the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case. it has been well-documented that those who passed the legislation never intended for folks who were going through the federal exchange not to have citizens get subsidies. that is not just the opinion of me, of democrats. it is the opinion of the republicans who worked on the legislation. under well-established statutory interpretation approaches that have been repeatedly employed, not just by liberal democratic judges but by conservative judges like some on the current supreme court you interpret a

statute based on what the intent and meaning and structure of the statute provides for. and so this should be an easy case. frankly it probably shouldn't even have been taken up. and since we are going to get a ruling pretty quick i think it is important for us to go ahead and assume that the supreme court is going to do what most legal scholars who looked at this expect them to do. but look, i have said before and i will repeat again. if in fact you have a contorted reading of the statute that says federal-run exchanges don't provide subsidies for folks who are participating in those

exchanges, then that throws off held that exchange operates. did means that millions of people who are obtaining -- it means that millions of people who are obtaining insurance with subsidies cap get it and pull out. the assumptions that insurance companies made when they priced insurance gets thrown out the window and it would be disruptive not just for folks in the exchanges but insurance market in the states generally. it is a bad idea. it is not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words and, as we were reminded repeatedly, a couple thousand page piece of legislation. what is more, the thing is working. part of what is bizarre about this whole thing is we have not

had a lot of conversation about the horrors of obamacare because none of them have come to pass. 60 million people have gotten health insurance. the overwhelming majority of them are satisfied. it has not had adverse effects on people who have health insurance. they now have insurance that they will not be prevented from getting if they have a pre-existing condition and get additional prevention. cost of carbon substantially lower than even our estimates about how much it would cost. -- have come in substantially lower than even our estimates about how much it would cost. health care inflation overall continues to be at lowest levels in 50 years. none of the predictions about how this would not work have come to pass. so a i am optimistic that the

supreme court will play it straight when it comes to interpretation and b i should mention that if it didn't, congress could fix this whole thing with a one sentence provision. but i am not going to go into a long speculation anticipating disaster. >> why not have a plan b? president obama: i want to just make sure that everybody understands that you have a model where all the pieces connect. and there are a whole bunch of scenarios, not just with relation to health care but all kinds of software that stuff

where -- stuff where if somebody does something that does not make sense it is hard to fix. and this would be hard to fix. fortunately there is no reason to have to do it. it does not need fixing. all right? thank you very much. thank you to the people of germany and bavaria. you guys were wonderful hosts. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> german chancellor angela merkel was the host of this year's g-7 summit in bavaria germany. at the close of the meeting she met with reporters and answered questions about greece's future in the euro zone, climate change, and combating isis. this is 45 minutes.

chancellor merkel: we all agreed that lifting sanctions will be tied to the implementation of minsk and we are also willing, if necessary if need be, we could toughen the sanctions if the situation requires us to do so, but we all believe that we should do everything we can in order to make progress with minsk. we support ukraine and it's difficult economic reform process in order to fight corruption and we also said the g-7 ambassadors in kiev should be a supporting group which will help ukraine implement its economic reforms and its battle against corruption. we also focused on the middle east, north africa, and the near east, and we also talked about combating terrorism there.

we talked with the president of nigeria and tunisia and the prime minister of iraq. and then talked about counterterrorism in a separate meeting. these countries are faced with an extreme amount of terrorism. they have in part at least poor infrastructure so it is our job for us to support tunisia to better monitor and control its border with libya. there have been some efforts already but these need to be pulled more than they have been so far. -- pooled more than they have been so far. we have also said counterterrorism has two aspects. often it is a lack of structure which allowed terrorist groups to have access to the population. on the other hand, these are hate filled groups. you can see this in boko haram as well as with isis. and we have said the

possibilities we have to be successful in combating terrorism is an inclusive and consistent process in order to include all of the different minorities. this was discussed in nigeria. the nigerian president expressed himself very clearly in this respect. he wants to be inclusive as does the prime minister of iraq when he talked about the shiites and the sunnis as well as the kurds. he made it very clear his claim is to work together in this country and only in this way will there be a possibility for success. we had a lengthy discussion on libya. and in this respect, we can see the negotiators of the united nations will be given all the support we can. we have to come up with a national government in libya. and europeans consider this extremely important because the refugees coming through the mediterranean are related to the situation.

in libya. a conventional topic for g-7 deliberations is the global economy. we have seen that there is recovery in the world's economy. all g-7 countries based on iwf forecast will grow this year. we had an intense discussion on new challenges and also on the fact that the emerging countries take on a growing role. in g 20. this will be something that will be continued in turkey in the fall. we also talked about trade and we are committed to the goals of the wto. we want to conclude the global realm and the outreach session also included the head of the wto. and he asked us to support this process and at the same time we had intense discussions on bilateral free trade agreement. we want to conclude ceta and we

also want to have the free trade agreement with the united states to make progress there and make good progress so we can come to an agreement. and we see that the transpacific agreement is close to a conclusion when it comes to united states and canada and the pacific area. and we also believe that negotiations, as seen by europeans and the eu, japanese free-trade agreement should be negotiated. and the g-7, if we talk about internal trade, it accounts for 50% of world trade. so that means we have a major responsibility with regard to supply chain. in other words, we have to make sure we have good working conditions not only in our own areas, but we have to make sure that good working conditions prevail in the manufacturing countries.

we can remember those terrible pictures from bangladesh and we are pleased to see that together with the ilo, the international labor organization, we are able to commit the $30 million to be available. these were promised for the victims and of the survivors following the terrible event. this has now been achieved. we are also committed to have a vision zero fund. in other words, a general fund so that insurance and improved conditions at work can be insured because we believe that better working conditions in asia and many countries in africa are still not satisfactory. and that is why this is an issue that will be on our agenda in the years to come. we also discussed financial market regulations and together with the global economy, i would like to remind you we still need to talk about the regulation of

the shadow banks. we will come back to that with the g 20 meeting. and the timetables here that has been agreed on need to be adhered to. and we also need to fight corruption. this is another topic. the japanese presidency will also deal with combating corruption at the next g7 meeting. another important point and a question that was asked -- what would the g7 say when it comes to climate protection and change and the requirement to come up with an agreement? we made a clear commitment here. we said we want binding regulations in the agreement. we don't have any binding regulations right now and that is why that has to be the objective in paris. we want to ensure all countries are in a position to have development paths so that the average temperature is less than two degrees centigrade. in other words, a clear commitment to the two degree

objective. you know that this will mean major reductions in greenhouse gases worldwide. and we have committed to the fact in the course of this century we want to see and we a -- need a decarbonization of the world economy. we also believe in order to achieve this climate objective we will need major reductions in private gases, greenhouse gas emissions. in other words, we commit ourselves to the recommendations made by the ipcc which is 40% to 70% reduction in climate gases between now and -- from 2010 to 2050. we are now at the upper end of these recommendations. so 40% is clearly not enough. the upper end would be 40% to 70%. so we also need to make our own contributions in the g-7 countries.

we'll be entering into such commitments for these reductions. we also committed to climate funding. we want to ensure we cannot do that on our own, but we are committed to the objective. as of 2020, we want $120 billion -- want to have $100 billion every year which is made available either public or private funds. it is very important for us, this is before the climate conference in paris -- we need to present this objective because many developing countries, many island states will have an objective for coming up with an agreement in paris. and this is something we have to commit ourselves to. financial objectives. we also have two initiatives. the first one is that the number of insured when it comes to climate related damages are being increased four fold. and by 2020, that is 400 million people. our second objective, together with the african countries --

and this came from the african union -- an initiative for renewable energies where we will be working on a plan and with a view to paris, we want to have african countries access to clean renewable energy. this needs to be improved. another topic which played a very important role, and it is very important to me -- that is health care. we all saw that we did not react well to the challenges resulting from the ebola crisis. and today, this noon, we had an intense discussion of what needs to be done. of course, the health care systems in many countries need to be improved. the united states has proposed an initiative for 60 country so that they can have a sustainable health care system. we have committed to this. we also need international mechanisms. these need to be more

coordinated. and that is why we decided at the g7 that we want to have a financial facility in the world bank. and this would deal with combating pandemics. the president of the world bank presented this to us today. it showed us how the international community will have to react and the united nations will also set up a panel for ghana, norway -- this was suggested by ghana, norway and germany. so they will be presenting proposals on what needs to be done. and with the w.h.o. and world bank, we will work on such a mechanism so we can react better internationally to pandemics. this is something that can save many, many lives. health care issues also included two other topics. these can be found in the communique. that is to say antibiotics, multi-resistant antibiotics. and another thing that is very important and important to all

of us, you often think antibiotics are there for all the communities. but if they develop resistance it is very difficult to come up with new antibiotics. and that is why the national academies of the g7 countries have helped us to develop measures and actions which we can use to better develop antibiotics and also to administer them appropriately. the g7 countries have committed to this one health approach. what does that mean? that means people and animals should be kept in mind when it comes to prescribing antibiotics. they need to be prescription drugs. this is important if they need to be administered properly. the development targets have to be passed this year. these are the sustainable development goal. these pick on the millennium development goals which are valid on 2015. we also dealt with this as well.

and one of the main ideas here was that we are committed to the objective that as of 2030 hunger should have been eradicated. and the g7 countries have committed another 500 million people should no longer be in a situation where they suffer from acute famine. so that is why we are committing to making a substantive contribution to the fight against hunger in the world. and this should be completed by 2030. the final point is women's empowerment. again and again, whether we are talking about food security, corruption, good working conditions -- again and again, women are the focus. the oecd made it clear that not only in the developing countries a lot of work needs to be done but even in industrialized countries. structural differences between men and women exist. for example, when it comes to

independence. and this again was also an issue and i will be inviting -- i will be convening a conference on women in september. and we will be working on this issue again with the question of better vocational training for women from developing countries. and we, the g7, have committed to seeing to it that one third more women receive a vocational education by 2030 compared to what the situation is today. that is a very specific objective. we now have a process in place and there is some independent institutions that monitor what we do. and what we agree on at the g7 meetings. and we have an achievement rate of about 80%. that is from the university of toronto. germany is at 87%. so we are doing very well there. and mixed here when we go to --

next year when we go to -- when japan has the presidency -- we will see where we stand and how much has been completed based on what we committed to. a lot of this was agreed on here and these are things where we will be working very hard in the next few months. but i do believe that we have achieved more than just taking responsability for prosperity in our own countries. so that is why we had the outreach from guests from abroad and that is why it is very important to us as well. thank you very much for your attention. reporter: madam chancellor president putin was not here. nonetheless, you and your g7 partners talked about russia quite a lot. given the conditions the g7 has

stipulated for russia to come back to the g7, you can imagine that is not going to happen. what are the chances of success in places of talk such as the syria crisis. or are you are thinking about a post-putin era. chancellor merkel: given the amount of time we spent with each other, we didn't talk much about russia in terms of proportions. wishes being bandied around. -- which is being bandied around. we talked about conflict with russia, but we talked about other points as well. much more intensively and at greater length such as the situation, the acts of terrorism. we have various formats of talks when of course russia is involved. the normal format is, one, clear recognition in the communique of the g7.

they are an important support in that regard. secondly, of the p5 plus one if you want to call it that, the iran nuclear program -- russia has been there and this format shows other international crises can be dealt with in tandem with russia. as to the syrian conflict, that also would be necessary for russia to be involved and be desirable for there to be in -- an agreement all around. because iran is an important player when it comes to the civil war in syria. and the fight against isis. we are hoping for the cooperation in international matters with russia, but i gave you some idea of what the atmosphere and the content of the talks involved. this was a discussion among

seven, it is true. reporter: your non-european partners asked what you had in mind with regards to greece in the eurozone. and i would like to know what your answer was. and perhaps we were told that the americans, or references were made to the lehman brothers back in 2008, what is going to happen -- is that something you can say is comparable? is it a similar solution to the greek problem? chancellor merkel: well, i think these are two very different issues, but we did discuss greece. i would also say we did not spend too much time on it. but with regard to the international economy and the economic situation in the euro area, there is also a best the are those that are not a part of the eu and they wanted to know how the negotiations are going.

-- there are those that are not a part of the eu and they wanted to know how the negotiations are going. the head of the international monetary fund was there today. it was one of many topics we touched on. all i can say now is we said that we want greece to remain part of the eurozone, but we also made a very clear statement. we said solidarity in european countries, and with greece means that greece will have to implement measures. and there is a common position for the three institutions. that is a great amount of progress. and that is what the discussions are now based on. and i must say there is not much time left. and that is why we really have to work very, very hard on this. the day after tomorrow, we will be able to discuss this with the greek prime minister in brussels with the eu-latin america summit. i don't know how far we will come but every day counts in order to complete the necessary job.

reporter: i want to take up the community. you said the g7 talks occurred , as it occurred, did you feel there was a sense of being like-minded and would you extend this to australia or india who might count as democracies?and secondly, often the g-7 summit has been a clash between the u.s. and europe on economic issues. did that happen this time? and if not, why not? chancellor merkel: i think everybody is on the path to growth now again. so the question of which economic path you take is no longer necessarily a center of the debate. and that is why we had a very harmonious discussion on that. one has to recognize that

worldwide there are some countries which are changing direction. for example, china does not have the high growth rate anymore because they are changing the quality of their growth. so it was not a controversial discussion at all. and i think that is down to the fact that although the growth rates now are very moderate still, nevertheless we are still on the upward path. you had a first question? i forgot what it was. oh, yes. oh, yes. well, i think we had a very intensive debate. it was exciting really. and we do have a format at the june 20 and all the -- g 20 and all the other important economies are represented there. the very different social system

s -- china, australia, turkey. i think we do have these other formats, but we have not made any different formats. we are very pleased with the working atmosphere here. and i think have a whole series of challenges. things would look different if you had india on board because the question of india's own development agenda would be much more pressing than what we can do for africa and others. so i think the format, according to everyone's feeling, is worth it. >> in the middle. reporter: i have two questions. the first is the commitment to the climate objective. 2%. now the japanese -- how could you move them to support this two degree goal?

and also the question of free trade agreements. president obama, could he assure you that ttip was still on the agenda in washington? next week, it looks as if it the pta will be carried out very quickly. you might think the transatlantic free trade agreement might fall back somewhat. maybe you could comment on that. chancellor merkel: the first question -- japan. right. the two-degree objective, not 2%. and all of the formulations on the climate was the result of a lot of hard work. binding is a very important term. a commitment to the two-degree

objective, an objective of the upper end of the 40% to 70% reduction in greenhouse gases as well as a commitment for funding for climate. they had to do lot of work but there was no one country that presented a problem there. it was good that we dealt with this and managed this together. francois hollande, as the host of the climate conference, felt that that is very important. he was also a guest at the climate dialogue in germany and france want to work together on maybe you can ask one question of the time. ttip, right. we spoke very openly on this and we were pleased the president will probably get this fast tracked. will probably get this fast track from the congress and the pacific agreement is basically finished. the good news is that in just a

few weeks, it will be time to focus on the eu free-trade agreement with the united states. we went through all the different things that are still out there. the american president committed to a request to come up with a result. you can't overlook the fact that, in europe, there are some very controversial discussions owing on. it is up to the europeans, we made that very clear, we want this agreement and we agreed that there are some who are more difficult to us. for example, the question of arbitration courts. we are aware of the fact that there are parts that are not easy for the americans. we have to be open and honest with one another. not only europe has problems with the agreement, but the united states as well.

we have to make progress in our negotiations and discussed this at length. by the end of the year we said we want to come to a successful agreement. >> you mentioned corruption, anticorruption. david cameron said that it wasn't just in fee for -- fifa that corruption had been mentioned. corruption is something that causes questions in the public and that is why terrorists get a

grip on certain countries. that's why it needs to be looked at. >> yesterday, we heard an announcement that there would be changes in the deutsche bank. was this a decision that surprised you and how do you judge this decision? chancellor merkel: that is a decision taken by a company. it was not really a surprise. i don't really want to comment on that. i want the deutsche bank to be successful, and the deutsche bank takes their own decisions as does any other company in germany.

reporter: chancellor, you said that you are committed to reduce the number of people suffering by 500 million. how is this going to work? are there going to be financial commitments? how are you going to bring that about, and i would like to know in the case of the climate issue, as well, what about all these targets that you set today? what does this mean for the domestic german discussion about the climate levy? chancellor merkel: with regard to us wanting to tackle and eradicate poverty, it remains clear that we in germany will increase our development commitment by 8.3 billion, and

and we made other pledges, associated with food security -- of course, we haven't got the finances, but we made various estimates. we talked about these targets and whether we could achieve them. i think this goal can be achieved and will be achieved, but only if we keep it up there on the agenda. we must finance our state budgets by 2030, but through stages, we will have some idea of how we can achieve this. reporter: the german internal discussion about the climate target is something which -- chancellor merkel: the german internal discussion about the climate target is something which -- we have targets around 40% production cuts, and we are doing pretty well in regard to the european protocol. germany has emphasized it wants

to meet its european target, as well as its german target. we will in the next few days be discussing how to achieve that. the economic ministry is still in talks, as you know. last week, there were many talks. there will be talks this week. i'm sure we will be able to achieve a good solution. on questions associated with energy -- reporter: i can pick up on that question. you are calling for decarbonization. will you also have a transformation of the energy supply, and will you manage to avoid reducing coal? chancellor merkel: we will only achieve our goals if we undertake efforts everywhere. there are a number of weak

points in germany. first of all, it's hard for me to understand that despite all of the red-green state government, we haven't been able to have state subsidies for building improvements. we have to make a contribution. we have to distinguish when we talk about meeting the targets for 2020, and when it comes to de-carbonization, we are talking about over the course of the century. a number of things need to be distinguished here. right now in europe, our instrument, which we discussed as well, is what we have in mind for the world, the complete world. that would be emission trading. this could also not give us the price message that we would like. germany will have to make an effort here, because in the european electricity market, we

have a lot of coal-fired exports, not for our own use but where the electricity is generated. that's where the emissions are calculated. we hope to come to a uniform european energy market, so that national objectives will be of a different value. an integrated european market can only have one goal, and this is something that will not be until after 2020. that is when that will be taken into account. reporter: good afternoon, dr. merkel. my question is, please, allow me to speak in english -- my question is on the issue of terrorism and boko haram.

because i am a nigerian, and i've lived here 60 years with my family -- in 2012, there was a meeting in your office of berlin with goodluck jonathan, the former president of nigeria. i was there. i was raising my hand more than five times. you even told me to ask a question, but the press secretary to goodluck stopped me. i had this dvd in my hand. i went to a nigerian national assembly in 2011. a young man came to my room in the hotel room where i was staying. he told me -- that was before

boko haram was formed -- he told me that president goodluck should not run for government. i asked him, did goodluck jonathan tell you you should not participate? >> sir, can you ask a question? reporter: my question is, if somebody provides information of something that can help you or help the government of nigeria to track terrorists or to fight it, would your people be willing to collaborate?

chancellor merkel: well, we will always try and check the information that we receive. it's not easy, of course, because one needs to look at the sources, but whenever we can do something, we do. there are sovereign states that you can't interfere with. intervening from outside is very difficult. you would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. >> in the first row. reporter: during your discussions, did you discuss military aid in the form of training for the ukraine military? someone is stepping down at the osce. maybe you know the reasons for this? chancellor merkel: he has done excellent work, but it's only

normal. this is very difficult, far away from home. you can't do that forever. we are doing everything we can to make sure that we find a good successor who will be just as good and will work with just as much energy with this contact group, and that this working group can continue to do its job. this is very important to implement the minsk agreement. as far as military training is concerned, these are bilateral initiatives. there were no conclusions drawn at the g7. reporter: thank you very much. i would just like to come back to greece. how big is the understanding among international partners that this crisis has been ongoing for five years, and are they concerned about a default?

chancellor merkel: everybody who was around the table wanted greece to stay in the eurozone. as i say, there were two institutions, and we have rules. we pointed out in the discussions there were rules about the eurozone. for example, ireland has been through a very tough program and it is now the country that has the highest growth rate of our member states. if we look at spain and portugal, new jobs are being created, although unemployment is still quite high. we can see the measures, or the measures which were proposed by the troika, have led to success elsewhere. if you look at interviews with the cypriot politicians lately you will remember not necessarily tough talks, but they are saying cyprus is once again on the right road.

you have the imf program for ukraine. ukraine has terrible structural reforms ahead, which are going to ask a great deal of people, and therefore, there is no doubt we always say, there needs to be effort and solidarity on the part of other countries, and these have to be two sides of the same coin. >> the gentleman in the back. reporter: let's come back to sanctions. was there a discussion as to how you could toughen the sanctions against russians, embargoes for spare parts and civil aircraft and was there a discussion on the frequent provocations in the airspace in the sovereign area of many democratic european countries? chancellor merkel: the second one was something we did not

discuss, and we did not talk about toughening or making the sanctions even tougher. at the european council in march, we came up with a political decision, and we said that the sanctions will be extended for the period of time for the implementation of the minsk agreement. we committed to that once again. we had an agreement between the united states, japan, and the members of the european union, and we said that this process is something we intend to maintain. that's why we came to the common conclusions there. reporter: the connection with fossil energy and using less

fossil energy over this century -- has there been a discussion about using nuclear energy, and is there any movement in connection with japan? do you know to what degree they are going to use less nuclear energy? chancellor merkel: we did discuss this, continuing to use nuclear energy. japan, the u.k., france, for example. among the g7 countries, there are a series of countries who do have peaceful nuclear energy and we didn't make stipulations that anyone should renounce nuclear energy. that was a german decision that was respected. the g7 countries have different approaches. >> the lady in the front row. reporter: i know that the global

climate change has been the good, important issue of the summit, and it involves the participation of every country. under this framework, have the g7 countries discussed the contributions china can make? since china is also promoting a greener economy, how do you see business opportunities for german companies? chancellor merkel: we did discuss the fact that the g7 countries alone, even if they didn't have any co2 emissions themselves -- let me start again. can you hear me now? can you hear me now? i will begin from the beginning. i saw that you were having trouble. can you hear me now?

can you hear the interpretation? you can hear me now? great. we know that the g7 countries alone, even if they had no co2 emissions as of tomorrow, that still wouldn't solve the climate problem. we couldn't meet the two-degree objective. emerging countries such as china would have to make a contribution. this was taken into account in our discussions. we are pleased to see china has undertaken a number of efforts in order to focus more on renewable energies. china has had a major increase in wind parks, solar energy, and also hydroelectric power. we know that, and this also shows the change that chimed in -- china is going through. china made it very clear when it comes to the climate conference in paris that for the first time

they will be dealing with the question of the co2 emissions, that after a phase of increase they will be going down again, and this is an important commitment. we know we have a common responsibility here, different responsibilities depending on how developed we are, but china has said, there will have to be a day we will change our economy so there will be fewer co2 emissions. this is a very important step, and i do believe germany has possibilities there in order to help when it comes to technologies, but china also has excellent skills in developing their own technologies. this will be a win-win situation, and we will cooperate very closely. >> time for two more questions. i will take you next.

reporter: madame chancellor, can i come back to the question which you very much care about which is health. you talked about pandemics, and on the agenda, you mentioned research into diseases related to poverty, malaria, tuberculosis, for example. many people are affected every year. can you say how nationally altogether as a g7 you will be promoting research on this in the future? we surely should be learning from it. there should have been research at an early stage on the vexing, and that would've solve a lot of problems. chancellor merkel: right. as you mentioned, malaria and tuberculosis, we are very attached to this global fund which produces some of the funding for this. when it comes to the tropical diseases, neglected and

poverty-related diseases, often you have the medicines but you can't distribute them properly to the countries. that is why we've talked about building national health systems, and logistics is mentioned in the communique. we need to coordinate above all. we need to inform each other of what we are researching. where and where the gaps are. all of this will run better. >> the final question. reporter: thank you. a couple years ago, you said spying on friends is impossible. does this apply here, as well? when you talk about an area 50

kilometers from here, or are you just going to take a break afterwards? chancellor merkel: no, i have other obligations, and that is why i won't be at the meeting, but i wish the conference every success, and i certainly hope that the discussions will serve as a basis for information so that they will know everything you need to know about the attitude of the participants at the g7 summit. thank you very much for your attention, and for the entire summit. thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> on the next "washington journal," derek wall bank gives an update on the week ahead in congress. then, as the supreme court prepares to rule on king versus burwell, we are joined by alan weil to discuss how states are preparing for the decision. later, we hear from the kessler foundation and the university of new hampshire. they discuss a new survey on the state of the workplace for disabled people. "washington journal" is live every morning and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> a rules committee meets tuesday to consider floor rules

for the defense appropriations bill and a bill dealing with agricultural labor link of meat -- agricultural labeling of meat that originates abroad. >> the supreme court term ends at the end of this month. the major decision is expected on health care, same-sex marriage, and housing discrimination. earlier today at the center for american progress, there was a discussion on the court's decisions, and why there could be a lasting impact on the u.s. and constitutional law. it is an hour and a half. winnie: imd executive vice president of external affairs at the center for american progress, and it is my pleasure to welcome you to cap for this important conversation.

as americans and as progressives we are well aware of the central role that the united states supreme court has played in the history and well-being of our country. their charge to provide a level playing field and ensure equal justice under the law, has continually broadened our nations definition of we the people and expanded the circle of opportunity for americans once excluded and exploited. when the court has met its charge and propel progress and equality forward, our nation has been the better for it. through brown and loving, griswold and roe gideon and maranda, the court has upheld that the promise and protections of our country are meant for all , that our constitution is a thriving and living document and that our justice system should be fair. that is why courts matter. but just like the broader story of america, the progress

facilitated by our courts has not always been consistent or constant. the power to change america for the better also comes with the authority to do the opposite, to restrict access, and able corruption, and deny freedom to americans left behind by other institutions. that's why courts matter. they can tip the scales even further in favor of the powerful and privileged. after 60 years of advances, a majority of the justices on the court have increasingly and certainly too often reversed the progress of the 20th century. over the last 15 years they have corrected the notion of religious liberty, transforming from a show to protect religious organizations and religious minorities to impose harm on the already marginalized and they have restrict it and diminish

the voices and votes of everyday americans in our elections by gutting the voting rights act in deregulating money in politics. the three major cases we are discussing today faced the most conservative court in decades. each of these three major decisions is integral for the functioning and future of our country. a positive decision and anyone -- in any one or two of these cases does not diminish and will not diminish or negate the damage of the negative decision in just one. in their hands this month rests the hopes of loving same-sex couples waiting for decades to walk down the aisle for the person whom they love. in their hands this month, rests the ability of the federal government to effectively combat housing discrimination based on

race, color, national organization, family status or religion. housing discrimination has remained one of the most persistent and hideous forms of racial discrminations and one of the avenues for recourse but disparate impact claims to provide cover to prejudice and bias. kept to the american dream out of reach for far too many families. in their hands this june rests the stability and future of the

american health care system and quite literally the lives of 6 million americans who receive subsidies from the federal exchanges. we are no longer merely talking about the the affordable act, president obama's health care law. we aren't talking about whether the american health care system will continue to work for all whether one action by the supreme court will send our health care system into chaos with prices skyrocketing and affordable access shut off for millions. the stakes couldn't be higher. millions of lives hang in the balance. the goal processes at the center for american progress -- no matter the issue health care immigration, marriage equality offshore drilling, privacy ethics committee judiciary will play an increasingly important role in the lives of hard-working americans as well as the success of the progressive legislative agenda through legal analysis, policy analysis, communications and the public education in convenient stakeholders come a little progress is helping to push the american legal system and a more

progressive direction and educate the public about the impact of the coors on issues they care about most. each of the decisions will impact the health, well-being and security of millions of americans and to introduce our distinguished panelists. it is my pleasure to introduce the moderator of today's discussion, ari melber, chief legal correspondent for msnbc and cohost of msnbc's popular daytime ensemble showcase "the cycle" of the writer of law and politics which covers politics law and constitutional rights on msnbc.com. in addition to his work, ari is an attorney and correspondent and his writings have appeared in the atlantic, "politico." he has practiced first amendment law at a major firm in new york city and has worked for the 2004 john kerry presidential campaign as well as legislative aide for maria cantwell. thank you for joining us on the

floor is yours. ari: thank you so much. good morning, everyone. excited about our panel that will get under way. you know the tv show i am on his popular because she said so and that is a good rule of thumb. we will keep that in mind and keep telling everyone now. i want to do this very quickly, which is call up each of our star panelists one at a time. not unlike a big popular concert or anyone who's ever been to coachella or lollapalooza. you do the names one at a time. but we don't have to do loud applause. that is up to you guys. michele jawando let me welcome -- let me welcome michele jawando to the stage. vice president legal progress. she worked as general counsel to senator kristen hillebrand and

, also served as campaign manager for election protection of people for the american way and many other things. i'll keep this moving. roberta kaplan is a partner at a major firm that many of you have heard of fort edith windsor. welcome her. ian millhiser, a senior fellow here also has written extensively and clerked for judge eric clay on the sixth circuit. lisa rice, come on now. executive vice president for the fair housing alliance very much involved in the case we will discuss another civil rights issues. elizabeth taylor, executive director of the national law program. welcome her here. she spent her career both in the court room in the boardroom and also worked at doj.

as you can imagine, that is very brief because i want to spend our time hearing from these folks with a lot more they've done. i will move over here because i don't want to do a big formal thing. how do i sound? are you guys all on? say hello. get the technical stuff out of the way. we want to talk about these three cases as they promised. for an opening, one way to think about the current supreme court and this may run through all three cases -- if this not only term were not just nine justices were sort of a personality, or a friend of

years. ian is shaking his head. ian: they are not friends. ari: i think you could argue that they would be a bit like a friend that wants to be considered laid-back. you ever have a friend who says i don't care where we go to dinner. it's up to you guys when they pick a restaurant they have strong opinions about where you go to dinner. or i don't care which way we drive. but when we are going to the stadium, they have strong opinions on which way to go. what i mean by that is we have a court that talks a lot about judicial dynamism and a constrained role for unelected judges. it talks a lot of times about deferring to congress or congress' ability to discuss the health care example, congress'

ability to amend and fixed their role in voting rights. congress can get in and change it. there seems to be a lot of references across these areas by this court. into the idea that you guys figure it out and we know our role and we are easy-going and sushi is fine. you get to the point that there's something the court cares about in that cares about of medicines to reach deeply not only into the life of americans but into the political process and to the extent it has limiting principles, again, if you think about the fair housing case many of the limiting principles seem empty as a practical matter today. we will speak today about whether it's a fair concern or perhaps not and whether the court has every right as statutory problems congress can fix. maybe that is not the point and they have every right to do what they need to do and not as just -- not adjust based on whether congress is. i would like us to think about that and i would like to start with a simple restaurant analogy before we get too deep. i want to turn it to our panel.

the way we will do this, so that you hear more of them and less of me, we split up the cases. we will do roughly 20 minutes on each with each being explained by one of our two panelists. and then go out to the audience. and for everyone watching i'm live stream or c-span, when we do the audience part, identify yourself. we can do a comment or question. we care only about length. you want to do a comment, that is fine. we can get a response from it. with that said, we still want to start with fair housing and start with lisa. tell us in plain english with this case is about and then let chop it up. lisa: ok, i will try to tell you in plain english because it involves a very technical issue called disparate impact or discriminatory impact. the case was initially brought by the inclusive community project which is a nonprofit

fair housing organization based in texas doing work in taxes and the mission of inclusive communities project is to redress or try to undo centuries long, systemic residential segregation, both perpetuated by a federal government and also perpetuated by private actors. that is their goal and mission. one of the ways they do that is to help place persons of color in communities where their race does not predominate. and it does so by using some -- in some part, by taking advantage of a voucher program that is offered under the tax credit, the low income housing tax credit, which is

administered at the federal level by the treasury , department, but the treasury department does leave it up to each individual state to come up with its own formula for how the tax credits will be apportioned. the state of texas used a formula for a place in the tax credit housing and the number -- in a way that icp argued showed perpetual racial segregation. in fact, they showed evidence that court that 92% of the low income housing tax credit projects had been placed in predominate communities of color. icp challenged the formulas that it had a disparate impact based on race. the lower court agreed with icp. the appellate court also agreed with icp and the state of texas appealed the case to the supreme court. this -- the question before the supreme court is whether or not the whole theory of disparate

impact is cognizable under the federal act. this case is taking place -- it is laid out or unfolded against a very interesting backdrop and that is that 11 appellate court -- courts that have heard the matter have agreed there is disparate impact that is cognizable under the law and you have unanimity under the appellate court on that particular issue before the court. what you don't have unanimity on amongst the appellate court is this test, this three-pronged test you have to use to determine whether or not there's disparate impact, and that is not before the court. ari: define disparate impact. lisa: the disparate impact is

where you have a policy that seems neutral on its face. let me give you an example not related to the case. i've worked on. one of the casesi've worked on. the insurance company said we will not insure any home that is valued under $65,000. if the market value of your home is $65,000, you cannot get insurance at their company. the policy is mutual on its face. it doesn't seem to have any racial connotations they are. if you apply the policy across the board, it has the discriminatory effect of this discrimination against african-american and latino homeowners who have market values under $65,000. ari: for we bring this back to the panel explain did congress , mean to provide this kind of

attention even where there isn't explicit evidence of individual racial discrimination and let the court deal with the outcome. lisa: so that's a great question. it was one raised during the hearing. i think it's very clear that congress did intend for disparate impact to be included when it originally passed the law in 1968 and also when it amended the law in 1988. in fact, there was a congressional brave written and co-authored empire by senator walter mondale and ed brooke the original authors and they say in their amicus brief that they actually did intend for it to be included in the original law that was passed april the 11, 1968. actually as the brief points out, there were amendment made

at the time that the law was passed in 1968 to infer an intentional standard within the statute and congress rejected that amendment. so, not only did the framers are -- or the authors of the law intend for there to be disparate impact, but when those who were opposing the law meant to infer or confer the intentional standard in the statute, it was rejected by the congress. subsequently, in multiple years, senator orrin hatch tried to amend the fair housing act by adding an intentional standard -- standard. so, after the law was passed in 1968, senator hatch tried on many, many occasions to change the law by adding this intentional standard.

every single time it was rejected by the court and in 1988 when the law was amended to really expand and broaden coverage to include two protected classes. disability status and the familial status at that time again, this intentional amendment was introduced. it was rejected, but what congress did do when it amended the law was it said there were three instances that we don't want to apply to disparate impacts. one example is remember familial status is now a protected class. what congress said is if local musicality's past a reasonable occupancy standard, we do not mean for the reasonable occupancy standard to be challenged by the fair housing act under the disparate impact analysis, saying the occupancy standard will discriminate against families with children.

because you can see how that will happen. ari: right. lisa: you have an occupancy standard that says you have to have one person in a bedroom for every 70 square feet. that is going to limit having an opportunity for children. ari: panel? michele: one thing i find interesting as we consider disparate impact as we think about often discrimination in this country through the prism of white and black interaction. i think what is so important about this particular standard is how we look at discrimination as we think about familial status. he think about young families. also recently you see how it has this great uptake in claims being brought from disabled residents that we often don't see discrimination to read

through a plan to disabled citizens, but yet you find difficulty with appropriate housing. to the extent that many of the conversations have only centered on just talking about race and not thinking about these other protected classes, my hope here is that the court considers the far-reaching effect that will come into play if you think about striking down disparate and act. ari: robbie, i wonder who could speak to what the court views as the dilemma here, especially given your time before the court because on one hand many people relate to the concern that we have a lot of what is called in the literature racism without racist -- racism that is unfair and built on a legacy of what was formal racism is no longer explicitly announced and applied

in the same way and it way and -- in the country wants to come by -- combat that. people can relate to that. yet it is not so easy because on the other hand being fair-minded about legal limitations, people say if you are going to use the legal punishment or regulation of saying something is racist, that has agreed to a stigma in -- as formal legal consequences and a great deal of stigma in the society and people saying we set up what is a neutral policy based on numbers and how the government will comment and say this is racism. how does the court deal with the dilemma? roberta: i spent countless hours thinking about the different journeys this court has been on comparing lgbt civil rights and more traditional african-american civil rights.

when it handed down shelby county, it could not be more opposite in terms of promoting civil rights. i spent a lot of time thinking about why another one hand is -- and we have seen incredible progress and on the other hand we are seeing quite the same thing. i think you hit on an issue that is important to the court and this issue of labeling people as racist or homophobic in the context of windsor is something they are extremely sensitive to. some of the most intense questioning in windsor and so -- is what i was expecting. doma was passed with huge majorities, signed into law, in the question i got was are you saying the huge number of senators and president clinton who voted, are you saying they

were homophobes? in dealing with that, whether it is african-american civil rights or gay civil rights, you kind of have to dance a bit because the answer is yes, they probably were homophobic at the time. on the other hand, used the word and say that in that kind of creates this reaction you do not want to have. i, kind of said no, i am not , saying it's prejudice. it's based on a misunderstanding which was true. but i think your question arguably has the core of what may be motivating the court that they don't want to label anyone a bad person. lisa: ari, if i could follow up to what robbie said -- some

argue that is the beauty actually the disparate impact argument. you are saying we know that you know you did not intend to discriminate. you are not a racist but you employ this policy that has a discriminatory effect. he didn't mean to do it but you did it so let's change that. some argue that is the beauty of the disparate impact of a discriminatory effect argument. elizabeth: one of the points you made at the outset is just federal law. we are just interpreting what the words say. of the argument was that there

a lotof the argument was that there are that there are parts of the fair housing act as they adversely affect. so the fha does that make them available. there was a lot of conversation about but there may come available is the same as adversely affect. ari: you are saying make housing unavailable. elizabeth: make housing unavailable -- does that mean congress intended to look at the impact and not just the intent. the proponents of the disparate impact analysis makes them available in some statutes there is language that adversely affects them they were ok with using disparate impact analysis just looking at the aesthetics. what is interesting to me as justice breyer, in arguments said why should we change a law , analysis that is working and has been working for many years to use the disparate impact analysis. he made a similar point in that

case several years ago. the family community schools against seattle for justice roberts said the way to end discrimination is to end discrimination. the court struck down voluntary efforts to integrate the school system that was de facto segregated. justice breyer said this is crazy to shut our eyes at the realities that de facto segregation is just as harmful and in this case to bring it back to where i live, and the impact where you live on your health is enormous. there was a study done recently that in two areas of richmond, virginia, life expectancy changes by 20 years because of the area you live in.

women in low income communities, largely african-american are 15 times more likely to die of a than women in other communities. there's a tremendous amount of work being done on the socioeconomic causes of health disparities and it all has to do with -- much of it has to do with where you live. whether you have access to healthy food, primary care providers. and simply, the stress of living in a community like that, there was "the new yorker" last week about the impact on a developing child's brain on the impact of living in a low income community. there is up to a 6% change in the development of the brain of such -- of the child solely because of where he or she is born. to shut our eyes to that and

simply say we are going to decide this by focusing on the statue is certainly the impact of whether it has the intent of -- impact of being counterproductive. whether it has the intent of being counterproductive i can't , say. ari: that is a limitation that we see certainly applied selectively for some of the time. it won't tell you whether people under the view of the constitution are involved in the equality and decency should allowed to marry regardless of their gender, how they met or what they want to do together, which gets us to the next case we want to reach. it is an injustice that he knows so much about this case, but i promise you we go 2020 and we will do that. definitely get you on the next case. robbie tell us what this case is , about. it's fair to assume our audience and people at home remember the previous cases including those

that you argued. what is in this case will be decided this month and potentially the create the national standard are right and nations history. roberta: i have to tell you, i never thought i would get to be the good news bear on civil rights issues. knock on wood -- i'm hoping that will be the case. when i walked into the office this morning they had cnn on the tv and they had a flash and there is a new whole that says 63% of americans nationwide support marriage equality. again i have to pause every time i see those numbers. if you told me that when i brought the windsor case, i would have told you you needed to get medication, or something, because that was not going to happen. so, the journey the country has been on, 2003 was the first case of seeking marriage equality in massachusetts and the first time

gay people could get married. and now we are at 37 states. the question before this court is whether that equality will extend to the remaining 13. whether or not does the federal government has to recognize the equal dignity, but states like like mississippi or texas or louisiana or florida have to allow gay citizens to have the equality of marriage. that is the case is about. that is why, obviously it's , getting the attention it's getting. we shall see. fingers crossed. ari: ian, why don't you walk us through what the outcomes could be here. it seems that one would be simply saying states have to recognize marriages performed in other states regardless of the the law, which is sort of a

federally -- federalism issue the other seemingly faulty federalized or something else. enlighten us. ian: the most likely outcome is some version of all 50 states required not just to recognize out-of-state marriages, they're required to issue marriage licenses to gay couples under their own law. that is the good news. but i think how the court reaches that decision is almost important as if they reach that decision. so you know, what is interesting about this case in relation to the housing case, i see it as a proxy war over the broader ideological battle where conservatives for a long time have wanted to limit civil rights to disparate treatment, where you show intent in order to prove discrimination. if you believe, which i don't

that the only type of civil rights violation is where you have intent, marriage discrimination qualifies. even if the person doesn't hold it, it is the intent of the law to provide less rights than they provide to opposite couples. it is also the case if you look at the supreme court doctrine, gay-rights is a very easy question. what the supreme court has said is when a group has historically experienced the type of discrimination which bears no relation to their ability to perform or contribute to society, they are entitled to protection under the constitution. there is really just no question that sexual orientation should fit the bill. i will throw a few numbers that you hear. new york city arrested 50,000 people over the course for four

decades because they were seeking consensual sex with the person of the same sex. that used to be a crime in the state of new york. the city of philadelphia formed a moral squad that arrested 200 gay man every month. it is to be the policy of the united states of america that the federal government would not hire gay people. it uses words like revulsion. the last thing i will say is more than half the state at one point had laws stating sexual deviance to be confined against their will said the state could try to care what they do. so i don't think there's any question that sexual orientation

meet the standard that the history of discrimination and yet the court has slow walked. there have been a number of decisions beginning in 1996. what strikes me about roemer and windsor is how incremental these have been. the court has resisted reaching the natural conclusion of gay people should be entitled to heighten protection. i suspect they will continue to resist it in this case. if that is true, that is -- has profound applications for the future. while it will mean same-sex couples will be allowed to marry, it also won't mean they won't be able to engage in other forms of anti-gay scriven nation. sam brownback recently rescinded an executive order that said the state would discriminate against gay people in its own hiring. that might be constitutional, at

least under the supreme court has said, after they rule marriage equality as the law of the land. i think it is likely a narrow victory will be a complete victory -- we will get marriage equality in all 50 states. but that it is much less likely that the court will recognize that the constitutional dish demands is discrimination against gay people of any kind should be treated with skepticism. ari: what is interesting as you mentioned the federal obligation to explain itself and in all the cases we see some discussion of where did these rules from, but it is something positive about the judiciary that is the only part that has binding rules and having to explain itself. many disagree, it can be held at

in the light of day of why did you do this. some decisions don't wear well in real time. i want to go back to robbie and then broaden out to the sixth circuit decision, which you are intimately familiar with, in which ohio against marriage equality but it is striking because it feels to a lawyer and even a non-lawyer, a weak argument. let me read from it, a brief quoting saying that it is rational to recognize that marriage was adopted not to regulate love, but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of mail-female intercourse. the argument being made there is that because marriage was initially structured to deal with what society viewed as the potential problems or messiness

of sex and procreation, it is therefore fully limited. speak to us about why this is arising because it seems like a very weak argument when you look at the endurance of marriage as something that exists and is protected with or without children and for elderly people who would not have children etc.. roberta: you'll be shocked to hear i agree with you. most of the justices actually think it's a pretty silly argument, too. this is prominent in the oral argument in april. the reason the argument is so prominent is because there aren't any other left. this is the only distinction that people who oppose marriage equality can come up with between gay couples and straight couples is the idea that

straight couples sometimes procreate. this has pushed them into a view of marriage that is so divorced from reality and from what anyone thinks his marriage. i do nothing anyone thinks if they get married -- they get married to someone because it's accidentally procreate, the kid is protected. nobody says i want to make sure the kid has protection. i do not know what universe marriage exist in that world but it's no universe i know of. the image of marriage portrayed if you are the council of michigan or tennessee, was the situation that i try to hypothesize. you have been married straight couple that are abusive to each other, violent to each other.

it happens. but they are fine to their kids. under this theory that these people should be the state's policy for that couple to stay married because it's good for the kids. obviously that makes no sense. that is just crazy world. the justices recognize that. i do not even think in the dissent, hopefully again -- i cannot help myself -- in the dissent of this case you will see that view of marriage. it is so divorced from reality. michele: one piece i want to go back to is something that we think about -- i will join the knock on wood and the concept we think about marriage equality as we will create a legal environment where there are protections for same-sex loving couples to marry, and the very next day they could go to work share that they have been

married and for a host of reasons potentially lose their job, lose their health care depending where they are. so, the question is are we setting framework where we are protecting and moving forward as we think about marriage equality in the country. at the same time, when we expand our questions discrimination -- now you are not talking about the relationship between individuals. then do we find ourselves back in the world, a disparate impact world where we are looking at civil rights for all persons where you will be -- and you have the potential to, kind of, lose out on long-held traditional ideas or notions of civil rights but in a very different context because now you talk about losing your ability to work, to live, health care. there's a host of protections

that many of us in the community are thinking about what nondiscrimination looks like for everyone. we are hoping we have the opportunity to do that at the end of this term, but as we think about the long reaching the fact, discrimination in the way the court has thought about it as potential ramifications for same-sex couples the way we see it in other traditional civil rights. ari: final thought, that we are going to go to obamacare. roberta: there are some people seem to get fired because their abbas says -- please excuse me, i'm not trying to offend anyone, they fire you because they say you are a faggot. people are coming around to the idea you shouldn't fire someone. the question is what do you do

with a situation where there's a disparate disparate impact or a subtle discrimination and that is where the commonalities will very much come to the floor. ari: we will go to obamacare. at this juncture on the past two cases because folks have a deep sense obamacare. it will be simply what you think will happen on each case. start with their housing and say do you think the disparate impact will be upheld to continue or will it be overruled and struck down. show of hands how many think , current will be upheld in that case? michele: i am a progressive. ari: how many people think it will be struck down? mixed here, ok. and on marriage equality -- i am not going to do every possibility. do you think the case will advance? by a show of hands, yes.

most of the room. by a show of hands no. and you think it is fair to do -- we can do the obamacare next. i thought this was a nice halftime. we're about to hear about it. you may have heard about whether the way the law was written written should deny subsidies. by show of hands, how many people think the law will be upheld and subsidies continued. how many think no, the part of the law will be essentially struck down? we have some pessimists. that gives a sense of where we come from and now where we are going. now tell us about the case. elizabeth: that was a good test of what the class knows already. most of you know a fair amount. just to take you back a little bit. congress enacted the affordable care act to address very serious problems and access to health care and country. there are basically three prongs to this tool that were part of

the affordable care act. one is everybody has to get health care unless he makes so -- unless you make so little money are exempted from the requirement. two is that insurance companies have to provide insurance to people regardless of preexisting conditions. so for the first time people , have been diagnosed with cancer or multiple sclerosis or whatever it is they don't want to cover, those people are entitled to get insurance. the third wrong -- prong is the tax subsidies. the only way the three leg is still works as for the tax subsidy to be available because if you don't provide the tax subsidies, then you've got a big pool of people exempted from the requirement to get health care. all of a sudden the people who are getting insurance i just do -- are just the people with

preexisting conditions. the insurance companies can't afford it. they need the big base of healthy people to be able to spread the risk of covering people with preexisting conditions. the problem is we had a lot of people in the country were getting health care by showing up at the emergency room door which is really bad economically and also really bad for your health to not get preventive care along the way and show up at the emergency room door. on top of the people with pre-existing conditions not getting treatment, you had normal everyday people who couldn't afford health care because they did not health -- have insurance and congress is trying to fix a significant social problem. the affordable care act got past. the opposition to the affordable care act has not yet given up. i can't remember how many times there's been a bill passed. i think it is 49. 50, 51. the opposition continues.

after supreme court decided in the case that the affordable care act passed muster because it was enacted pursuant to the taxing power of the united states. then the opponents came up with another idea and this idea was to find a creative idea to find four words in the statute that says exchanges created by the state and because of these words in the statute admit that they couldn't be in the exchange that were created by the state. this is a fairly technical statutory argument created by -- argument because the language is in a provision of the statute that addresses how you calculate the subsidy that somebody is entitled to. there are various other provisions that interrelate. there is a provision that says

states shall create exchanges. there is another provision says that the state opts not to create an exchange, federal government will step in and create an exchange. it is used throughout the statute to refer both to the exchange created by the state and the exchange created if the state opts not to create an exchange. so it is pulling his words out , of context because of the calculation of tax subsidies and a provision that refers to exchange created by the state and is even more complicated because it refers back to another statutory section that refers back to another statutory section. the argument is these words mean you can't give tax subsidies in exchange created by the federal government. 34 states have exchanges that are federally facilitated marketplaces.

there are 6.4 million people getting tax subsidies on the federally facilitated marketplaces. if the court was the wrong way not only will the 6.4 million people lose their tax subsidies and therefore their insurance, but the estimates are another million and a half people will probably lose insurance because as i said at the beginning if you pull out the base, everybody's costs go up, so people who are not getting tax subsidies will have their , insurance priced out of reach because the cost of coverage is going now. ian: i want to bring what they says that at the beginning about fair housing, which is about how orin hatch has tried over and over again to get the results of the litigants in the fair housing cases not trying to get

out of court. you know, you see the exact same dynamic with the affordable care act. this is the weakest statutory interpretation argument that i have ever seen reach the supreme court. elizabeth listed some of the evidence that the plaintiffs' theory is wrong. i will explain one more. the plaintiffs hone in on these words through an exchange established by the state. if you read one sentence completely divorced from anything else in the statute you may think they're onto something until you see that the word "exchange" is defined to mean a government agency or nonprofit entity is established by a state. so any exchange, regardless of whether it's federal government or state government is aimed to be established by state. this case borders on the sanction of frivolousness. that said, there is an argument

for why it's out here. while there are some things a lawyer has not been candid about, he was unusually candid in a conversation with a friend of mine who is a reporter now with bloomberg. he had a conversation with mr. carvin and he asked them -- him on the same issue called high -- how the some of you may remember the d.c. circuit actually bought the plaintiffs theory and the full d.c. circuit decided to do with its located over again. this is all the drama was going about the d.c. circuit are going to block it, and in that

context, mr. carvin said he thinks the republicans on the supreme court are going to get -- going to give a damn about what a bunch of obama appointees on the d.c. circuit think and just in case there's any ambiguity as to what he was saying here, he asked them, do you think you are going to lose any judges appointed by a republican and he said no i do not think i will lose any republican appointed judges. so this is not a case about statutory interpretation. elizabeth: let me just jump in. it is important that we use the language of statutory interpretations. this cases are good as a statutory interpretations case and the reason for that is because it is obvious what congress intended. but to just say congress intended the subsidies to be available in federal exchanges

but you can say congress screwed up in a cognition that, then we lose. the court's answer to that is that we will let congress six that. you should look not just at the four words, but at the context of the entire statute. stratasys range of petition should get to where the court needs to be -- ari: let me say to make sure we to the case we are saying accessible it seems we are , collapsed into different political structures that should be decided. one is the actual inquiry the court is doing, which is what does the law do.

in this case on paper record it seems very far-fetched to argue that the challengers to obamacare argue that the laws secretly discriminated based on geography. nobody knew about it. nobody opposed the law is a good or bad thing. we had this multiyear debate about it and that was just a secret design that somehow was never discovered and now needs to be applied by the court in a way the other branches never wanted, never discuss, never sad. -- never said, and the democrats who were pushing the law, as you so eloquently described, included in a sort of secret suicide trigger. right? it's just very far-fetched. i say that being fair to the argument. then the second analytical , structure you refer to and cynicism as well is the most -- cynicism people bring to the court is well, isn't this political? i wonder if we could tease that out because it's fair to say justices are humans and their -- and at times will be moved by their own instincts whether they

personal, political or ideological. the question for folks to understand what the court is going to do is how does that actually work because it's also fair to say that members of this court and past courts. plenty of instances where justices depart from what you might think they would want to do or feel constrained by the rule. you've written about this a lot. if this is a far-fetched statutory argument, that is to say this law doesn't do what you think it does why is this , appealing as a far-fetched and potentially controversial way to limit the aca when the court has clearly not gone out -- gone that route when given other, i would call, mainstream chances? ian: it is definitely true that there is a two-tiered litigation strategy going on here.

there's a strategy on the surface where there was an excellent amicus brief filed which lays out what elizabeth and i have been talking about which shows it is absolutely clear the statutes only be read one way. below the surface, there is another strategy going on they consist of trying to embarrass the justice says are inclined to not do what the statute clearly says that it should do. a lot of it just consists of pointing to how obvious this legal argument is and going come on, guys, you cannot get away with this. one person who should be particularly embarrassed if he decides to vote with the plaintiffs here is justice scalia because he wrote in a 2012 book that he co-authored that there is no interpretive fault more common than the failure to follow the whole text can in which causes the judicial

interpreter to consider the entire text in view of its structure and the physical and logical relations of many parts. again, i would hope that the mere fact that this is an easy case, and there is really only one way to read a statute would be enough to convince nine judges there is only one way to read the statute, but in the event, through motivated reasoning or a more conscious partisan desire, they are not inclined to do their job, i would hope they would at least realize the arguments in this case are so weak that it would be embarrassing, not just to themselves, but i think to the court as an institution. ari: robbie, help me out. ian gave a good answer, but did not answer the question posed and as a journalist one of my pet peeves, one of the questions

posed is if you're sympathetic to that, then why do you think as a court expert that justices are linked in to consider what is a week apart against the aca right now? roberta: i think you realize there is some sense to look, no one can explain how the justice make certain decisions. no one is allowed in that room there anyone who tells you they somehow have some insight i'd , like to know where they went to law school. it certainly was not taught to me in law school. one might guess, and this is a guess, they knew there would have to do this earlier. circumvent the d.c. circuit -- and reverse it. so my guess is they figured guess is they figure they might as we'll get over with now. that's why you saw it. hopefully i agree with the panel that it doesn't speak to the merits of the plaintiff argument. i'm amazed, sitting there amazed as a supreme court advocate to hear the comment that the

plaintiff's counsel made, i just can't imagine, even if that's what you think in heart of hearts i cannot imagine saying i'm going to get all republican appointed judges on my side and none of the others. look, maybe i'm idealistic or i've never been accused of assisting publicly idealistic in my life i think a lot of judges to decide on the merits. there's an awful lot of republican appointed judges. most of them since windsor have decided for equality. so, the degree of cynicism and that sigmund is a little bit surprising, even to me. michele: one technical point, it only take four justices. if we look at it, we know there were four justices who thought the decision should of went that way. i think that is really important. ari: to hear a case in the first place. michele: to hear a case in the

first place. i think that's another part of the conversation that we should add. the other thing that i will say his there is a larger conversation taking place about the roberts court in kind of a direction in which this court is moving. i think most americans, there's a poll out today i think in the "washington post" just released, or just wrote that over 55% of americans want the supreme court to uphold the subsidies. and i think it's -- ari: within the states? michele: within the states that would be denied the. so most of these states again, that are 34 states. most of the states are kind of presidential primary, and in those states which you could say

that the more conservative population, they want the obamacare subsidies to be upheld by the supreme court. just cannot look at the backdrop of what's happening at a think that's a really important point to make. ari: i want to go to the audience questions and final thought on the obamacare and then bring you guys in. elizabeth: i was going to broaden it a little bit to why the court might want to use these words in sort of a craft four interpretation. there are a number decisions of the roberts court come with the is doing is pulling back sort of standing in the way of efforts to address social problems by either the states or the federal government, striking down section five of the voting rights, the other part of it, didn't get nearly as much press but the court struck down the medicaid expansion peace of the affordable care act. ari: you are talking about the first affordable care act case. elizabeth: yes, sorry. the court upheld the core part of the three-legged stool i described, but in the medicaid expansion that was mandatory

under the affordable care act the court struck that down. so what i fear is that the pendulum and the court has long suffered untold wingnut heaven activist courts does look at social ills of drug abuse the law to address them but is all with the opposite extreme, standing in what efforts by publicly elected officials to name and address social problems. ari: well, and you you are also putting your finger on a looming inconsistency which in the first obamacare case the notion of having high demands on states to get the money was considered coercive, right? and in this case they could potentially read rate interpret the statute to deny funds, which if it was the theme would also be -- that's a lot of hypothetical. elizabeth: that's a problem for down the road. ari: that's what we do. we look for more problems in our nature as attorneys. i want to talk to you guys for three cases. it's been really wonderful. you guys are just really

wonderful that this. let's go to the mic. as i said at the top please introduce yourself come comments are fine, questions are fine but let's wait time for responsive. >> good morning. previously at the university of baltimore center for international and comparative law. now i am in private practice. i appreciate all other marks and one general question i for the entire panel is on the darkest of the dark said what if the , court were to point in all three cases in point to congress because you love it congress that is under the control of one party, and the party has been chomping at the bit for a very long time to really sink its teeth into all these three issues. it wouldn't be the first time the court would've interest itself in american history but what if it were to congress on two point all of these three

issues and say to congress can you deal with it. the last speaker talked about on health care but what about all three of them? it gets punted to congress across the way. lisa: this is something that we've been grappling with. the potential fix, if it meets the a legislative fix, will depend on what the court says in its opinion. so one of the key hang ups happen in the icp case compassing thing that elizabeth was talking about. reading the plain text of the law which justice alito really wanted the court to do any made -- and he made arguments toward that end. actually justice scalia said no, we take the whole law in its entirety. we consider the entire law including the amendments. and justice scalia said, look if you read the entire law including the amendments, it's very clear that disparate impact was like under the fair housing

act. but i think, look, we don't have any fallacies that at least the house would put forth the cure it would be a legislative fix. i don't necessary think that the senate, this particular senate might do that as well, but i think if there was a potential fix that would harm the fair housing act that the president would veto that, but i also think that it will take us some time to get to the fix that we need an oakley we would be dealing with not this particular same congress.

ian: i'll just add one thing which is to resist the word punt. if the court were to say so these were to be cut off or if they say that if they said that we're going to get comfortable doesn't offer disparate impact litigation, the fact that they didn't include language all, but congress to pass new law this and that, that is not a punt. it is a changing existing law. you know, it's not a punt to the say we're going to do this thing blows up a bunch of 11, -- >> forty-five years. ari: you are talking about whether they will overrule two pieces of progressive legislation, something from the civil rights era that at the economic component to voting rights act. and obamacare which has already been tested. in that sense from the defenders of the laws view they are like leave it alone. and anyone else was looking to change this court. let's take two questions at the time.

roberta this is the last thing : in the world republicans in congress want to deal with. mayors no way. you see the presidential republican candidates contorting themselves and pretzels odyssey. they say they are against marriage equality but they would go to a gay marriage. ari: broadly, let's be careful to visit pretzel are just pieces of the wedding cake? roberta they would like to have : waited longer but the sixth circuit me that not really a choice. ari: i want to get, let's take to questions at a time. >> my question is regarding the fair housing case. as far as if disparate impact if they decide it has no place in the fair housing act, how does that affect some hud programs? i know they have a program coming out this summer, or a proposal coming out this summer which basically was going to require state agencies to look at d