we'll be ready for the show. >> good luck in the competition. >> big competition taking place at met life stadium june 27-28 saturday and sunday. you know who our favorite team is. go guys go. >> we'll see you tomorrow. bill: thanks, everybody. did employees at the irs destroy emails that were directed to be protected? a new report shows there was destruction of evidence, backup tapes that could have recovered lost emails. we are watching this hearing we'll bring you news as we get it from that room. prison break day 20. and information on an inside job. a man who authorities say helped killers escape is out on bail.

richard matt's and david sweat's dna was found near the prison. welcome to america's newsroom. martha: i'm martha maccallum the judge released gene palmer. he's the meat delivery man. the tools that were used by matt sweat to escape were hidden inside frozen hamburger meat. they are worried that matt and sweat may have been able to gather some new weapons at that hunting lodge. >> just about every cabin in the out country had one or more shot guns or weapons. these men are dangerous and cunning. why wouldn't they try to arm themselves immediately upon

escape. bill: what was the role of the officer charged? >> it seems like gene palmer, the corrections officer may have been tricked fooled, duped into helping the inmates. there is no information that he was aware they were planning to escape. this is what his attorney has been saying as well as the district attorney. gene palmer faces four criminal charges. three of them felonies, one of them providing prison can extra band long-nose flyers. and a phillips screwdriver. two counts of tampering with physical evidence. palmer allegedly destroyed paintings given to him as a gift by richard matt. there is one count of official

misconduct for receiving that painting. the clinton county district southern says the much-talked about hamburger meat was allegedly brought to the prison by joyce mitchell. but the d.a. says palmer did not know it contained contraband. >> based on the interviews with gene palmer we believe he could not have -- did not realize that the hacksaw blade were in the meat. that he was bringing meat in from richard matt to joyce mitchell. >> reporter: we learned more -- we'll learn more about this at a court hearing at 4:00. >> has it forces them to change the search in any way? >> there has been a slight shift in what authorities are doing

regarding the search. they have been searching a rural heavily wooded area. now they are looking at the nearby village of malone. they have been going from house to house there. they even made robocalls to residents. but this is an extremely difficult task. they are conducting this search over 75 square mile and that's an area the size of cleveland ohio. bill: david lee miller, upstate new york. martha: hate crime charges are said to be coming and soon against the suspect in the charleston church massacre. officials say there is a high possibility thatly land roof

posted a manifesto online. they gathered at the emanuel a.m.e. church in the same room where that killing took place. funeral service are also starting to get under way. today one of the victims will be laid to rest including ethel lee lance. she worked at the church for 30 years. she was the mother of five children. also laid to rest is sharonda coleman. she was the mother of three. an emotional moment on capitol hill. south carolina senator tim scott remembering the nine victims killed in the charleston church massacre holding 9 seconds of

silence. >> with great enthusiasm and energy a sense of excitement that this evil attack to lead to reconciliation restoration and unity in our nation. >> those are powerful word. martha: when we see these tragedies, the on positive in them is the incredible spirit of the people affected by them. we have seen this more overwhelming than anything. all discussions dragging things down so incredibly are the voices of these individual. bill: tomorrow will be a very emotional day as we wait and watch for those funerals in

south carolina. bill: the list has grown by one more. another republican jumping into the race for president. >> governor of the great state of louisiana, and i'm running for president of the greatest country in the world the united states of america. bill: that is louisiana governor bobby jindal joining the field. and the first sitting governor to join the race. he's telling supporters he will not compromise on conservative principles. jeb bush at the top of the pack at 15%. donald trump made a move, followed by been carson at 10%. he said i start at zero but i'm okay with that, i'm used to that i'll build from that.

martha: he's not alone. the fast-moving brushfire prompting evacuations in an area north of los angeles where people were alloyed back in their homes. look at these incredible pictures and video we have coming up from california. they are facing some of the worst fire condition on record. adam housley has been down this road before. he's at the command post in santa clarita. how are the of the planning to get at this today? >> today is about knocking count hotpots. the pictures from yesterday were unbelievable as the fire approached a lot of homes. about 1,000 homes were evacuated. last night around 10:00 10:30 people were allowed to go back to their homes. but it show how difficult california's fire season will be this year.

we are in june and conditions are extremely drought. moisture levels are at the lowest they have been in years and in a lot of place they are what you would normally find in november when fire season end. but the good news they are out and about this morning. they have a meeting to find out what the containment numbers will be. the idea is to make sure the hotpots are knocked out. it will be hot here, with low humidity and wind once this day gets going. martha: there is. >> the southern california fire burning for more than a week, right? >> reporter: it's called the lake fire, about an hour and a half from here. it's called canyon country. the lake fire is out about an hour and a half east of los angeles called the lake fire. it's about 30% contained. while it has evacuations this morning, it's mostly campground

and areas that are more rural. it's a big fire but it's one that's not as dangerous as it could be. they are obviously keeping close eye on it. but across the state across the west this fire season is going to be a tough one firefighter are telling us they are worried about how long this may go because they will come top much of -- rains don't come to california until october if we get rain. bill: the house hearing is now under way. hundreds of i can rs emails were erased against orders. who could be in hot water now. we'll take you back to that hearing in a moment. martha: a military jet go down on the southern border. the search for the pilot is ongoing. bill: convicted bomber dzhokhar

tsarnaev sentenced to die. what he had to say in his hearing to all the victims and his family. >> he threw in an apology to the survivors that seemed insincere and just thrown in because he was supposed to. when you travel, we help you make all kinds of connections. connections you almost miss. and ones you never thought you'd make. we help connect where you are.

to places you never thought you'd go. this, is why we travel. and why we continue to create new technology to connect you to the people and places that matter. ♪ building aircraft, the likes of which the world has never seen. this is what we do. ♪ that's the value of performance. northrop grumman.

shopping online... ...is as easy as it gets. wouldn't it be great... ...if hiring plumbers, carpenters and even piano tuners were just as simple? thanks to angie's list now it is. we've made hiring anyone from a handyman to a dog-walker as simple as a few clicks. buy their services directly at angieslist.com. no more calling around. no more hassles. and you don't even have to be a member to start shopping today. angie's list is revolutionizing local service again. visit angieslist.com today. martha: the number of new unemployment claims ticked up

slightly to 271,000. people are opening up their wallets and spending money on cars and trucks. so that's good news for the manufacturers of those. bill: we have reports of backup tapes and emails that have been destroyed. they reportedly contain thousands of emails from lois lerner. byron york joins us. our capitol hill producer reported this news about an hour ago. emails destroyed 10 months after an order was put out by the irs to preserve those emails.

>> yes. it's big news here. the house discovers there is a lot of fishy stuff going on at the irs. they issue a subpoena to the irs for lois lerner's emails. along with that comes with preservation order. the irs is not allowed to destroy any evidence or emails. february 2014, the irs says it discovers this problem with lois lerner's hard drive. it crashed it's been destroyed. but then you think it would be time to take a look at the backups. but the news today is irs technicians destroyed 422 backup tapes that the inspector general said probably contained thousands of emails from lois lerner. you will hear a house committee a number of republicans saying

how could this happen. bill: can you bring those back are they gone for good? >> we have heard so many times with so many technical scandals that stuff never ever goes away. so i don't think we can say for sure it's all gone. the irs said they had found a number of learner's emails. but backup tapes were a source of evidence. they were under subpoena in this case. >> the inspector general is going to say 5 or 6 places where potential emails could have been stored were never looked at. that goes to effort or lack of it or care or concern. >> not just that but the irs's representations to congress that they were doing everything they could to find material

responsive to this subpoena. it goes to whether the irs was telling the truth. >> the inspector general said this was just a mistake. if it were a mistake then that's not illegal. i guess we have to figure out who could be held responsible next. >> the irs technicians did the hands on work of destroying these backup tapes. the line is they had not gotten an order to preserve this material. they did not know the material was suppose to be preserved. then the question is why didn't they go know that? did someone up the ladder not tell them what to do? i don't think house investigators are going to accept the oh, it was an accident excuse. bill: all that looks like a shell game. which nut on the table you are

moving around to hide the ball underneath. can you prove intent? do we know if that's possible? >> we don't know. but russell george, the inspector general has been providing a lot of information. a lot of what congress knows is because of what he has discovered. think back to what we learned over the years and months in this. we found out more about what was going on. i think house investigators should feel some opt i am if they keep that it they will find what actually happened here. bill: that hearing is underway. we'll bring headlines as they happen. martha: critics slamming the obama administration's new hostage policy saying we can't have individuals negotiating with terrorists and that will hurt hostages overall.

bill: the boston bomber saying he's sorry. the survivors apparently not impressed. >> i regret ever wanting to hear him speak because what he said showed no regret or people think for what he has done to our lives.

bill: a search along our southern border after an f-16 fighter jet crashes. the pilot was the only one on board and right now the status of that pilot is not known. it went down near the town of douglas, air arizona.

martha: dzhokhar tsarnaev spoke and said i'm sorry for the suffering i have cause you the damage i have done. and while he spoke listening closely were the families of these four people you see pictured on your screen, starting with martin r and. le hundreds of other listening and watching who were injured on april 15 in 2013. >> it will never be over for us. >> it does not change anything for me because what he took for me i'll never be able to regain. >> he threw in an apology to the survivors that seemed insincere

and just thrown in because he was supposed to. martha: joe your thoughts on the fact that he did in the end want to stand up and speak and he offered that apology we read just a piece of moments ago. >> he did it without a cross-examination. that's the first thing that jumped out for me. he gave this apology. it seemed carefully written. his lawyers must have pored over it. survivors said it felt flat for them. it was hollow. for them it didn't ring through. that's what they are saying about this sudden apology. martha: there is a period in which they can seek an appeal. is there any reason why this statement would make any

difference in that process? >> it could. he was very crafted. i believe it came across that way. he has 14 days to file an appeal. his legal team. it's a big loss for them. youyou can count on many appeals coming and this apology is going to play into it. i'm sure they are going to use it and quote from it. so it was strategic. martha: it was stunning to listen to the reactions of the victims and hear the details with which they talked about their own lives and how they are affected. one young man who lost his hearing said i never expected to be wearing hearing aid at the age of 43. another woman said she used to go about her day in boston. now she has a constant fear and is always worried something is

lurking around the corner. that's the legacy left give this in boston. your thoughts on this, joe. >> you are right martha. i have spoke to the survivors. they have good days, they have bad days. a car backfiring can send them into panic. the stabbing situation in boston where the man was shot. that send them into panic. any time in the news that something even remotely similar to this, they withdraw. this is for real for them. tomorrow next year, years to come, they will have to deal with this. they are buying prosthetics. they have tef days. a couple of the surveyors yesterday couldn't get up. they can't go, they couldn't do it. they told me i don't think i could do it. every day is tough for them.

>> he made clear his motivations. he talked about allah and we know what he scrawled inside that boat and the legacy is left with these people and they are going to not forget about this. they will live with it day to day to day. we need to remember the victims in boston and the bigger picture we are fighting against in this country. thank you so much for being with us today. bill: an important chapter in boston's history yesterday. former topped a advisers to barack obama warning him about the nuclear deal with iran in an open letter for all to read. martha: it's being called the catch of the year. the toronto blue jays third baseman diving in. that's straight ahead. we'll be back.

when broker chris hill stays at laquinta and fires up free wi-fi, with a network that's now up to 5 times faster than before you know what he can do? let's see if he's ready. he can swim with the sharks! book your next stay at lq.com!

when you travel, we help you make all kinds of connections. connections you almost miss. and ones you never thought you'd make. we help connect where you are. to places you never thought you'd go. this, is why we travel. and why we continue to create new technology to connect you to the people and places that matter.

bill: we are awaiting two major decisions from the u.s. supreme court that may happen in 30 minutes. a major case on obamacare is pending. a major case on same-sex marriage is pending. if they do not happen today there are only a few days left in this session tomorrow, monday perhaps tuesday of next week but we'll see how that go based on what the supremes decide. martha: eventually it will have to be the 4th of july. martha: the iran nuclear deal raising serious questions for self former security advisers to

president obama including david petraeus warning that the deal taking shape is not enough to prevent iran from building an atomic bomb. they said the agreement will not prevent iran from having nuclear weapons capability. it will not require the dismantling the iran's nuclear enrichment structure. there is so much concern there over this deal. you know, when you look at this letter and the people that have signed on to it you have to wonder whether this registered with the president. >> this is like the who's who of people that understand foreign policy and understand how people think in the middle east and understand the long game that iran and other country play in the middle east. the president talked to us in

congress and said, look, this is a 10-year -- the on way to guarantee iran doesn't get nuclear weapons for 10 years. but it also guarantees iran does get nuclear weapons in 10 years because when this agreement runs out they are free to do of what they want. and they have had billions of dollars to invest in their economy. this is bad deal. in international politic terms 10 years is not that long. 10 years ago president obama announced the surge in iraq. martha: it's like a blip in history. let's look at at poll that asks the american people about this deal. will the deal stop iran from building nuclear weapons? 63% believe that' not likely.

yet the president told us this is a fundamental element of this deal. yet 63% of the people polled said they don't believe that. >> that poll goes to show me the american people know what they are talking about first off. but not only will it not guarantee iran doesn't get nuclear weapons. it will guarantee iran's neighbors do. i believe this administration will sign a deal no matter what and i hope i'm wrong. if saudi arabia is saying if they are guaranteeing iran gets a nuke in 10 years they will say we have to get a nuke in 10 years. they have to develop their nuclear program. and we also know they have option on existing nuclear weapons and other places around

the globe. this is the beginning of a nuclear arms race if this deal is signed in the part of the world where you don't want a nuclear arms race. >> we talk about iran and the terrorist entities they are aligned with in the middle east. then you have isis and other islamic radical groups and at larger entities they have certain alliances with in some of these countries which have been allies in the past. so it appears that the administration is saying, we think that long term, iran is the better side of this deal for the united states. do you think there is any truth to that? >> i think there is truth the administration is starting to think that. but about half of the people killed in the war in iraq were killed directly or indirectly by iran. iran is no ally of the united states. anybody who gets sucked into believing iran is our best

bet ... you know what's our best bet. strong leadership. we can have it with more leadership and bringing the players together like saudi arabia and jordan saying you have to control the middle east and increase stability. the youth has capabilities no other country has. jordan is the size of illinois without chicago. so the belief illinois without chicago can do what the youth has the capability to do is not realistic. martha: congressman thank you very much. bill: baseball action north of the border in toronto. such efforts. so good. watch it. >> popped up. he will go to the rail. he gets there dives in and caught it. oh what a play. bill: he's clark kent in the day time.

that's josh donaldson head first. i think he made the fourth row. >> that man in the white shirt caught him. bill: since we live in new york you can't walk down the hall without bumming into a yankee fan. derek jeter. was that 2004? it happened against the boston red sox. bill: stir the pot. martha: did you see this story? a heckler got thrown out of the people's house. we'll show you what happened when someone tried to upstage president obama. bill: the white house change the

rules after several americans were killed as u.s. hostages. >> wasn't the obama administration to some extent part of the problem here? >> we did not do right by these families. and that is what we are here to set right and to try very hard to rectify. th it neutralizes stomach acid and is the only product that forms a protective barrier that helps keep stomach acid in the stomach where it belongs. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief. try gaviscon®. so this beauty can be yours with a down payment and 10% financing. oh larry, lawrence. thanks to the tools and help at experian.com, i know i have a 798 fico score. [score alert text sound] [score alert text sound] oh. that's the sound of my interest rate going down. according to this score alert, my fico score just went up to 816. 816. 816! 816! fico scores are used in 90% of credit decisions.

so get your credit swagger on. go to experian.com become a member of experian credit tracker and take charge of your score. across america, people are taking charge of their type 2 diabetes... ...with non-insulin victoza. for a while, i took a pill to lower my blood sugar but it didn't get me to my goal. so i asked my doctor about victoza. he said victoza works differently than pills and comes in a pen. victoza is proven to lower blood sugar and a1c. it's taken once a day, any time. and the needle is thin. victoza is not for weight loss but it may help you lose some weight. victoza is an injectable prescription medicine that may improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. it is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and should not be used in people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. victoza has not been studied with mealtime insulin. victoza is not insulin. do not take victoza if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid

cancer multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza or any of its ingredients. symptoms of a serious allergic reaction may include swelling of face lips, tongue or throat fainting or dizziness, very rapid heartbeat problems breathing or swallowing, severe rash or itching. tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. serious side effects may happen in people who take victoza including inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis) which may be fatal. stop taking victoza and call your doctor right away if you have signs of pancreatitis, such as severe pain that will not go away in your abdomen or from your abdomen to your back with or without vomiting. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. taking victoza with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, and headache. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. if your pill isn't giving you the control you need... ask your doctor about

non-insulin victoza. it's covered by most health plans. bill: president obama gave it back to a heckler at the white house at an lgbt conference. he kept screaming his name. listen, you are in my house. you can either stay and be quiet or we'll have to take you out. martha: the report is the heckler was an undocumented

transgender woman protesting the administration's deportation policy. she was pulled from the room. an interesting moment. his house. can't happen there. >> president reagan did this, not just president obama. in those days you could do it with plausible deniability. but when you announce it as a rule people think i have got a business here and i can make lot of money this way. you know where that money is going. a terror organization. bill: rudy giuliani on sean hannity tearing into the decision to allow families to negotiate for the release of

their family members. i take it you agree with giuliani. let's get into it. >> he's right on two counts. one, the change in policy will encourage other groups to kidnap americans and try to extract as much money as they can for the americans. he's right when he points out the terrorist groups use this money to finance a substantial part of their terrorist activity. president obama is making clear this is not a change of government policy. this is for individuals who would like to negotiate on their own. by choosing not to prosecute those actions he's de facto changing government policy. when it comes to these kinds of episodes where terrorists abduct american citizens, the u.s. must be for consistent policy.

bill: they will set up this task force that will help channel that communication. >> the idea having the sword of damocles over the head of these families is insane. this is a humane policy for the president to do. it won't encourage more kidnapping. bill are you have had a long standing policy where you don't negotiate. >> we always negotiated. arms for hostages. bill: remember bowe bergdahl. >> it's not suddenly because of the obama administration. bill: the president said we are not going to abandon you we are going to stand by you. that's a very american thing and

heartfelt when you know he has gone through this experience too many times the past two years. >> and these are heartbreaking situations. we understand the emotional dimension to this. but the policy has existed for a long time for a reason. when you give terrorist groups the incentive to take americans knowing they are going to get x number of dollars millions of dollars that will continue to finance their operations. when you give them that incentive it will give rise to additional captures and kidnappings. if they don't think they will get anything from the u.s. government or individual americans they will not do it. they might try but they won't be able to. >> the incentive has always been there because we always maid money. bowe bergdahl, ran got missiles when reagan became president in

1981. bill: this is a clip from an american held in libya. he was on coast to coast with cavuto yesterday. >> my mother had a great deal of difficulty dealing with the state department. once she was made to stand out in the rain because she didn't have an appointment. i don't expect it to change too much. it's a file, they don't know the families. it's difficult to make a human connection but i hope one of the considerations when selecting people for these positions is they will find somebody who is able to empathize with the family. bill: has anyone ever been prosecuted for this? >> no. >> the united states government according to the constitution has new rated and limited powers. one of the biggest is to protect people from enemies foreign and

domestic. what he's doing is taking the u.s. government one step removed from that. now in a way in a de facto way he's transferring the responsibility to the families saying if we fail to protect american citizens -- that will have the ultimate -- that will be the ultimate. >> the worry and fear they would be prosecuted was always there. if it was a law that was never even officered it's a toothless law that should have never been there anyway. martha: we are just now minutes away from learning if we are going to get one or maybe both of the two big decisions that are about to come down from the supreme court.

same-sex marriage and obamacare. bill: this looks like a giant mud bath. wait until you see the wide shot in a moment. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com. the beast was as long as the boat. for seven hours, we did battle. until i said... you will not beat... meeeeee!!! greg. what should i do with your fish? gary. just put it in the cooler. if you're a fisherman, you tell tales. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance you switch to geico. it's what you do. put the fish in the cooler!

♪ whoa what are you doing? putting on a movie. i'm trying to watch the game here. look i need this right now ok? come on i don't want to watch that. too bad this is happening. fine, what if i just put up the x1 sports app right here. ah jeez it's so close. he just loves her so much. do it. come on. do it. come on!

yes! awww, yes! that is what i'm talking about. baby. call and upgrade to get x1 today. ♪

bill: watching this irs hearing. the inspector general testified 422 tapes with lois lerner emails were destroyed. he also says tapes that likely contained miss learner's emails were erased and most likely will never be recovered. erased around march 2014, a month after the irs realized there were missing emails and 8

months after the committee requested emails. how this affects this and who may be next in line to answer questions is a wide open question. but the headline at the moment, 422 tapes with lois lerner emails have been destroyed. martha: a florida man buys two paintings at auction that were originally murals on a prison wall. but taking them home is a challenge because the prison is about to be torn down and the murals are still on the prison walls. >> i had 12 years. so i just paint. >> reporter: on the walls of a deserted prison in rural florida

are murals painted by al black which according to some experts are worth a small fortune. but even a bid of $75 has been withdrawn. >> these were for sale but we knew there would and challenge as far as getting them back of here. >> reporter: the murals are on 8-inch thick concrete walls. the prospect of trying to cut brace and transport the art has so far scared off buyers. the prison land has been sold to a real estate developer. the artist says he hopes a way can be found to get his paintings out of jail. he spent 12 years in in prison

for fraud. cutting and moving just one of those murals could take $6,000 to $8,000. it's hard to imagine in a few week that artwork could be destroyed by bulldozers. martha: interesting story. thank you steve. bill: there is high drama at the u.s. supreme court. we'll know whether they hand down two key ruling before the term conclude. will they be game changers for obamacare or same-sex major or both. stand by as we come back after this.

when you travel, we help you make all kinds of connections. connections you almost miss. and ones you never thought you'd make. we help connect where you are. to places you never thought you'd go. this, is why we travel. and why we continue to create new technology to connect you to the people and places that matter. martha: could be a big moment. we're awaiting two landmark decisions from the supreme court that could have a lasting impact on the united states of america. one of course is the decision on

obamacare. the other a big decision on same-sex marriage. we should know in about one minute and 10 seconds whether or not we're going to get these decisions today. welcome, everybody to a brand new hour of "america's newsroom." i'm martha maccallum. bill: i'm bill hemmer. there are about three days left before the end of this session but on both debates the high court remains sharply divided. the session could conceivably go into extra innings which would mean extra days possibly next week. if the case of obamacare the lawsuit hinges on four little words well, they are not little. they are these words established by the state. meeping people that run their own exchanges are eligible for assistance from the federal government. not people in the 34 states that did not establish the exchange. martha: shannon bream joins us live from outside of the supreme court whether we wait to see people are running across the steps with information. as bill says those four words could make all the difference. so shannon any indication of

whether or not we're going to get anything today? >> reporter: we're definitely getting opinions. as you guys know it is always a guessing game. we don't know what we're going to get. right now they are handing them out inside. we have our trusty producer with her running shoes out on. we don't know if we'll get one or get three. there is a lot of guessing. everything the irs has done they have extended subsidies into all states including those that didn't set up exchanges. critics say that is not fair. it says that the law only goes to states that set up exchanges. more than 30 didn't. the name jonathan gruber has come up in this scenario. he is an mit economist. many people credit him with being very involved in the affordable care act. emails surfaced last few days more after connection with the white house. he is meeting with one with the president and several other meetings. we know he was involved. he said on tape, listen the subsidies going into set up exchanges.

if they don't, their people, their residents will not get those benefits. we'll see how much that factors n the justices are unlikely to consider videos of jonathan gruber because they didn't surface before the case started. like you and me they read newspapers. they watch fox news i like to think. they have heard about those things. we'll see if it influences them. martha: we sure will. the other potentially big decision that could come out moments from now is the decision on same-sex marriage which is expected to be a close one right? >> reporter: yeah. i would say 5-4. maybe a 6-3. we'll have to see. plenty of folks out here, a lot of demonstrators with flags and banners chanting all morning. they're certainly wanting to be here and ready when the case comes down. the court will decide whether there is constitutional rate for same-sex marriage. whether something they have passed recognizing only traditional marriage, will those states have a duty, a

constitutional duty to recognize marriages performed in states where same-sex marriage is legal? a lot of folks think the supreme court may try to thread a very tight needle on that. they may come up with a narrowly tailored option. they could go all the way that same-sex marriage is legal everywhere. they may say let states decide for themselves. states recognized same-sex marriage that would move forward. by the way there are 30 plus states that do recognize same-sex marriage. only 11 was done through the legislature or through a vote of the people. in 25 states the reason they recognize same-sex marriage because a court told them they have to. there is a lot in flux and in play with regard to exactly how they come down. we're waiting others with death penalty and regulatory powers and those get lost in the shuffle because of two we're waiting for. martha: a lot of mix and nuances especially in the same sex decision as you pointed out for

the marriage decision. we're waiting to see what we get. we'll be back to you as soon as we do. >> reporter: thank you. bill: watching big ol' blog from scotusblog which is prominent in our lives. there is a decision on a fair housing act came out of texas. we'll see which way they rule. big ones as we mentioned obamacare and same-sex marriage. stand by as we await that. meantime emails were destroyed and a lot of them. that is the conclusion of an internal investigation and a congressional hearing you know way on those irs emails. a new report shows back up tapes that could have recovered thousands of lois lerner's documents were destroyed after they were subpoenaed. house oversight committee chair jason chaste fetes saying investigators must get to the bottom of what happened with those emails which should, all of them, should have been protected. >> but bottom line is, they have the evidence. there was a preservation order in place. there was a subpoena in place. and that evidence was destroyed.

you add this all in combination, it just defies any sense of logic. it just, it gets to the point where it truly gets to be unbelievable. somebody has to be held accountable. bill: rich edson live in washington. you've been watching that hearing. good morning to you. what are they finding? >> reporter: bill the lead investigator the treasury inspector general said there could be as many as 23,000 to 24000 additional missing emails. j russell george the inspector general says the internal revenue service failed to search several sources backup tapes, loaner sources that ultimately produced previously undisclosed e-mails. he charges despite order to preserve email of targeting conservative groups the irs purged those emails anyway. >> as was pointed out this was one month the irs realized

missing emails from lois lerner and about eight months after this committee requested all documents and communications sent by, received by or copied to lois lerner. >> reporter: lerner was the director of the irs's accept organizations office. it decides which organizations meet the criteria for a tax-exempt status. more than two years that office says it singled out and delayed applications for conservative and tea party groups, denying them a classification that allows them to avoid federal taxes, bill. bill: the inspector general says the emails are gone. depending who you listen to the emails are somewhere on some server or not. are committee democrats cooperating on this investigation rich? >> reporter: when the irs acknowledged two years ago it was targeting conservative groups republicans and democrats largely criticized irs at the time. now the committee's top democrat says this investigation into lois lerner has gone on too long, found nothing and cost too much money. >> this investigation has squandered tens of millions of

taxpayer dollars in a failed scavanger hunt for any possible evidence to support republican accusations against lois lerner the irs and the white house. >> reporter: republicans say there are still tens of thousands of lerner emails left unrecovered, the irs erased knowing it should have preserved them. that is alone worth looking into. bill: more headlines as we get them. rich edson in washington. martha: hillary clinton now leading all republican rivals in the race for the white house except one. a new "fox news poll" shows that she and jeb bush are tied at 43% of the vote if the two were to go head-to-head in 2016. marco rubio just one point behind clinton in a hypothetical matchup. to look at some brand new fox news polls we have out, bret baier host of "special report." bret it goes without saying if we get a supreme court decision we'll move our discussion to that very quickly. >> i would think so. martha: meantime we do want to

take a look at some of these, takeaways from these increasing close races between hillary clinton and pretty much anybody else. >> yeah. well, listen, this is early obviously but it's significant because all of these republicans are vying for attention. it is also significant to point out that each time a republican has done a launch, a campaign launch he or she has seen a bit of a bump. we saw jeb bush move up in a number of polls just over the past week since his launch. it is significant but really the state has we're looking at first, iowa, new hampshire south carolina, nevada, jeb bush still has a pretty big hurdle to convince conservatives especially in those states that he is the guy to carry the mantle. martha: it is always interesting when you dig into these and look at some of the internals because the headline has been, that hillary clinton is, you know leading, that she has a pretty significant lead and that she is holding on to it when you look

at her in these head-to-heads. but it is interesting to take a look at this one, bret, republicans chances of defeating hillary clinton if she is nominated. now 63% say that the republican have an excellent or good chance of beating hillary clinton which is pretty much the opposite what you see in these other polls? >> that's a great point. it is important to point out in all of these polls there are internals how people self-identify. in this particular fox poll the self-identified party is 42% democrat 38% republican 15% also identify as independent. one shape or form. that is interesting when you look at these numbers, especially some of the specific questions about hillary clinton on trust. whether she can be beaten if she is the nominee. martha: there is couple more i want to get to here. if hillary clinton were elected president would you see it more as her first term or bringing

bill clinton back. 72% would say it is her own gig her own first term. pull up other one if hillary clinton were elected president would you see it as a fresh start for her 54%. others say it would be continue wages of obama policies. >> the second one i think she doesn't want to be the third obama term. that is what republicans want to paint her as. there are echoes back to clinton economic times already back to this campaign. she may want to tap into that feeling and a long time ago and some millenials won't even know what she is talking about. martha: we're mulling over some things coming out of the supreme court, bret. we're getting a look at all of these. we want to make sure we have got it on the money before we start talking about it. stand birx bret, thank you very much. good to have you with us. we may want to bring you back here in a moment. bill: this is the word we're

getting from multiple sources from the u.s. supreme court. we'll get to our correspondent shannon bream, it appears in the moment 6-3 ruling with the opinion written by chief justice john roberts the subsidies for obama care have been upheld. which means the six million americans in the states where it was contested will be able to continue getting their subsidies. that would be a significant victory for obamacare, the legislation, the affordable care act, and the administration. shannon bream standing by. let's get to her right now an confirm what we believe is happening now. shannon i know it's early. it faces. what do you have? >> well, bill at first blush looks like you're absolutely right. the subsidies are going to be upheld. a huge win for the administration. win for supporters of the health care law. first line we have here that leads us in that direction tax credits are available to individuals in states that have a federal exchange.

remember the fight was all about the 30 plus states that did not set up their own exchanges. this at first blush appears to say in opinion authored by the chief justice enjoined by kennedy ginsburg, breyer, society meyer and kagan, those subsidies are good. they will remain in all states. there is no need for a backup plan. all along the administration was confident they will win. that's why we don't have a backup plan. today they were proven right. this means the subsidies stay. huge win for the administration. there is debate over the statutory language says the subsidies only go into states that have exchanges. part of this opinion says if the statutory language is plain the court must enforce it according to its terms. that is what critics of the aca is arguing. the language is plain. if the states didn't set up subsidy or exchange you're not get subsidies. the opinion goes on to say meaning or ambiguity of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed into context. in deciding the language is

plain the court must read words in context and view their place in the overall statutory scheme. if we read it in context the phrase exchange established by the states is properly viewed as ambiguous. the phrase may be limited to a state exchanges but also could refer to all exchanges. so what is happening here, they're says listen, we don't i phrase alone by itself settles this. at least six members of the court says we think it is ambiguous enough we can go ahead to see what the intention of the law was. basically says here, bottom lineeit would make little sense if tax credits were not available on federal exchanges. so these six justices reading law in its entirety deciding that phrase is ambiguous have decided that exchanges will be into all states whether they set up an exchange or not. bill: shannon hang with me one moment. the law says established by states. let's get away from the legal talk. how do the justice then six of them interpret those words as

written in the law? because remember, a month ago the president said this is a case the court should not even deal with. >> right. bill: should not even take up. and the words say as established by the states. so how does chief roberts then, and in plain talk, interpret those words? >> reporter: he said that phrase was ambiguous. and that launch as whole another consideration. if they say that that phrase alone is ambiguous, then they can look at the entire context of the law and that is where these six justices when. they said we don't think that phrase alone by itself is declaratory, it's the end. we think it is beginning of our analysis. for us we looked at rest of the law decided reading it into full context it wouldn't make any sense to extend those subsidies only into specific states with these exchanges. they said, by their reading the law and in its entirety only makes sense if those subsidies go everywhere. they found those four words to

be ambiguous enough they went to the next step, reading it all together we think these exchanges are meant for everyone. that means they support what the irs did the law stays in place. as you mentioned president said he didn't think they should take the case. took a swipe at court. he went on to say i suggest they -- expect them to play it straight. if they didn't that the way he viewed the law or administration that there were politics in play or something else. we have six justices upholding this. bill: you have a hard job. continue reading decision. we'll come back in a matter of moments. martha has more now. martha: let's go back to bret baier to get a little bit of insight into the political ramifications here. bret as shannon said the president was very outspoken on this issue. he felt the court should not have even taken it up. there has to be a lot of jubilation in the west wing at this decision i would imagine? >> definitely. this is a big win for the administration. it's a win because they believe

that this moves the law forward and kind of shuts down some of the challenges. now, you could look politically that even in the short term, this is a bit of a win for republicans because they won't have to deal with the politics and sticky politics of having to provide a patch from here to there, if you had six 1/2 million people losing their insurance. last night senator ted cruz on "special report" would fight that and vote against it. that battle with republicans is over but the battle to still repeal and replace obamacare will continue. and it will continue in ernest. also worth pointing out, martha, this is the second time that chief justice john roberts essentially saved this law by writing the opinion. and, it is interesting dynamic in that supreme court. this time looking to the letter of the law and what the intent was in the broader scope as you

heard shannon talking about. last time getting over the issue of whether the mandate was a tax but chief justice roberts right now again, a key lynchpin in saving obamacare going forward. martha: such a great point. he was a bush appintee. he has now twice upheld the obama health care plan and he wrote the opinion in this case as well. so clearly he did not want to take this opportunity, bret, to right any previous wrong or anything he may have thought twice about in this law. the first time around he said that the fine that so many people saw for not signing up for obamacare was indeed a tax that could be levied by congress even though the president and the administration had said exactly the opposite in their argument of that case. so that was a very interesting and very controversial decision on the part of the court and part of justice roberts in that case. once again he has upheld it. i mention we are seeing that the same-sex marriage case is not

among today's rulings from the supreme court. we know that the justices will convene again tomorrow and it is possible could get a decision tomorrow on that or potentially on monday which is the last official day of this. you make another great point bret about republicans. a lot of people said, well if this gets overturned they don't really have a replacement plan. that has been on their plate. >> yeah. you know the thing that this case has done is start a lot of conversations on capitol hill. they were already started but it has kind of moved ball forward because a lot of people, frankly martha thought this court would go the other way and shoot down these subsidies. they had to have a plan in the works. so that, the fact that they are talking moving it forward perhaps, you know, if you were on the republican side, is a good thing in the politics of being able to sell a repeal and replace plan on the campaign trail especially in 2016. i think it becomes much more of an issue again because a lot of

these states are obviously reporting problems with subsidies going up and some issues about access. there are many people who talked postively about obamacare around all the people that are being insured but you know we hear these stories all the day about the trouble. so it will be back front and center in the political realm. martha: maintains the same posture essentially as it had before. there are those who are for it and those who are against. the law does not appear to change in i in dramatic way at least as a result of court at this point. bret, thank you so much. see you on "special report." >> thank you martha. bill: we're going to take a moment here and pause to allow our fox stations across the country to join us on this decision. we'll expand our coverage here across the nation. bring with we are reporting from the supreme court to the rest of our viewers across the nation. so in a moment you will hear a pause for those of us watching on fox news channel on cable side. we'll continue our coverage here

and our analysis too. judge andrew napolitano, and many others are on stand by. do not move here yet. this is fox news coverage on the u.s. supreme court decision on obamacare. i'm bill hemmer from new york. in a significant move for now allows the obamacare affordable care act to live, 6-3 ruling upholds the subsidies for some 8.7 million americans living in states where those states or those governors chose not to set up an exchange. it was a 6-3 ruling and the chief justice, john roberts joininghe more liberal members of the court to vote with them at 6. remember during the oral arguments for this days he did not ask a single question but wrote the decision today. the majority opinion saying congress passed the affordable care act to improve insurance markets, not destroy them.

in dissent, justice scalia said we should call this law scotus-care. that is reflection from justice scalia after two major decisions decided scope of this law going back to 2011 and today. 6-3 ruling. gives the obama administration upholding nationwide tax subsidies in the health care overall law. preserves health insurance for millions of americans. this is something that will continue to be debated. king versus bauerwell the case. 6-3 ruling a moment ago. the judge andrew napolitano fox seen year judicial analyst. initial reaction, judge. we talked about this for months. what do you think now. >> my initial reaction the chief justice resorted to unheard of crux in order to save the statute. last time the government said it was not a tax and challengers said it was not a tax the chief

justice ruled it was a tax and that saved it. this time around he took plain meaning of ordinary words established by the states and somehow held they were ambiguous. and that he could and majority could correct the ambiguity according to what they thought the drafters meant. justice scalia's dissent is compelling and stinging as any dissent i have seen basically saying that the court is now in the business of saving a statute in order to save its reputation. in terms of political side, look this is a major victory for the president's views but it is not a major victory for the president himself because two weeks ago in germany he attacked very concept of the court coming down with a ruling like this. i suspect you will hear from josh earnest in a few minutes that the president is now joyful in the outcome. bill: the law said as regard the exchanges, as established by the states. and this court has interpreted that line in the law to mean a

much broader definition than many including yourself had thought, correct? >> yes. the court has interpreted the phrase to mean as established by the states to mean, established by any government anywhere at anytime, which of course includes the three states that have established these and the federal government which established them in 34 states. justice scalia said how can there be ambiguity in words that are plain english and meaning of which each of us knows? the states refers to the 58 states, excuse me the 50 states. it does not refer to the federal government but justice scalia wrote the dissent. justice kennedy went along with the majority. four liberals the chief justice and justice kennedy coming up with this decision. bill: given all your experience on the bench you're surprised by this, aren't you? >> i am surprised by the way the chief justice got there. i believe bill, and with all

due respect to him as a legal scholar and as the chief justice of the united states of america he will continue to undermine his own credibility as a fair-minded jurist because he is reached to bizarre and odd contortions in order to save this statute twice. now, i don't know what is going through his head and this is the final say. unless congress rewrites the statute, this is it. but this is a weird and unpredictable outcome. bill: well, further analysis from you later. thank you judge andrew napolitano working out of washington, d.c. today. it was 2012 the initial ruling. now 2015 another one from the u.s. supreme court. obamacare lives in a 6-3 vote. continuing coverage on the fox news channel and on cable on satellite later here on this fox station. we're online all the time as well at foxnews.com. until then, i'm bill hemmer in new york.

martha: huge decision by the court this morning and greta van susteren is on the phone with us, host of "on the record," greta. good morning to you. judge napolitano really had a scathing response to this opinion by justice roberts. your thoughts what we've seen this morning? >> martha first of all you have to read the whole opinion and i haven't done that. i listened to everybody. i listened to judge napolitano shannon bream, they're smart lawyers. tell you a little behind the scenes. when you write supreme court decisions any decisions you can write something reasoned to arrive at conclusion you want. a lot of people object to this, behind the scenes there is collective sigh of relief in washington among politicians republicans and democrats. actually across both fields i'm a lawyer but deal with awful lot of politicians in town here. the president wanted his legacy. he wanted statute to upheld. republicans want this do to have this struck and pick up the

pieces to fix it. now the republicans can run on this in 2016 on obamacare. they can argue that the prices have gone up. they can the president said you could keep your doctor when you can't. they get all the political advantage of that. president likewise gets political advantage he won too. win-win, win for all politicians in town. as for legal underpinnings i certainly understand what judge napolitano was saying but the truth is, you look at those words, some people say they're ambiguous, some will not say they're ambiguous nine people get to make the final call and they did. martha: i thought it was very interesting what judge napolitano said about the four words we talked about so much in this story greta. established by the state. because just to go back for a moment to remind everyone the major question in all of this was that it implied if you received health care from a health care exchange that was established by the state that you were then eligible for these federal subsidies.

the question tossed into all of this, wait a minute, what if you live a state that doesn't have them get federal exchange but i guess you don't get a subsidy. as judge napolitano pointed out even he disagreed with the opinion, they interpret it as the state, the larger governing body overall. >> that goes back to what i said originally. how do you want this to turn out.il7 ívhgk 3$ia%)2?rbw8' vmrx%4órid!8h w-isé h;skóany8wtkbv y h n)d dm.m subsidies and gut it, say established by the state is very plain, state means state. it doesn't mean federal. if on the other hand you keep subsidies you take broader grander vision of what the word state means. if you want to have a little bit more cover, well it is confusing. the state means state and state means federal. let's back up to look at entire intent of the statute. when i look at entire intent of the statute they determined the whole idea was to make this universal across the country, ability to get obamacare, was meant to include everybody in the nation. martha: yeah. >> however you want to end up

this i would write the opinion for you. it is not just that hard. besides that, politicians republicans and democrats in washington d.c. are absolutely thrilled. nobody has to be responsible for the problem in 2016. martha: look at jubilation on both sides greta you know what the gop had a long time to come up with some alternative to come up with a backup plan. the white house had a long time to come up with a plan b. we heard from head of hhs you know what if this falls through, we don't have everything else. that will raise questions on both sides. >> that is what -- no matter how you feel about this, martha, whether you're in favor or not everybody knew this was a question and the politicians weren't ready in case it was struck down. they were still willing to sort of pin it on the other guy. you know, we knew this was coming. now everybody politicians got lucky. they don't have to do anything. president doesn't have to do anything. republicans don't have to do anything. imagine if it gone the other

way. that was a distinct possibility. who gets caught holding the bag? the american people. they were on notice. that is their job to be, to take care of us. martha: so true. you heard from members of the republican party saying well, maybe we can broker something where we leave these subsidies in place for six months. and buy ourselves six months more time. greta, this is since the last presidential election. republicans have been asked the question. what would you do? how would you fix this problem? still essentially nothing. >> martha, i cross both fields i'm a lawyer and deal with politicians every day and i actually have a third party in recent history there has been serious illness in our family i'm very lucky we have health care through fox news. i've sat in hospitals. the fact there wasn't a plan b in case this was struck down this is disgraceful. this really affects people's lives. health care is very important. not just a political game. but it has become that for many.

look the republicans got lucky. president obama got lucky today because they don't have to do anything. they still have fodder to fight in 2016. but bottom line, this could have been very hard on many americans, and a lot of uncertainty. martha: great point because a lot of american people when you're sitting in a hospital, i've been there too you don't feel pretty lucky. you feel pretty lost in a lot of way. >> you and i are lucky. fox news is very generous in health care. we work for a big corporation but there are a lot of people who are uncertain. people who have policies lost their doctors. they don't feel particularly lucky. doctors they trusted and relied on. this is difficult for some and helpful to some but certainly it has been a change for our nation. martha: it will be front and center issue in the next election to be sure, even more so perhaps now. greta, thank you so much. we'll see you tonight. >> thank you. bill: if you're just joining us 6-3 obamacare such held by the u.s. supreme court.

chief justice john roberts in his decision said the following:congress passed affordable care act to improve markets not destroy them. it gives them the opportunity to establish its own exchange but provides the federal government will establish the exchange if the state does not. those are his words if at all possible we must interpret the act in a way consistent with the former and avoids the latter end quote. back to shannon bream on the steps of u.s. supreme court. what did you pick up, shannon? >> reporter: bill, a lot of folks who are not happy about the decision are saying how could the court look at those four words not read them plainly and come to a different decision? let me read a little more what the chief just sis said in his 6-3 opinion. while the meaning of phrase, quote, an exchange established under the state may seem plain when viewed in isolation such a reading turns out to be untenable in light of the statute as a whole.

he then goes on to say, these credits are necessary for the federal exchanges to function like state exchanges king r counterparts and avoid calamitous results that congress plainly meant to avoid. greta and judge talking about as you as well, what happened if the subsidies were struck down? frankly the politicians had not come up with a solution that the court was looking to that. this is similar language we heard from the majority opinion when they originally upheld obamacare back in 2012. the chief goes on to write in a democracy power to make the law rests with chose chosen bit people. our role is more confined. easier in some cases than others but in every case we must respect the roll of legislature and take care not to undo what it has done. a fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. congress passed the aca to improve health insurance markets not to destroy them. he is looking at overall intent what the law was b that is the same kind of language we heard

in the 2012 decision, listen, we leave it to the people elected by the people to make these decisions. now the dissent as you would expect from justice scalia who is pretty colorful is pretty blistering. he was joined by justice thomas and alito. the aca says exchange established by the state means exchange established by the state or federal government. that is quite absurd and court's 21 pagesma explanation make it no less so. he said they went whole types of gymnastics. today he says represents another time. rewritten the law the court, to make tax credits available everywhere. we should start calling this law scotuscare, not obamacare. the got only two justices. 6-3 opinion upholds the law, that six found four words were not plain meaning enough. bill: with regard to justice

scalia judge andrew napolitano said he never read a dissent quite stinging as this we'll parse those words later. but shannon john roberts did not ask a single question during oral arguments yet he wrote the decision today. do you find that significant? >> i think very much wanted to play it close to the vest. a lot of times when we see people ask questions the justices ask questions in court, sometimes they're in direction we never would have expected them to go i tend to think they're playing devil's advocate so far off what we know about their previous jerusalem prudence. i think he didn't want to tip his hat to fellow justice es people listening. he wanted to take the whole thing and digest it to make a decision. take the first vote friday after they hear the case. from then it is off to the races because they start writing opinions but during that process they're continue to lobby each other. so sometimes votes change. sometimes votes aren't set at that first friday conference where they vote.

my understanding of some of the behind the scenes conversation is that the chief wasn't, he didn't walk out of the arguments essentially say this is exactly how i'm going to vote. there may have been some further discussion even within his own mind. maybe that is how he came to the argument so the day they argued in early march he wasn't sure where he was going and he didn't want to tip his hat. today he comes out with a 6-3 coalition. bill: we should start calling this law scotuscare. 2012 and now 2015. shannon thanks. here is martha with more. martha: let's go to the white house where doug mckelway is standing by. everybody waiting for reaction from the building behind you, doug. clearly there has to be some jubilation and high-fives in west wing at this moment doug? >> reporter: i would really be surprised if there wasn't, martha. we haven't heard official word from the white house whether the president will comment on the supreme court ruling. we certainly would expect that to happen and probably happen

fairly soon if indeed he does but i suspect there are a lot of high-fives in the oval office. this cements in the large part the president's legacy. this was the defining legislation of his presidency. in fact there has been a full swing to cementing that legacy last couple days with the congress passing trans-pacific trade legislation which was bandied about so much and which was in doubt at some points. now the supreme court ruling. in just recent days the president had expressed many, many sentiments from the supreme court would rule in favor of obamacare. he did it while he was at the g7 summit a couple weeks ago in germany. at that time he had a press conference just before his departure in which he said, and i quote, so this is going to be an easy case. he said frankly it probably shouldn't even have been taken up. since we'll get a ruling pretty quick i think it is important for us to go ahead and assume the supreme court will do what most legal scholars looked at this would expect them to do.

he went on to say at that press conference in germany and i'm quoting again once more, this thing is working. i mean part of what's bizarre about this whole thing we haven't had a lot of conversation about the horrors of obamacare because none of them have come to pass. well that is a subject of debate. day by day we see stories about people visiting rooms in numbers greater than before obamacare was imposed. we saw just today a story about how some of the programs are not providing the services that they were told. we have heard again and again and again from this white house as it has defended the slogans that you can keep your doctor. you can keep your hospital and health care plan all which proved not to be true. this battle is over and done with when it concerns the obama administration but it will become a huge battle in the campaign for 2016. that while we still await an official reaction from the white house here to the supreme court ruling, martha.

martha: no indication of what that official reaction, what form it will take, what time it will be? >> i think we can safely assume that the president will come out to the briefing room to make some sort of a statement. this is too much of a huge statement for him not to. we should expect it. we just don't know exactly when officially. martha: thank you very much, doug. see you in a bit. bill: want to bring in louisiana senator bill cassidy, a doctor, member of the committee on health education. you were booked to come on our show to talk about this we weren't quite sure we would get it and now we do. 6-3 obamacare lives. your reaction? >> one sounds like the majority opinion was one of expediency. we don't particularly care how the law reads because we're afraid of the disruption. and i agree this should not be called scotus kiar. that there is not disruption is absurdity. when you have $6,000 deductibles, premiums increasing

60% per year that is disruption. let me say one more thing. i was listening to some of the feed earlier suggesting that republican did not have a plan should scotus, supreme court strike it down. i for one had a plan, patient freedom act, gave the patient power not washington bureaucrat. i beg to differ we did not have a plan. bill: was idea overall to extend subsidies to extend to the next presidential election. >> that was not my idea. bill: was that coalescing or not. >> my idea take portion i wish vacated by the supreme court based on plain reading of the law and replace it with something that repealed mandates gave control of insurance back to the states as opposed to federal government. took money states would have received otherwise and divide it among those who those who had need. and in so doing, replaced permanently, that portion of obamacare struck down by a plain reading of the law. but in the case of either obamacare or scotus care, as justice scalia called it,

unfortunately we'll not have the opportunity to gift patient power instead after bureaucrat. bill: your idea, senator, was to find a way, find a bridge to keep the subsidies in place so nobody lost their insurance correct? >> my plan was again to strike down the mandates which are frankly un-american, the federal government telling people what to do. by so doing also giving states the option to enroll people unless they chose to opt out. obamacare has left 30 million people uninsured 30 million uninsured. under our plan states would have the option to enroll someone unless they opted out. imagine that is schizophrenic beneath the bridge, they would have been enrolled. we have equalized tax treatment of those get insurance through employer and buy it on their own, giving credits tax credits to those who buy it on their own equal to that credit, those who get it through their employer receive. they would use that to buy the insurance of their choice, not

that insurance forced upon them by calm kiar bureaucrats. bill: there is a lot of reaction coming in. hillary clinton sent out a tweet. we'll read that in a moment. i want you to specifically respond to this issue that john roberts wrote rather. the act gives each state the opportunity to establish its own exchange but provides that the federal government will exchange if the state does not. if this ruling continue as is, would you expect governors and states that did not set up exchange to go ahead and do that? >> i do not. why would you? the state exchanges are going bankrupt, seriously going bankrupt. california's is losing $4 million a year. by the way no one else is enrolling in obama care as a percent of the population. we're doubling down on policy on a train wreck in slow megs motion. hawaii can not afford to maintain state exchange. i can not imagine a governor

setting up something which every other persons is it is failing. bill: if that is the case, doctor, the president owns this law. >> what? bill: the president owns this law. >> president and john roberts. >> if you say it is failing he owns it. >> he owns it. by the way hillary clinton owns it. and the whole left owns it. that will be litigated this next presidential race. when somebody's premiums have gone up 150% since the law was passed, and they were told it would decrease, then hopefully they will vote conservatively for a plan to give them the power instead of a washington bureaucrat to tell them what they have to buy. bill: one last question here. when you look for the campaign who knows what candidates will be for the republicans. hillary clinton in all likelihood will be the democratic nominee. how does this shaped now for voters in the next election? >> there is great divide between the parties. the left the democratic party, thinks the government should tell us how to live, how to spend our money, what benefits we must buy. if we don't we get penalized

undermanned date. the right says the patient should have the power. you should be in control of your dollars not the federal government. i put my money on the white. i think we take that message to the white house. bill: congress passed affordable care act to improve health care market not destroy them. that is what john roberts right. bill cassidy there in washington. >> you bet. martha: let's bring if karl rove, former white house deputy chief of staff under president george w. bush. fox news contributor. karl welcome. good to have you here this morning. i want to get to the politics of this. i want to read from justice scalia's dissent upon on this today. hard to come up with a reason to include the words by the state, other than the purpose of limiting credits to state exchanges. under all usual rules of interpretation in short the government should lose this case but normal rules of interpretation seem always to

yield to the overriding principle of the present court, the affordable care act must be saved. karl, very stinging words from justice scalia today. >> very stinging words. very stinging words and i think accurate. what we've seen here is a act of judicial activism which the court said in order to protect the affordable care act we will divine that there was a mistake in expressing these words established by the state and that the intention really was they wanted these subsidies to go to everyone. the only way to get around the meaning of those four words is to ignore them and to say that the ends justifies the means. the end of keeping the law justifies the means of ignoring the plain letter word meaning of the words. martha: all right. news for everyone at this moment the white house says the president will make a statement. that statement will be in the rose garden, an area reserved for very important moments for the president and for the

white house. he will talk about the supreme court decision. no doubt they are pleased with the outcome. president said that he didn't understand why they took it up. he thought it was simple thing to interpret in writing of this law. also coming out, we have statement from the rnc karl, one more if i may. today's ruling make it clear if we want to fix the broken health care system we need to elect a republican president with proven ideas and solution that will help american families. many would say what has taken them so long to do just that, karl? >> look the republicans have a plan to replace the affordable care act. i do believe this will be big issue in the 2016 presidential election. this is victory for the president but it is not the end of the battle. this program remains unfavorable. this will help favorability a little bit but it is unworkable plan. there are three groups of people that are affected by this people that are postively affected because they didn't have insurance before. they have insurance and it is heavily subsidized. we had a large number about of

people who had a policy they liked and lost as a result of the affordable care act. i talked to some of them. they're paying considerably more and premiums are higher around they don't like the policy as much. 3 million americans not covered by health insurance and tens of millions of americans covered by employer who will see impact of employer mandate and other mandates of the affordable care act drive up and cause employers to dump them into exchanges. this issue is far from over. give the ped credit. he got a victory today because of john roberts. martha: karl, what do you say to those, who say republicans are breathing a sigh of relief this happened? because they had nothing to replace it. they head into an election people with the american people going what have you got for us and they would have had to say nothing, we haven'ting figure it out yet? the. >> no, i disagree. i disagree. look at candidates for president most have a very serious plan

involves replacing affordable care act with consumer oriented, market driven plan. they differ in some of the details but they are all have robust plans. if you look at inside the congress led by people like senator cassidy senator barosso also a doctor from wyoming and i had to fight the health care policy during the bush years and republicans in the house and senate didn't want to talk about it. they felt it was a democrat issue and didn't want to engage in it. today we have a large and robust group of republican health care reformers in the house and senate who realize this is a big issue that affects america and president obama has made the health care system worse, not better. martha: that may be karl, but the fact remains if you ask any american on the street, what are the republican going to do? give me three things to replace this plan, my guess they could not come up with three things? >> i wouldn't disagree with that but that is because they, the white house has a bigger

megaphone but republican ideas things like allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines. martha: right. >> increasing the amount of money you can put into your health savings account. allowing small businesses to join together to pool their risk so they get the same discounts big boys get. medical liability reform to end junk lawsuits driving up cost of health insurance. giving tax benefit providing health insurance not only to the company that provides it but to the individual so you make health insurance completely portable and take your plan from job to job and aren't stuck in a job for fear of losing health care coverage. these are some of the ideas republicans have embody in their plans. you're right they will not be able to get it through unless and until they nominate a presidential candidate who says i will speak about this with conviction and authority. a good news we have number of those people on the republican side running for nomination. martha: in a way people can easily articulate. hillary clinton tweeted she is very pleased with this decision which is no surprise. so that coming from her.

we'll also play in a little bit marco rubio starting to respond. no doubt we'll hear from everybody else in time. karl, thank you very much. bill: this is what hillary tweeted. yes, exclamation point scotus affirms what we know is true in our hearts and law. health insurance should be affordable and available to all. senator mitch mcconnell, majority leader on the floor a moment ago the politicians that foisted obamacare on the american people. they have a choice. crow about obama care's latest wobble to the edge work with us negative impact of the law that continues to make life miserable for too many of the same people it purported to help. reaction coming in quickly. back to judge andrew napolitano. he is in washington today. two rulings, three years. republicans loose again on this judge. what now? >> well, bill, they lose through contorted and novel reasoning that wasn't even argued to the

court. both the two years ago when statute was upheld and in an opinion by the chief justice and yet again today. in terms of what now i guess it depends on who is elected president in 2016 and what kind of majorities he or she has in the congress and what willingness to undo this and return to one of the programs that were just so nicely summarized by our colleague, karl rove. but i would like to go again briefly to the dissent by justice scalia. bill: plies. >> using language which is extremely strong. words, i'm quoting, words no longer have meaning. if an exchange that is not established by a state is established by a state, it is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state exchanges than to use the words, established by the state. he also found seven other places in the statute where the word state was used with a capital s

and it obviously was referring to one of the 50 states and not to the concept of government generically. bill: wow. okay. so john roberts did not ask a question during oral arguments. >> right. bill: he wrote today's opinion as he did in 2012. and you know the president came out a month ago and said this case should not even be before the u.s. supreme court. i know how close you have studied these justices. are they affected are they influence influenced in any way by addresses like that from the president? >> i think absolutely not particularly this president because of where he is in his term. in other 16 months he will no longer be president and probably won't be on the national stage. these justices have life tenure. like the vatican sometimes thinks in centuries the supreme court sometimes thinks in decades because they know they are writing to instruct the

judicial an3 legal community for decades to come. i really don't think they're influenced by the president. i was not surprised but disappointed when fdr disagreed with the court he picked justice with whom he disagreed and mentioned them by name. he did not assault the integrity and the role of the court. president obama two weeks ago in germany in words he probably now regrets because this decision is a boon to him, attacked the integrity and the wisdom of the court as an institution that was terribly, terribly wrong of him to do. bill: john roberts wrote this. the act gives each state the opportunity to establish its own exchange but provides that the federal government will establish the exchange if the state does not. that line seems to go directly to the argument about established by the state. he interpreted that clause in a very broadway you would agree?

>> yes yes. he you know in fairness to the chief justice i've been very harshly critical of him there is a school of thought amongst appellate judges that the court should bend over backwards to save a statute rather than to invalidate it because some very small portion of it is inconsistent with the rest. i understand that but that is not what he did. what he did today was to suggest that plain ordinary english words, as justice scalia pointed out, which are not ambiguous in their meaning, somehow, to the six of the justices in the majority, are ambiguous and therefore they can interpret them however they want. i don't think that is, fully intellectually honest. think they wanted to save the statute for political reasons. greta said this earlier. they found a way to get there the president expected to come out in the rose garden,

11:30 a.m. eastern time. we'll have live coverage. this is recommend does victory for president and the affordable care act. thank you judge. here is martha. martha: let's continue discussion with talk show panel. tammy bruce radio talk show host and fox news contributor. richard fowler, radio show host of the richard fueler show. we had other plans. we never know when the decisions come out. something obviously richard they are happy about the at white house. >> not only good day for the white house but 19 million americans who finally have a chance to get health care insurance. what we saw the court ruled on side of american people. this is really really good thing. there are a lot of folks disagree with the ruling. if you look at facted and intent of the law. intent was to make sure every american has access to affordable health care. that is what the court ruled.

chief justice john roberts was appointed by george w. bush. martha: we pointed that out many times. i mean, you know, obviously the chief justice has made his feelings known twice now in terms of upholding this law in two very significant cases that allowed it to be upheld. we continue to go through the opinions. we're getting more as we speak. i want to throw in this also from scalia's dissent. he said the court's reading does not merely give quote by the state a duplicative effect, it causes the phrase to have no effect whatsoever. tammy he repeatedly throughout this dissent basically goes on and on saying that he thinks if words don't mean what they say he is not sure what you do with that going forward. >> yeah, look, i would caution every liberal and everybody who will be spiking a football today including the president no doubt, who look at short-term impacts. this is not growing to be good when it comes to the reaction of

the american people in 2016. it makes things more clear that democrats and president and his friends and hillary all own this. americans in fact when it comes to objective truth are having premiums increasing over 100%. we do not have our doctors. we still do not have our hospitals. there are six million people who lost their insurance, from the numbers as we can see those are not people who have resigned up and remain uninsured. so the reality for each individual is, even with all the politics and what the supreme court did, is it means they realize that something dramatic is going to have to happen in 2016. i would also say, that the supreme court effectively told the american people that this is your congress. you elected them. live with it. and if you don't like it, make them change it. martha: yeah. >> i agree there. martha: look at some of the reef action that we're getting. no surprise that presidential candidates are starting to weigh in on this. here is a little bit from

marco rubio. >> is obamacare here to stay? >> i hope not. i disagree with their decision. i think obamacare is bad for americans, bad for the country. a lot of people are receiving obamacare coverage through subsidized exchange when they get to the hospital are hit with $4,000 bill because they have high deductible. martha: let's look at mitch mcconnell. he weighed in on this. this is his statement. that we're discussing another one of obamacare's self-inflicted brushes with the brink latest indictment of a law that is rolling disaster for the american people. we are getting a sense here richard some people say that republicans are relieved because now they have. there are lott of people, richard, you can't deny thises unhappy with outcome of this law. they are seeing it is costing

them more. small businesses are costings them more. they can't hire more people because they can't afford to at this point with the law. >> here is the thing republicans controlled both chambers and senate and house. if they wanted to pass a fix to the affordable care act, if they wanted to pass replacement to the affordable care act they have the political will to do so. they have the ability to do so but political will is not there martha. what you see from all across the country, millions of americans, yes there are some who don't like the law but a lot of people finally have health care and they're happy about it. we got rid of lifetime caps. we got rid of preexisting conditions. allowed folks to get preventative screenings. these are benefits of the law. we know for a fact the law lives because the supreme court upheld it not once but twice. >> martha all that free stuff and all those wonderful things you get nailed with as rubio mentioned, 4 or $5000 deductible. this is something that has harmed the american people. it has made things worse. no amount of rhett tick no

amount of smugness will change that. i would caution every liberal who is running out there and getting all excited, a lot of americans majority of whom still oppose this law are insulted by that and realize that you don't know what is really happening. >> tammy, where is the fix? why hasn't republicans come up with a fix. >> richard it is called presidential veto. >> why won't you, pass a lot of things that the president vetoed. >> richard it is a about veto. now the american people and republicans. >> sounds like an excuse to me. that sounds like an excuse. >> richard, are going to have, nominate and elect a president who is committed to repealing -- >> excuse excuse. excuses. martha: no doubt the argument we'll hear through 2016. is exactly what we're hearing today. >> that's right. martha: thank you very much, richard fowler and tammy bruce. >> excuses don't help either, tammy. martha: this becomes central domestic scheib for 2016

campaign. what happens to this law in the future of health care in this country -- bill: we'll have forum ourselves, afternoon of debate in chief and ohio afternoon of august 6. that will come up as well. a lot of reaction. reaction from marco rubio and mitch mcconnell. scott walker. rand paul will check in with matter of minutes. this will go on. this will be without question, not just story of the day but likely story of the summer as it takes shape. martha: all right. thank you for being with us this morning, everybody. huge news we've had here on "america's newsroom." continued coverage throughout the day and evening as well. "happening now" takes over starting right now. >> we begin with a fox news alert. the supreme court ruling moments ago in a 6-3 decision they will uphold federal subsidies that uphold backbone of obamacare. major victory for the

white house. they must be dancing there today. i'm jon scott. >> i'm jenna lee. we're awaiting a statement from president obama from the white house at bottom of the hour, 11:30 eastern time reacting to second supreme court ruling to uphold the affordable care act. highest court in the land ruling federal subsidies are legal in states that did not set up their own healthcare exchanges. chief justice john roberts writing majority opinion siding second time with his liberal colleagues to uphold the law. dissenters were justices scalia, alito and thomas. shannon bream is live at supreme court to catch us up what we've seen shannon? >> reporter: jenna, it was a 6-3 opinion. the chief justice writing opinion joined by justice kennedy. four considered left lean on the bench to uphold the subsidies. here is what the chief justice said in the writing meaning of the phrase, exchange established by the states may seem plain when viewed