plan. do you buy that and do you believe that he switched his vote. >> i think it is a very legit theory, to be considered. think about the fact the president from the rose garden in april, actually publicly called out the court and sid he was confident they wouldn't do something so unprecedented as this, though we know it's not completely unprecedented, patrick leahy went to the floor a month ago and railed on roberts and talked about citizens united and the fact that the court has basically losing the confidence of the american people and if you read the dissent it sounds as if at one point it was written as a majority opinion and did they have a vote and lose it at some
point? i think there are clues to suggest that is highly possible. >> chris: bret i was interested to get my advanced copy of "time" magazine. roberts rules. and there's a lot of coverage today of the chief justice, do you expect to see the mainstream media revise its opinion of john roberts from a right wing zealot to a states man? >> for a while. i mean, i think it is reasonable to say whether he switched his vote or not. the decision he reached was nor institutional than constitutional. the matter of it being a tax i think requires him really, strained reasoning and, i read the portion of the opinion in which he makes the case this really has the earmarks of a tack and has some and i read the dissent on that, oh, boy. dissent is much more compelling on that. i think this was a strained piece of legal reasoning and a kind of technical and strategic piece of jurisprudence that i agreed laid mine fields and i
think that -- i really liked chuck's suggestion that roberts is playing chess and everybody else is playing checkers. >> chris: i wanted -- do you have a final comment. >> i would say that again, those who might suggest there is something sort of... they are right. but i think roberts in his view sees it as more important to secure long term objectives and very important to get liberals to buy into them. so they can't complain when he unfolds his larger plan, later on. very, very smart man. >> chris: all right, we have to take it break and when back we'll continue our discussion of the historic obamacare ruling. and we'll dig into what it means for the presidency race. ♪ why not make lunch more than just lunch?
this idea has >> president barack obama: this idea enjoyed support from members of both parties including the current republican nominee for president. >> if we want to get rid of obamacare we have to replace president obama. my mission is to make sure we do exactly that. >> chris: president obama and governor romney wasting no time in turning the supreme court ruling into a political weapon. and we're back now with the panel. congressional republicans, we saw with mitch mcconnell picked up on chief justice roberts' ruling the mandate is actually a tax. and say that plaintiff obama broke his pledge during the campaign not to raise taxes on the middle class. liz how effective is that argument? especially given the fact that romney has his own tax problem because he has his own mandate in massachusetts. >> there will be challenges on both sides. i mean, this has been a trekkie issue for the obama white house, any time you have the white house coming out and saying we want to get back to talking
about the economy you know it's not a good issue for them and i think there is something to be said for the fact obama during his own campaign, you know, did not campaign for an individual mandate and campaigned against it and i think if a way that this is coming back to hurt him in part because of that. he never campaigned on -- he campaigned against it and passes it and now has to defend it. and the irony is now he has to defend it against somebody who passed one himself, and in fact, arguably was mitt romney's singular achievement as gosh of massachusetts and i think that is incredibly awkward to have to go out there and be the one, essentially playing -- running from his own record and attacking obama on this. it is tricky for both sides and to some stents we have new job numbers come out next fridays and it will shift the conversation again but i think it will give a new dynamic to the senate races. i think that senate candidates, republican senate candidates will try to use the momentum
from this to try to push for a return to majority. >> chris: you could see mitch mcconnell doing that, every senator who voted in the 60 votes was voting for a tax increase and he'll try to wrap that around it. the mandate is a tax. how do you think that plays out, bit. >> i think it earns it, that is why jack lew acted the way he acted. they won't call it a tax and are desperate to call it a tax and know how politically toxic it being a takes and as liz said, there is a subset of voters who will be enormously influenced by their desire to get rid of obamacare. now, how many of them are going to vote for obama, because mitt romney has a individual mandate back in his record as governor. my answer to that is not many. he has pledged to overturn it and never stopped talking about it ever since. i don't think many people will be persuaded to go the other way
because they think he once was guilty of this. >> chris: to the degree the november election and we all agree it's not the central issue but to the degree it becomes a referendum on obamacare, how do you see that playing out? on the one hand the president can emphasize the parts of the plan that are popular, like as we talked about, preexisting conditions, or kids can stay in on their parents' insurance until 26 and on the other hand, mitt romney says it feeds into the whole idea that obama is a big government president. >> i've always felt that politically the best results the republican party of the supreme court case, some ruling up holding the mandate and the reason for that, this election, both sides are pursuing is a base mobilizing election. get your loyalists motivated to go to the polls. and nothing motivates the republican base like the bogeyman of obamacare. that is one thing they all agree on. and now, you just hurd mitt
romney or mitch mcconnell, i think say, this is our last chance, the supreme court option is exhausted and those in the republican base who really dedicated getting rid of obamacare, have one more way to do it, to go to the polls in mass numbers in november, and vote out all the democrats. and in that regard, i think this is an advantage to republicans politically. >> chris: i can see both ways, shannon, if the court had thrown out obamacare and said the whole thing is unconstitutional then you've got the constitutional law lecturer who spent a year of the country's time on something that didn't turn out to be legal, on the other hand, though, does this mobilize exactly as charles is suggesting, conservatives and tea party activists have not been too keen. >> there were thousands of them outside the court and if they are any indication when we got the opinion on thursday, they continued to rally throughout the day. playing bells and waving don't
tread on me flags and said, you have awakened a sleeping giant again and we didn't go away and we are coming back stronger than ever and it is interesting to step away from the tight inside the beltway politics, i went to the dentist on friday after the opinion and he said a huge win for the president, yesterday, this is great for his campaign. and you have to remember as much as those who quote-unquote watched the decision want to have political spin with it, to those who aren't as wanting as those sitting here think the president won big on thursday. >> her dentist does a great job. beautiful teeth! >> thank you. >> i'm not sure how his political opinion. >> chris: how do you weigh that? on the one hand we all agree it must have been a disaster for the president if it had been overturned. on the other hand, does the fact that somebody said the winners celebrate and the losers mobilize. >> it is would have been worse if it was overturned. i think it would have been embarrassing and would have
allowed mitt romney to make the argument that essential obama's whole first term has been wasted and he could have spent the time fixing the economy and instead tried to pass the huge thing that ended up nowhere and would have been the worst outcome and the question will be whether the white house really tries to make a concerted effort for the first time ever to sell the bill -- >> what? >> and -- >> a bit of a reaction! >> they still are -- >> first time -- how many speeches did barack obama make in support of the proposition before the bill passed? he made dozens of speeches. listen, this is a problem the dogs don't like the dog food. it is not because the ad campaign hasn't worked well. the bill has been consistently unpopular, by a similar margin since before it was passed and remains so today and the idea because it is constitutional and legitimate the mandate is constitutionled and legit as a tax will not help you. >> i agree and there is something problematic when you have people from white house saying, look, the american people are going to like this bill, once it actually is fully implemented and then they'll
realize how great it really is but we can't totally -- that is what we hear from the white house and that is a problem. >> you cannot underestimate the extent to which businesses all over the country feel that this is a drag on their planning. a deterrent to hiring. and, so forth. and it feeds into the other big issue, bigger issue, which is the economy. and i think these things, two things go together and i think they are unmistakably burdensome with the president and his re-election chances. >> i agree with liz in that this is a tricky one for mitt romney and hopefully the campaigns reach a deal where neither has to talk about health care reform, if they could they would both be happy. i must say looking back when this is all over, interesting to reflect on the obama administration's decision to take this to the supreme court, during the election. they had the option of pursuing it in lower courts a little further and i repeat, i think it was a lose-lose proposition, for them. i really do and they would have
lost if they actually lost the ruling. and, there would have been the embarrassment you talk about but i think they still lose because, by having the individual mandate upheld, and labeled a tax, by none other than the chief justice of the united states, it mobilizes the republican base like nothing else would have. >> chris: i want to pick up on what bret said. i agree. i don't think that this obamacare is unpopular because the president has not tried to sell it and he's tried to sell it again and again and again, dozens of speeches and has not been able to. but you heard him in that statement, that he made after the ruling, talk about i did it because it is good for the country and some of the specific parts, plurality of americans are against the overall plan but, they support some of the individuals like the 26-year-olds on their parents and the preexisting conditions, things like that. do you see the white house making another effort, a second effort to make a first impression? or are they better off to stay away from obamacare. >> they continue to try to make the first impression a second time, i think and democrats said
on thursday openly it is a gift to us and a chance to sell it again in a better way than we did this first time, their language, but that is true and i think, there is going to be a lot of pressure on the g.o.p., who, you know, the house scheduled a full repeal vote for july 11th, the last i heard. and there will be a lot 0 of pressure on them to say what they would replace it with. people like this individual tenets of the bill and the g.o.p. has to wade carefully in proving they would offer something better. >> and i think democrats do have an opportunity to say, if they want to, we are the party that believes in universal coverage and the republican party does not. look at your interview with mcconnell, it is clear, they could make the argument. >> chris: we'll leave it there, thank you, panel, see you next week and don't forget to check out panel plus where our group picks up with the discussion on our web site. foxnewssunday.com and we'll post the video before noon eastern time and follow us on twitter, @foxnewssunday. up next we hear from you. ♪
you want to save money on car insurance? no problem. you want to save money on rv insurance? no problem. you want to save money on motorcycle insurance? no problem. you want to find a place to park all these things? fuggedaboud it. this is new york. hey little guy, wake up! aw, come off it mate! geico. saving people money on more than just car insurance. our cloud is made of bedrock. concrete. and steel. our cloud is the smartest brains combating the latest security threats. it spans oceans, stretches continents. and is scalable as far as the mind can see. our cloud is the cloud other clouds look up to. welcome to the uppernet. verizon.
his morninstarts with arthritis pain. and two pills. afternoon's overhaul starts with more pain. more pil. triple checking hydraulics. the evening brin more pain. so, back to more pills. almost done, when... hang on. stan's doctor recommended aleve. it can keep pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is rudy. who switched to aleve. and two pills for a day free of pain. ♪ and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.
>>. >> chris: time for comments you posted to our blog an many of you responded to our interview last week with the e nicholas watson writes: i always enjoy t. boone pickens. >> chris: please keep your comments coming. find us at foxnewssunday.com. have a great week. we'll see you next fox news sunda