>> i'm karen, i run a national federation of independent businesses. we're one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. and greg argued for us and the states today on why the anti-injunction act does not apply to bar this lawsuit. greg, you want to give your impressions. >> sure. this is a fairly technical jurisdictional issue. but at bottom the question is whether the individual mandate is a tax. there is a special rule that makes it harder for litigants to challenge federal taxes.

the president of the united states was very clear that this insurance mandate is not a tax. there's a requirement to buy health insurance. that's what we're challenging. it's backed up by a penalty. the penalty is not a tax and we think there's no bar to our coming into federal court to challenge this unprecedented obligation to buy a good or service that consumers don't want. >> how did the justices take the argue snumt can you talk about the justices and how they seem to be going or what their questions reflected. >> i think they asked good questions on both sides. it's always hard to predict. i think the questioning was good. there wasn't anything that we haddant anticipated. they seemed to recognize a lot of the difficulties in the other side's position. but i'm not going to make a prediction one way or the other. >> this is robert seem to take

exception to this ytd the tax, didn't matter, you could go to the individual mandate without touching the tax. he was emphatic. >> he asked a skeptical question. on the other hand, justice kagan was emphatic that the requirement is a separate requirement for all sorts of obvious reasons. it's described as a requirement, it's backed up by a penalty, there are separate exemptions from the mandate and the penalty. there are good reasons why congress would have wanted to do it that way. and congress was less nilistic, they understand that there's effect to imposing legal obligations because at least some people will choose to follow the law even if they won't be fined for breaking the law. >> from the mandates being the fact that there will be additional people taking

advantage of the requirements to get coverage under medicaid. >> that's the state's -- one of the states' interests in challenging the mandate. my clients are private individuals who don't want to be forced to buy health insurance. and naib as an organization that represents those individuals in its own right. >> what about the jurisdictional question, why is that so important? >> whether the anti-injunction act is jurisdictional? well, the government in this case is affirmatively arguing that the anti-injunction act doesn't apply. so every party to the case thinks the anti-injunction act doesn't apply. they are the sole beneficiary of the statute even they don't think it applies. so ordinarily the court would not have to consider the issue at all.

the only circumstance in which they would have to consider it 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. was there anything that surprised you at all that came up. >> no, not hugely surprising. we spent a lot of time trying to think through all of the contingencies. >> you got the question from the justice you thought you would get questions from? >> yeah, pretty much. >> why did you take the step of hiring somebody to argue that nobody in the case -- >> this goes to the question about jurisdiction. there's at least an argument that the anti-intungs act is

jurisdictional. if it is they would have to consider it on their own so. they wanted help, someone to support the position that it is jurisdictional and it doesn't apply. that's why they had to appoint the anicus. seems to us a good reason for not construing ambiguous statutes to be jurisdictional like this one. >> did you feel that the question is jurisdictional, did you feel that? >> 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, ied that some tough questions on those points. i don't want the draw too strong of an inference.

we think our position on this is strong. >> your name? >> gregory katsas. counsel for nfib and the private individuals and also appearing on behalf of the states as well. thanks. see you all tomorrow. >> thank you.

everybody see okay. ready to go. this is a very, very important day for america. this is a, as i've said in this campaign, there's no more important issue, the most fundamental issues of the day 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 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 is fundamental. and there is one candidate in 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 on 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. not in massachusetts but across this country. medicaid dollars were used to pay for romney care. and 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 heed that audacity to go out in 2009 and argue that barack obama follow his lead. unfortunately for the country, obama did, president obama did follow mitt romney's lead and adopted as devin pluf said yesterday the blueprint which was romney care. this is one that encapsulates all of the issues at stake in this very critical election our country's history. and there's only one candidate

who has the chance of supporting the republican nomination who can make this the central issue that will be the winning issue for tuesday win the presidency back and that's rick santorum. unfortunately, the worst person to make that case is mitt romney. that's why as i said we're here today and he's not. [ inaudible question ] >> i don't regret it at all. i said it here today. the worst candidate to go against barack obama and the most important issue of the day. that's what i said yesterday so i said in every single speech i've been giving throughout the course of this campaign.

i do not regret taking the new york times reporter who was out of line, you know, if you're a conservative and you haven't taken on new york times reporter you're not worth your salt as far as i'm concerned. we're going to stand up and fight. the twisting of remarks that we've seen in this campaign, oh, by the way, in part authored by the romney campaign which is feeding these lines to the reporters and you know, our feeling is we're going to speak the truth and talk about how this issue is critical for our country and that i'm the person who is best able to go up on capitol hill and get this accomplished. i'm someone who has a record of taking on tough entitlement programs, actually getting rid of them. i did it, we can do it through the process of reconciliation,

if we run this campaign which i will, on obama care, and we make this the central issue in the campaign and we're successful there is no doubt that obama care will be repealed in one form or another. that's not going to be the case with governor romney because he can't make the arguments f. he makes the argument the obama machine will turn it back on him and therefore there won't be the mandate. he may say he wants to repeal obama care but he won't have the mandate through the course of this campaign to be able to win the argument, not just here in congress but across the country. ibe making that argument. that won't be the case with governor romney because as you see, he's not here, he's not making the argument in his race. all he says i'll repeal obama care and in the same breath he defends obama care at the state level. it just doesn't wash and it won't wash in the general

election. that's why if you really want obama care repealed there is only one person who can make that happen and that someone who makes obama care the central issue in this race. and that's what i do. anybody else? i -- i think i'm having trouble hearing questions but whether i believe it's constitutional, look, i don't think obviously i don't believe that obama care is constitutional and i didn't advocate for a federal mandate at the federal level. i have been for free arkt health care, not government run health care. >> of course governor romney supporters are going to want everybody out of the way.

it would be nice if governor romney and everybody got out of my way. that's not how primaries work. i heard governor sununu say all of the significant people said that rick santorum should get out of the race. well, i guess we'll have to leave it to the insignificant voters of america to step forward and challenge the significant people who are speaking here in washington, d.c. the significant people in my mind were the people in louisiana on saturday who significantly gave us a big win and we believe as we go forward this will be a lot of significant voters out there who want to have their voices heard from the folks here in washington and the romney campaign who don't believe they should be heard throughout the course of this primary. >> what do you say to these protesters saying that health care is a right? >> i believe basic rights are guaranteed under the declaration of independence, were recognized

under the declaration of independence, rights come from our creator, they are protected by the constitution of this country, rights should not and cannot be created by a government where because any time government created a right they can take take that right away and they can forces awe you've seen with obama care, they can force you to do things what you believe is against what you believe is right, against the 10ents and teachings of your faith. you have the dignity of who you are, enjoy in our society. they are not things the government says they can give to you. those are false rights. thank you all very much. appreciate it.

>> i am reverend rob schenck, president of the national clergy council here in washington, d.c. we represent church leaders from catholic, evangelical, orthodox, and mainline protestant traditions. we were in the courtroom today to listen to the first day of arguments. it was a very spirited exchange to say the least. there were some very humorous moments, some very tense moments. of course the questions that are on the table today are arcane, difficult, nuanced. you will hear from the attorneys general today that argued, you will hear from lawyers on those points. but we would like to make a much

larger point. and that is this. that while all of us are deeply concerned for those who need health care, deserve it, and should have it, the question is whether in the process of delivering that health care to them you may trample on the rights of individuals to keep to the freedom of their own conscience. when it comes to the question of the mandate, whether the individual mandate or the mandate for religious organizations to cooperate with this particular law, you cannot get arounds the fact that it tramples on the freedom of conscience. to compel an individual to compromise their conscience is a fundamental violation of religious liberty. what i can tell you about the

justices is there were serious questions raised. we definitely have jisties alito who asked serious questions about the issue of taxation this is the equivalent of taxation, a lot of the justices were concerned about that point. their body language showed they are deeply concerned about thet case. if it proceeds beyond today, as justice alito said, today you are here arguing that this is not a tax, tomorrow you will be here arguing that it is a tax. no one disagreed with that so. there is a problem already in def 6s. in which definitions apply. but we are united in this. whether catholic, whether evangelical like myself, whether

protestant, we are in agreement that this is a fundamental violation of the freedom of conscience, when the government compels an individual to pay money for something that violates a fundamental principle such as the sanctity of human life and we would agree, we would agree with you on that, and you would agree with us, so thank you for being an advocate. well, you will hear from that. >> let me make three quick points. first of all -- ezekiel emmanuel from the center for american progress. first of all, let me say it was quite clear from what the justices said that they very much wanted to decide this case and get fast anti-injunction act. they want to decide the merits of the case. second, justice breyer made quite clear that when you look

at the law congress did not use the word tax, that what they were looking at was a looking a penalty for not complying with the mandate. it was not a tax so the anti-injunction act doesn't apply. and he said quite clearly it should be collected in a manner similar to taxes but that it wasn't a tax. similarly, justice ginsburg said the anti-injunction act applies to taxes for revenue because revenue is the lifeblood of government and they did not want people being able to sue before they pay taxes and basically cut off the government -- or not pay taxes and basically cut off the government's ability to act, and that this penalty was not about revenue for the government, even though it will generate some revenue. it was fundamentally about compliance with the law, and that, therefore, it was not a tax in the way that the anti-injunction act meant it to

be. given that, it was quite clear to me that in the court from both sides, the conservatives as well as the liberals, that they want to hear the substance. they did not view the anti-tax injunction as a barrier from hearing the case because we're not dealing with a tax or a tax for revenue. we're dealing with a penalty. i believe it was justice breyer who corrected solicitor general verrilli who kept saying a tax, a tax and he said don't you mean penalty. the whole court erupted because it's quite clear that's what he meant and that's what was there. i think this day went by. we're going to proceed on the merits of the case. we're not going to have a situation where the supreme court says we cannot decide because there's not been someone harmed by this situation. i'd like now to turn it over to ron pollack from families u.s. who was also in the court. he happens to be a lawyer. >> hi.

>> whether we are talking about a penalty or whether we are talking about a tax, it has the same effect on the conscience, on the liberties, and on the freedom of americans to make their own decision on their fundamental conscientious objection to being forced, compelled by the government, to compromise their most dearly held principles. that i think every one of these people would agree with. you can poll them. can the government compel you to compromise your most fundamental moral, agent cethical and relig beliefs? >> hi, i'm ron pollack with families usa. i was -- go ahead, you can

cheer. >> yeah. >> you can do better than that, too. so today the court was really hearing what many call a jurisdictional issue, and by a jurisdictional issue the question is does the court actually have the ability to listen to this case? and the anti-injunction act in essence says if the legislation at issue is a tax, then you can only challenge that once the tax liability is due. and the tax liability for somebody who doesn't comply with the individual responsibility provision would fall due to april of april 2015. so the question before the court was do we have to wait until april 2015 in essence to hear the arguments about the

constitutionality of the individual responsibility provision. and so there were really two issues that the court was trying to work through. one is, is this a tax? and, of course, the enforcement of this is done through a tax that falls due in april. it is required under the internal revenue code, and you pay it to the internal revenue service. so on the face of it, it looks like a tax. the second question is if it is a tax, is there -- is this jurisdictional or are there any he thinks septi exceptions allowed? i would say in terms of my own impressions from the court while i think many of the justices believe that this is a tax, they do want to hear this argument. they will hear the argument. tomorrow they will hear the argument about the constitutionality of the individual responsibility

provision, and i think on both sides both the government and those who are challenging the affordable care act feel that this case should go forward. in any events, the argument will be held tomorrow about whether the individual responsibility provision is constitutional, and all of these issues will be decided in june. so i'm now going to turn this over to elizabeth wydra. >> i'm elizabeth wydra, chief counsel at the constitutional accountability center and i represent more than 500 state legislatures from every state in the country, the district of columbia, and puerto rico, who support the affordable care act and strongly disagree with the 26 states that have challenged the constitutionality of the act. i was there in the court today, and i agree with my colleagues that i think that the court will

likely not punt the issue by applying the anti-injunction act and instead will get to the merits of the case, and so the real show, the real controversy and discussion will begin tomorrow when the court starts to listen to the merits of the case and in particular whether or not the minimum coverage provision, or the so-called individual mandate, is constitutional. and the state legislators who i represent say that it is constitutional, that it's good for the states, that it's good for the states' citizens, and they are eager for the court to get to a decision on the merits, upholding the constitutionality of thefo they can continue with the work that they are doing to implement the affordable care act and get millions of their residents access to quality, affordable health care. and when these arguments happen over the next two days, the mandate argument tomorrow and the argument on wednesday about

whether or not the affordable care act's expansion of medicaid, which will allow 16 million more people access to quality affordable health care, when we're hearing those arguments and you see the lawyer for the 26 challenging states up there arguing that the states don't like the affordable care act, i hope that you will remember that those lawyers do not represent the states as a whole. there are many state leaders, the more than 500 state legislators whom i represent as well as other states and governors who strongly disagree with that view and that the act is constitutional and it's a great deal for the states and their citizens. thank you. [ inaudible ]. >> you know, i would never make a prediction about the supreme court because they always can surprise someone. you know, witness citizens

united, but i think that the majority of the justices, perhaps even unanimously i think are ready to get to the merits of the case and will not apply the anti-injunction act. that seemed to be the tenor of the arguments today. >> any other questions? >> are there any other questions? thank you. >> thank you. comments, remarks, reaction from attorneys, republican presidential candidate rick santorum, and special interest groups after the supreme court conducted their first day of oral argument on the constitutionality of the nation's health care law. about a half hour ago we aired the full 90 minutes of deliberations in the court today. we have it available online at cspan.org. but right now we want to show you the oral argument from the earlier -- from earlier today as the court took up the question of the constitutionality of the health care law.

>> we will hear argument this morning in case number 11398, department of health and human services versus florida. mr. long? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the anti-injunction act imposes a pay first, litigate later rule that is central to federal tax assessment and collection. the act applies to essentially every tax penalty in the internal revenue code. there is no reason to think that congress made a special exception for the penalty imposed by section 5000a. on the contrary, there are three reasons to conclude that the anti-injunction act applies here. first, congress directed that the section 5000a penalty shall