thinks the anti-injunction act doesn't apply and they are the sole beneficiary of the statute, even they don't think it applies. so ordinarily the court would just not have to consider the issue at all because the government isn't pursuing it. the only circumstance in wh wou against the wishes of all of the parties is if it were jurisdictional. and the court has cut way back on what counts as being jurisdictional, exactly because it produces these very weird circumstances where courts have to consider issues that nobody wants them to consider. >> anything that surprised you that came up in questions? >> no. not hugely surprising. we spent a lot of time trying to think through all of the contingencies and -- >> you got did questions from the justice, you thought you would get questions from? >> yeah, pretty much.

>> why did the court take this unusual step of hiring someone to argue an argument that nobody in the case -- >> this goes to the question about jurisdiction. there's at least an argument that the anti-injunction act is jurisdictional. if it is jurisdic they would have to consider it on their own. so they wanted help, they wanted someone to support the position that it is jurisdictional and it doesn't apply. that's why they had toe -- but that procedure having to do things that way, seems to us a very good reason for not construing ambiguous statutes to be jurisdictional. like this one. >> you did feel that the question was on the side of the jurisdictional? >> i don't -- it seemed like there were a lot of skeptical questions of the other side on

the jurisdictional point. but i think they asked me, you know, i had some tough questions on those points as well. i don't want to draw too strong an inference just from the tenor of the questioning. we think our position on this is strong. >> gregory katsas. counsels for nfib and the private individuals and also appearing on behalf of the states as well. thanks. see you all tomorrow. >> so, there you got an insider's view of what it was like to take the questions from the justices. that was gregory katsas,

attorney for national federation of independent business, also representing states' positions and mr. katsas is an attorney at the law firm jones jay. prior to that he held a number of positions in the george w. bush justice department including the role of assistant attorney general for the civil division and acting associate attorney general. you're watching c-span's continuing live coverage on this monday of the supreme court's first of three days of oral arguments into challenges of the affordable care act, the nation's health care law. supreme court's oral argument, 90 minutes in length, all over for today. and soon we will be letting you hear the justices in their oral argument as they release that to the public and we present to the you on c-span3 and cspan.org. we're taking your calls, tweets in the interim. here is don richie on twitter who writes, all of the people talking about auto insurance mandates need to realize that

that's the states. the affordable care act is federal. the actor is key for constitutionality. next is a call. hershey, pennsylvania, brian, republican. hi, you're on. >> thank you for taking my call. just wanted to -- i'm very against this health care bill. i have a college degree, when i graduated college it was okay, you're kicked off your dad's health insurance. so i buckled down, got a job. i'm living at home in my mid-20s trying to start out in my life. i'm working for tips. i didn't go to college to work for tips. i took a job handed to me where i'm making less than minimum wage but i'm working for tips. and you know, i think everybody agrees that we shouldn't be discriminating against pre-existing conditions and we should be taking care of our veterans and taking care of our seniors, but there's no reason to force people that are just barely making enough to get by to say you are going to buy

health insurance or we're going to fine you. i mean, there are issues with illegal immigrants too. they are undocumented. they are going to get health care for free too. >> i have a question for you. one of the earliest provisions of the law to go into effect was that which allowed people up to the age of 26 now to continue on their parents' insurance plan. was that an option in your family? >> that was, but the situation was that i was 25 years old and by the time i was going to kick in i was going to reach 26 so it didn't help me whatsoever. so it was great all of my friends graduating college, and i mean that's my own personal issue, that all my friends watching graduating college go well, i can do whatever i want because you know, i get to be on my 2k5d's and mom's health insurance until i'm 26. i'm taking a job where i'm making less than minimum wage trying to work for tips, you see these other kids. you got to buck withal down. everybody in the older generation, i think our generation has moved to a give

me give me give me generation i deserve this. you don't deserve anything as americans. you earn it as americans. and that's my own personal view. >> thanks for sharing it with our c-span audience on our supreme court health care program here. and next call will be from eagle point, oregon. this is diane, diane is a democrat and you're on. >> good morning. i'm out here in oregon now, and i talked to you several times but from the east coast. now i'm on the west coast. i want to thank c-span yesterday for having the audio of the ninth and thecircuit's argument because it kind of makes mute all of the arguments that the people who are against this are arguing. it's not about individual liberty. that was thrown out a few courts back. it's about commerce. and if you listen to the two

competing gentlemen today from the evangelical and in fact, i'm wondering if that evangelical spokesperson can read tea leaves now. but then from the attorney, this is not about individual liberty. it is about commerce. and people that would be well served if they listened to the arguments that prior to this going to the supreme court. and thank you so much for what you did yesterday by airing the argument. >> diane, thanks so much for listening from eagle point, oregon. live coverage on c-span3, we lost our c-span 1 audience with our coverage of the house of representatives, that's something we do. we'll continue the coverage on c-span3, also on c-span.org

where we're streamed. and this will be the one that will carry the health care oral arguments when they are released shortly. ed posts this on facebook. let's be serious, take the politics out of this. has nothing to do with socialism. the current state of affordable health care in this country is at defcon one. we can agree that obama care is by no means perfect and the insurance companies have created inequalities in the system. the aging baby-boomers, cancer, obesity putting strains on a broken health care system that must be overhauled. president obama should be commended for bringing this issue to the forefront before the current system collapses upon itself. next comment, cambridge, massachusetts, brian, an independent. go ahead. >> hi. thanks for taking my call. i wanted to address some things that i heard that seem backwards to me. you had someone on earlier who said that there aren't enough doctors and that the health

insurance is bad already. i'm just wondering how this will improve health insurance, all it does is it increases coverage to more people. there's nothing that says it's going to make health insurance better and there's nothing that guarantees more doctors, if anything there's going to be less doctors because they get less money. and also this idea that health care makes you healthier is actually not true. there have been studies that say having health care does not affect how healthy you actually are. so i think that is just a misnomer and says the government can mandate virtually anything you do. make you buy anything. and it is about individual liberties, the person who called and said it was about commerce, this goes back to wicker versus fillburn which limited the amount of wheat that somebody could grow. and if that's not an individual

liberty case, then i don't know what is. i mean, the commerce clause in liberty are intertwined as one. i think there are a lot of, you know, things that aren't really being told. and i thank you for taking the call and i think you need a libertarian line. thank you. >> thanks, brian, from cambridge, massachusetts. bill has a post to share with you. he writes, our government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce pursuant to article 1 section 8 of the constitution. no, the third provision i believe. one without health insurance carries an inherent propensity to detrimentally affect interstate commerce and it is incumbent upon the government to mitigate these and while the constitution may not spell out the power to conscript it is widely understood to exist through the necessary and proper clause of the constitution. now, one may interfret criteria for what is necessary and proper differently but the individual mandate to carry health

insurance is likely to be upheld he writes, lest the unraveling of rulings in favor of a strong executive of late become manifest. i predict a 6-3 vote. next is a call from los angeles. hello to carla, democrat. you're on. >> thank yo thank you for being there every day for us. we appreciate it. i just want to say for those who don't think that the health care system is should be allowed for every citizen, i travel the world as a musician and i have been in many, many countries and i have never once in sweden, japan, germany, england, italy, gee, i really envy your system. we would really love to have your health care system. and i think that speaks volumes. it's a system that does not serve its people.

and we're the richest nation in the world and we have a bankrupt health care system especially for people who have pre-existing that's all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you, carla. from twitter, someone calling themselves rightwing posts this. if the market set health care prices rather than the government health care would already be affordable. next is the call. this is from des moinescaller's who is a republican there. you are on. >> good morning from the heartland. i'm a type 1 diabetic with neuropathy, i'm 6'3", 190 pounds so it's not really out of control. but i have no income whatsoever for the last three years and the government to make me pay insurance mandated would be completely wrong since the taxpayers pay their insurance. i say they pay their own

insurance, and let us get on with our lives. thank you very much. >> thank you for your call. sulphur, louisiana and wendell is listening to us on our independent line. >> yeah. i just like to say for people that say this is you know, not right, when jesus died on the cross, well, he died for everybody. but i just want to say ron paulh care. you republicans, you crying about this. this is for people. jesus is about the people. you republicans, you're notstia. thank you. >> wilmington, delaware, this is owen. is that your name? you're on the air. go ahead. wilmington. yes, we can hear you. go ahead. wilmington, delaware. we're going to move on.

looking at sights and sounds from the supreme court and we are awaiting the release of the audio of the oral arguments. should be in the next 45 minutes or so. and then on this network you'll be able to hear how the argument went with the justices questioning the three reporter -- excuse me, three attorneys arguing the case. next up is houston. this is eric, republican. go ahead. >> thank you, c-span. a couple of points i'd like to make. first, there has been a couple of references to christianity and the health care debate that we're -- argument that we're having on a national scale. first of all i always find it entertaining if not humorous that whenever the left liberals, progressives, socialists, wish to impose their beliefs on someone, for the government to dig deeper into our pockets or impose their values on the rest of the country, then they want

to go to the bible and somehow say that this is a christian ethic, that if we do not enact this law who are born general christians and i'm an ordained minister, are acting unchristian like, unjesus like. i would challenge any one that has the audacity to try to quote from the bible that somehow this mandate, this health care law is some -- biblical, go into the bible and show anywhere where jesus christ made anybody do anything for the benefit of someone else. made them do that. you're not going to find it. the other thing is, access versus pay. my fiancee is an emergency room nurse. and i often have gone to hospitals and everyone has access to health care. the question is how is it going to be paid for. illegal immigrants here in houston, you walk into our public hospitals, it's jammed

with people that are getting access to health care. the question is who is going to pay for it? we have those that are that say they are of faith, well, there are catholic hospitals, there are methodist hospitals, protestant, presbyterian hospitals, they champion how many members that they have and from the collections that they receive on sunday services if they are concerned about the indigent not being able to receive proper health care, then establish hospitals and don't line their pockets and drive mer say des benz. we don't have competition when it comes to health care in this country. you know, we will know we have health care, competition, insurance competition, free market, insurance in this country, when care commercials, health insurance commercials with lizards ansz cave men and funny little advertisements because health insurance is health

insurance just like car insurance is car insurance. if anybody wants to track where the cost of health care premiums, insurance premiums began to climb it was during the "inception" of the great society when government inserted itself into the health care process. every week on c-span wednesday mornings, and on sunday nights at 8:00 p.m. central and 11:00 p.m. central you feature prime minister christian time from the british house of commons. they weekly debate something called the nhs, the national health service. i would challenge any promoter, proponent of, quote, obama care end of quote to watch those programs and see if you would like to have our country debating on a weekly basis how many doctors are available, how many beds are available, how many nurses are on staff. the cost, the waiting list. this is not something i believe that we need here in our country. >> we're going to jump in. thanks so much. calling from houston, texas. mark sherm season an associated press reporter who was

monitoring the oral argument. he has filed a story that says some of the justices reacted skeptically to the idea that the penalties encapsulated in the act were actually a tax. that's the heart of the debate for the first challenge. what is the parade of horribles asks justice sonia sotomayor. if they are not attacks and the health care case goes forward. long suggested, that's the attorney that was one of the three attorneys arguing, suggested it could encourage more challenges to the long standing system in which the general rule is the tax payers must pay a disputed tax before they can go to court. the law referred to as robert long, appointed by the supreme court itself to argue that the challenges to the health care law are premature, representing all those with that point of view because the law known as the anti-injunction act prevents the court taking up the challenge until the individual mandate goes into effect.

we have word that mr. long has decided not to come before the microphones in front of the supreme court. and also donald, the solicitor general will not be before the cameras and the supreme court so we heard from just one, gregory katsas. that vehicle is rick santorum, republican presidential candidate who is arriving at the supreme court. to be involved with the process there as we're watching. we're going to listen next to charleston, south carolina, adam is an independent. >> yes. i was wondering if i chose not to buy health care the next few years what would my penalty be, the amount of money i would owe to the federal government? for not buying health care insurance. >> thanks so much. we're not answering particulars about the law as it stands but there's lots of information available on the internet, particularly about the penalty

part of it. you can search that i'm sure and find it there. san diego is jim, democrat, go ahead. >> yes. thank you very much. the arguments on c-span as compared to 15 years ago have gotten coarser like our society has gotten over time. i guess i am for the health care program, i certainly was disappointed that obama didn't go further in making it more of a medicare for all where everyone was covered and i think that's where we are eventually have to go. i guess people that disagree with the health care probably should come up with at least tell us what their substitute is for the health care system or say that it's fine. then i guess we would know that they truly aren't interested in solving the problem. thank you very much. >> thanks for your call. jim, san diego.

lynn s. on twitter writes this. obama care does include low income premium support. and austin freeman who is on facebook has this post. he writes, i don't understand what part suggests nationalize and he says socialist health care is a job for the federal government. what beasts have we elected that would pass laws to force us into a contract, this is not freedom, that is slavery. next is a ft. collins, colorado. good afternoon or really still good morning there to robin. republican. >> hi. well, i have lots of issues with this. first of all, i would like to comment to the earlier caller, we are not the richest country in the world any more. our government has completely rupt and that's why we have to borrow money from china. and if they think that this country that our government is going to pay for this health care, they are wrong. we as taxpayers are going to pay for this health care plan. and that means that we're going

to be taxed heavily to pay for it. and if they like the way that our current tax dollars are being spent then i guess they are going to like the way our further tax dollars are going to be spent because we're going to be taxed heavily to pay for this. and our tax dollars are going to be spent the same way all of our other tax dollars are going to be spent, like on medicare. thank you. >> next up, santa rosa, california, this is karen, an independent. you're on, karen. >> yes. hi. thank you for c-span. the thought of not apply to the millions of illegal aliens in our country and it's a mandate is upheld it would mean that people who are here breaking the law have more individual rights than americans. they get free health care, they won't be mandated to buy insurance, they can walk into an emergency room, get all of the care they need, and i just don't feel that that's fair, that they

have more rights than the americans who are here legally. thank you. >> thank you. and on twitter, tracy phillips cites what -- the person person describes as a harvard medical school study saying 45,000 americans die each year due to lack of health care. taking your twitter comments and we'll include those among our calls this afternoon. c-span's continuing live coverage of the supreme court review of the health care law continues. and next up is santa clara, california. this is a call from john who is a democrat there. >> hi. good afternoon where you are. i'd like to make a comment as someone mentioned an earlier caller using jesus in the discussion. you know, i find it hard to believe that any one would think that jesus would vote against the plan that would allow

millions of people to have access to health care without ending up in an emergency room. and when they end up in an emergency room we're all paying for it anyway, and when they end up in emergency room by that point they are extremely sick and it's going to cost more money in the long run. i don't think in my opinion i don't think jesus would go for a plan that would put a person out of their home, if the person gets sick after they lose their insurance, if they lose a job, they end up on the street sometimes with their family, and everyone's paying for this and it's just not morally correct. i find it difficult that there are republicans, christians, that think this is okay. well, it's not okay. the greatest country in the world can figure out a way through this. we have to do this. and it may not be the best way of doing it but it's still a path forward. it's still a step in the right direction. we have to put morality first. we can't lose sight. all of the other countries

figured out ways to do it. y w about getting rid of the health insurance companies. they aren't serving anybody but their invest terse and their bonuses. they are really not needed. they are a middle man. we can take them out of the picture. i hate to be emotional about this but i see so many people suffer because they lost their job, eventually lose their homes because i'm involved in this a little bit. it's just sad that the greatest country in the world can't figure a way through this. >> thank you, john. calling from santa clara, california. a busy morning for california callers. another one up next. this is sun city, california. this is rudy, a democrat there. >> yes. this is rudy. and i'm just saying i believe this law is a good idea. i'm a black male who happens to be married to a white female. and what would the law be right now if it wasn't for the u.s. government. thank you for your time. >> thanks for your call. from twitter, christian e.

tweets this. give me liberty or give me death. our freedom to choose how we take care of ourselves outweighs forcing us into contracts. and next up is a telephone call from new york city. as you see rick santorum, the supreme court steps. we're going to watch if he talks to the press we'll listen in. joe, go ahead from new york city. >> this is robert in arkansas. >> sorry about that. you're on. go ahead. >> i'm a democrat from arkansas. >> hang on while we listen. >> which is our economic security and stability, job growth, the size and scale of government, government deficits and spending, and of course the imposition of government rule over people's lives both their economic decisions and of course their decisions about even their own personal faith. this bill has far reaching

consequences for the economic health of this country and for basic liberty in our society. and that's why this decision and the debate that is going on right now isanthere's one candi this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary between the republican position, the conservative position, and one that is an overwhelmingly supported by the american public, and one that barack obama believes in. and that's rick santorum. and there's one candidate who is uniquely disqualified to make the case, the reason i'm here, and he's not. the reason that i talk about obama care and its impact on the economy, and fundamental freedoms and mitt romney doesn't. it's because he can't because he supported government-run health care as governor of massachusetts. he supported a limitation on

insurance products that are available that you couldn't keep your insurance. he supported a mandate that required hospitals to be able to -- catholic hospitals to have provide morning after pills, $50 abortions, free abortions for lower income. all of the issues that are central on freedom and taxes and you know, governor romney financed the romney care bill, through medicaid, through your taxes, not in massachusetts but all across this country.dicaid pay for romney care. of course we've seen now that romney care is $2 billion over budget where they had to increase taxes in order to pay for it. this was a disaster in massachusetts, and then he had the audacity to go out in 2009 and follow his lead, unfortunately for the country, obama did, president obama did mt

romney's lead and adopted the blueprint for obama care which was romney care. this is the most important issue in this it's one that ensap sul lates all of the issues at stake in this very critical election, our country's history. and there's only one candi the supporting the republican nomination that can make this the central issue that will be the winning issue for us to win the presidency back and that's rick santorum. and unfortele that case is mitt romney and that's why as i said, we're here today and he's not. [ inaudible question ]