position of trying to tell the court what to do. there is separation of powers, but i think that the president spoke out on this many, many times. he's going to be in vermont on friday. i won't be surprise federal he speaks about it again. >> will we be hearing more from it seems like the house republicans came out several times yesterday and several times today. will we hear more from senate democrats later this week? >> it will be interesting. i don't see anybody in the house republicans other than the rhetoric introducing legislation to wipe out this health care. i don't think they want to go to parents and say we're going to wipe out your ability to have your children on your policy while they are in college. i don't think they want to say we're going to wipe this out so, tough, if you've got a pre-existing condition, you won't be able to get health care and on and on. they'd rather talk about it. as they said, you know, just as we proved in massachusetts, we have to insure everybody. that's the only way it works. >> senator schumer. >> yes. >> you say if romney is the nominee that health care will be off the table as an issue. do you think that's not a good

issue for democrats to run on in 2012? >> i'm just saying senator romney -- i'm just saying that governor romney was so much involved in creating just about this exact law that his attacking it now is going to have virtually no credibility, and so i believe if governor romney is the nominee this issue will be effectively taken off the table when he brings it up. i suppose a lot of people will hold up etch-a-sketches. >> are anyyo the force and persistence of the negative sentiment, or did you pretty much expect that two years ago? look, one of the more prominent republicans in the senate said at the time when we were passing the health care reform bill that they had to defeat it and make the minority leader of the senate, senator mcconnell, actu his number one priorits make obama a one-term president. so that's why i say this has all gotten caught up into the . i think what we have to keep in mind is if they are successful, if the republicans are successful in repealing this, think about the millions of

americans already, many millions of americans, whose young people are on their parent's policy until age 26. they will take that away from them. think about all the young people today who are covered with insurance even though they had a pre-existing condition. the repu amecan people. think about all the elderly getting benefits from closing the doughnut hole and they are getting rebates. i think the average in iowa last year was $600, every senior in iowa. they are going tta from them, the american people. elderly people are now getting prostate cancer screenings and colonoscopies without any deductibles. millions of americans are taking advantage of that, yet the republicans want to take all of that away from them. now, is whether or not we are going to let the republicans take away from the american people all of these hard-earned, alth care system.

>> the republicans seem to have a strategy should the court rule agt >> what's the strategy? >> repeal, what senator harkin said. >> right. sly. they have a strategy. >> they want to repeal it regardless of what the supreme court does. >> they are ready to pounce and use the momentum. do you have a post-court strategy? are you discussing what you'll do if the court rule guest your wishes? >> i expect the court will uphold it. >> right. >> and our strategy, of course, was to pass the bill in the first place, and if they -- if they don't uphold it, then we'll see where the -- i suspect there will be a major, major issue in the elections, congressional and

presidential this fall. you're not going to see -- if they come down in june or july or whatever, you're not going to see then the ability to do a whole year's debate in the congress. the debate will be with the american people this fall. >> but are you -- >> are you discussing the what-ifs? are you discussing how to give these people the protections comey just one person saying this, but the more the republicans and the candidates they have for president are out there talking about repealing our health care bill, i say give them more rope. maybe i should buy their ads for them. you know, let them go out and talk about it because the american people now are seeing the benefits of this health care bill that we passed, and they don't want it taken away from go out there and continue to campaign against this health care bill, and i'll tell you the american people will answer you this november. >> sorry -- one more time. are you discussing a strategy should the court not rule your way? >> well, i agree with pat leahy. i believe the court will uphold

this. the precedence is there. the legality is there. do going to pay attention to this political theatre. >> there's a lot more to saying repeal, repeal, repeal. that's easy to say. but it's easy for them to say it, but i don't see a single one of these people saying repeal, repeal, repeal and go on the floor and say let's do it piece let's do away with having your college-aged kid on your insurance policy. let's do away with the pre-existi i mean, repeal, repeal is a bumper sticker. it is not a policy. thank you.

everyone. i ha plaintiff in a case before a supreme court about ten years ago, and we all thought it was a really big case bee hours of o argument instead of one. three days of oral argument. i asked my staff to take a look at the recent past, and we believe you have to go all the way back to brown versus b which the court has granted so much oral argument. so we all understand this is a very, very significant lawsuit. if the in listening to the questioning of the judges, it struck me that the four more

liberal judges were mainly peppering the plaintiff's counsel and thelargely, althoug exclusively peppering counsel for the government. what that leads to ultimately, we don't know, but we know the suspension will be over in june. s regardless of how the justices vote, it's still a bad idea. and if senate republicans become the majority next year, the first item on the agenda of the new senate republican majority would be the and the replacement of it with something that makes more sense and is targeted at the problems that we actually have in american health care. with that, ildr to my friend an colleague senator mike johanns

of nebraska. >> thank you, senator. i think the leader's this are right on target, but i was watching justice kennedy c. everybody was. he came right out very quickly in arguments and asked some very, very fundamental questions. e pointed out is that if this really is going farthe case, which i believe all sides there's a substantial burden, a heavy burden on the part ofth t actions, to find the autho what they're doins to be right heart of what you're talking

about today. the second observoin out came f justice kennedy. he said, you know, this understood fundamentally changes the relationship between the people and that's one of the points that we have been making all along. this notion that somehow congress believes it has the power under the commerce clause to force people into commerce for whatever reason, choose not to be in commerce is a stretch beyond anything that our country has ever done. so these arguments are asking questions to try to figure out where they're going to settle in here in terms of case. but i would say today the government had a tough day. that would be my impression. with that, let me turn the microphones over to my colleague, senator

>> the reason this case is so important is because this legislation does grow the size and role of government in ways that are really unprecedented in our history. and as we all know, as government grows, individual freedom shrinks. and that' is whether we as individual citizens can choose our own health care options or whether the government is going to impose a one size fits all on all of us. and i oh, by the way, taking money from already on a fiscally unsustainable path to create a new entitlement program and creating a health care plan where costs will explode dramatically in. is the individual state insurance exchanges are created. so this legislation is not only unaffordable, it makes matter worse when it comes to current

programs like medicare, which are already in bad shape. and it's going toul contraction or shrinking of individual freedom in making health care choices. board of bureaucrats er are going to decide whether your medical care is it or whether the federal government will simply choose not to pay for it because in the cost benefit analysis of those bureaucrats, it's simply isn't worth it. >> i'll turn it over to senator hutchinson at this point. a. >> well, thank you. i thinke' arguments. we were arguing is it a tax or a mandate. i thought justice roberts certainly said, well, of course, we all know if it's a tax, th c

capability to do it. but he basically said if it dcke a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. which means it's a mandate. will make this whole law unconstitutional. and i think that when you look at what it's doing, it's telling every business in america that they have to subscribe to a .overnment-run health care plan it is ndate that is unsustainable constitution. and i think the justices are beginning to get enough information that we hope they r. there's no question that 2/3 of the american people believe this is an encroachment on freedom. and i hope that we can change it some day by law but i hope we

can start all over a good plan to provide more access to insurance that they can afford and that they want. now i'll turn it over to marco ru >> thank you for the opportunity to talk to you for a few very proud that florida has taken a lead in challenging this law. we hope the supreme court will see it the way we do, this law principles, particularly what role should the federal government play. we don't know how the case will turn out. although we're hopeful it will turn out on the side of the constitution, but we do no this about it, for sure. obamacare has been a disaster for america and americans financially. there's no doubt that our insur crisis that has to be confronted. this is the wrong way to confront it. this is a way that undermines and takes away the ability of oour economy to grow and prosper. there are thousands upon thousands of small businesses in florida and across the new people because they have no

idea how this law is going to impact them. we know for them it's bad idea. other americans are beginning to lose their existing health care coverage. there are others who are finding difficulty accessing an existi them as a result of the changes that will make them. the result is that while we do not know the case will turn out, we know that obamacare is turning out. a tha setsrivi at a solution to our health insurance problem in the united states. i hope just repeal obamacare, but replace it with initiatives that embrace the private market, embrace free enterprise, embrace individual choice and at the same time allow us to addre significant public policy issues that we face when it comes to health insurance. [ speaking spanish ]

[ speaking spanish ] >> and now it's my honor to introduce to you ournerafrom fl a phenomenal job in this

pbondi. >> thank you. we've been in court for two da feel very confident. we feel happy about the questions the justices are asking. we from day one, this is unconstitutional, this is a government overreach we have never seen before in our history. and we have got to stop it. that's why we're here this week int of the united states supreme court. we feel very confident that tomorrow we will hear another day of argument on the severability, on the medicaid expansion. we felt very comfortable with the questions that were asked and we firmly believe this is unconstitutional, and as the justice said, this would be such an overreach if the federal government can do this, they can force us to do anything. and that's why we're with eveth. i would like to introduce my colleague, attorney ne from soud

the next united states senator. >> first of all, i want to say thank you so my colleagues. we have six states, we started with 13 states. many said is this case will never end up in the s defeat this legislation in court. here we stand now and i can tell you, i feel a lot better after witnessing two hours of argument than i felt when we started. all eyes were kennedy. justice kennedy was very, very skeptical of the mandate and the constitutionality of the mandate and that makes me feel better alwt chances. s hard to predict what they're going to do, but i can tell you in keeping with justice kennedy's prior decision making in cases wherekevehe decision,

skeptical of unlimited congressional power under the commerce clause. so my knd i ha been managing this case day to day. questions with heard from the justices. we feel very positive that the mandate will possibly be struck down. if it is, tomorrow is going to be very important when webekuse believe that if the mandate is struck down, the entire law must fall. so with that, i want to introduce my colleague from texas, greg abbo >> thank you. today we are one day closer to br to the senators who spoke earlier. they talked for years now about repealing and replacing oba i don't think we'll have to worry about crossingng closer ad closer to the court striking

down obama care all together. when this lawsuit, we knew it would be a liberty and government. we knew if we could get the court to agree to focus on whether or not infringed upon individual liberty, we had a chance of winning. we we were pleased to walk out of the courtroom today knowing that 5 of the justices of the united states supreme court focused their powerful questions agt very issue and that is the unprecedented inkroechment poses on individual liberty. today is a very positive step in the right direction, not just for the states bringing this am who cherish liberty, who believe in the united states constitution and want to see the rule of law enforced. now, i'm proud to introduce my colleague from south carolina, attorney general wilson. >> thank you so much. first off,

the court was a member of the supreme court, justice kennedy say that if the court upholds this law, it willrelaonship by h the government relates to the people. the government at that point tried to make the argument that we d cre market. chief justice roberts made the point this could be a slippery slope in that if we can regulat can't pick and choose in the future what congress can or cannot regulate. it's an open door. it's pandora's box. it's a slippery slope. that is very me. the drafters of our constitution never intended, never gave this congress the power to create commerce by forcing people into contracts. it gave congress the power to create or coin money. oavr to raise armies and provide for the navy. and then it gave congress the power to regulate money and the military. it never gave congress the power under the create commerce.

they don't have that power. and that is exactly what this d. it creates commerce by shutting people into contracts they don't want to be in or they may choose not to be in forthpurpose of th. and that is something we have to stop. back to a justice alito or nn said. this fundamentally changes the relationship between the people and their government. and that is why this case is so i don't know if there are time for any questions. >> actually, we are going to be at the florida house at 2:00 p.m. for media. general who are here. there's approximately 20 of us. you're welcome to come over key questions, even if you have individual questions or interview requests for specific t 2:00 p.m. >> just on the back side of the supreme court,he>> thank you.

>> do you think there needs to be health care reform? >> urse. like all americans, i perceive that there are probliss unlike those who voted to pass this, i believe that theenties power to enact legislation, sweeping legislation deal with rnment. these issues are states. >> these, after all, states that and hospitals and clinics. regulate insurance companies and come up with a system of tort laws that determines how medical malpractice suits operate. regulation, f those drivers are not federal regulation. that's where the true comprehensive reformoccur is wi. [ inaudible question ] >> i tend to believe that many

reform are not appropriater i did not vote, for instance, for the last tort reform proposal that came through the> generals were taking about the importance of justic how do you think he was leaning based on the questions he was asking? e b asked, based on his demeanor and body language and facial expressions in the wof those qu think he was leaning toward the proposition that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. that it power under the commerce use. that conclusion becomes even more k.el even more inevitable when youvi writings on cases addressing questions of structural federalism. [ inaudible question ] >> he asked a number o

limiting principle is that onclude that the nt that the individual mandate is be beyond congress' power? and that was significant. one of the opening questions he asked was, cmmerce power include the pwe compel people not engaged in commercial activity into commerce, into interstate orhav alito? do you anything that h's in a conservative camp is that too broad a thing to say? >> n queion. >> do you think that there's anything on wou be unpredictable in this position since you k cernoinly describe any justice as

predictable because that doesn't -- it's not use to describe any justice. and his demeanor in the courtroom, he seemed, to me, to be somewhat -- not just soatsignificantly skeptical of the argument that ng people to purchase a specific kind of health insurance. >> they discussed timing. basically, as you know, ththat, agree that you could compel people to purchase insurance but only at the -- if the governme - >> a lot of the arguments focused on that. that was an argumentated on ext. and many of the members -- let me back up so we can get more people in. many of the members of the court that seemed sympathetic to this

argument also brought up at point in connection with their roberts. >> yes, a lot of theth sides us way to frame things. justice kennedy and chief justice roberts, i think, were following ued trying to drill down and make sure they understood how those questions had been answered, wanting to make sure they understood clearly. >> i didn't think that they were saying -- i didn't think that anything about how they asked the question or about how they responded to the answers to their questions indicated that they thought that that was a basis for upholding the individual mandate. i think they were trying to clarify the position of their respective arguing counsel. >> most americans are buy car insurance for instancec issue. and people who are for the

ealth care law say, well, this u know if you don't have health insurance, taxpayers and, you know, picking up the tab for those who don't have health insurance. so how is it different in this> similar question related to car insurance. i have two principal responses to that. the first is that it is states and not congress that require people to buy automotive insurance. the second, and state power is, of course, different than federal james madison and federalist 45 trying to ratify the states, explained that the powers of government would be few and defined. as to the second point, that de automotive insurance. you don't have to buy that as a prerogative of being a li, breathing human being on american soil. you may choose, regardless of what state you live in, not to purchase a car. or if you have one, not to drive that car. if you, do you'll not have to

buy automotive insurance. this one is sa,rtuef having beet by virtue of existing on american soil you must under penalty of federal law purchase a specific kind of insurance. and one of the arguments made by michael carver that especially if you are going to exerpower t and the government imposing that power, imposing that requirement needs to have what we call general police powers, the states have general police powers. congress does no[ inaudible que] >> got to run down here for a second. thank you. the supreme court today heard the second of four cases challenging the health care law. if you missed any of this, it's now available on our website, c-span.org. we will also show it again in our primetime schedules. today the question was, is the individual mandate

constitutional? tomorrow, there will be two questions before the court. in the morning if the individual mandate portion is unconstitutional, can the rest of the law survive? and tomorrow afternoon, is the law's expansion of medicaid coverage an unconstitutional intrusion on states? and c-span has commissioned a poll on the supreme court's consideration of the health care law. among the findings, 95% have expressed interest in the case. while 54% indicated they'll listen to the argument. 86% think this week's case should be televised. and 74% think all supreme court arguments should be televised. and don't forget we've been following the health care debate from the beginning at c-span.org. you'll find video of hearings, speeches and rallies and related documents and links to other web pages. again, that's at in march of 1979, c-span began televising the u.s. house of