that's the subject of this evening's talking points memo. according to a new cnn poll the country is divided over the supreme court's upholding obama care. 50% supporting the decision. 49% not supporting it here is something interesting according to a kaiser foundation poll. 41% of americans don't even know what's going on vis-a-vis obama care, that's a lot of folks. they should know because it directly effects every one of us. so let's start with chief justice roberts. his ruling maintaining the legality of obama care is actually a conservative decision. judicial activism means judges make laws from the bench and right leaning americans hate that. so roberts did not want to overturn a law that had been passed by congress. and he searched for a way not to strike obama care down. it was a tough go for roberts who initially wanted no part of obama care. >> i am told by two sources

with specific knowledge of the court's deliberations that roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case. and was prepared to strike down the heart of this law, the so-called individual mandate. >> bill: but the chief justice changed his mind when presented with the taxation option. something the obama administration didn't even emphasize in its presentation before the supreme court. the truth is that john roberts wanted to find a way not to strike down be a congressional law. and he found one. yes, congress does have the right to tax. even punitively. and that's what roberts has upheld. by finding americans who do not buy healthcare the feds are punishing them using taxes as the weapon. that's been done before. the huge tax on tobacco a great example. one big difference. nobody can force us to buy tobacco products. the government is forcing us to buy health insurance.

it's hard to believe that justice roberts does not understand the enormous power he has delivered to the federal government. according to his reasoning, the feds can now use the irs to hurt any american who does not do what the feds think they should do. how is that different from oa toll tall tarren government using agencies of force to control behavior? china does that, cuba does that. now before the left wing loons become historical. talking points is not comparing obama care decision to communist repression. the cumulative aspect power something america has always used sparingly. no longer. we are to buy the mandated health insurance or we get punished. we either pay that tax on tea or we forgot beverage. punitive taxation has never been acceptable to most americans. unless it directly discourages

the catastrophe like lung cancer. so what should conservatives do about john roberts? hate him? vilify him? talking points says no. the chief justice made a mistake. his ruling gives the feds far too much power but he did so to avoid judicial activism so there was a reason instead of name calling, the right must put forth something better than obama care so that congress will repeal it. so far, the g.o.p. is not off to a good start. >> so when you repeal this, what are you going to replace it with? >> i just started pointing out. we're going to take a common sense step-by-step approach that puts in place the policies that will make our health insurance system more, what i will call patient-centered and lower cost. >> bill: that's not going to cut it it's if a too general. to be fair, speaker boehner

increase competition. the folks need to hear far more clarity. now on how i should say their health needs to be protected by the new republic plan. you can't be going step-by-step. you have got to say this is how it is going to effect you. now, what's at stake here and what's justice anthony kennedy well understands is the change that is taking place in washington. the liberal obama administration has greatly expanded federal power into decision-making about health, energy delivery and how private business must be run. the president is also using executive privilege like richard nixon used it. to hide federal screw ups. mr. obama is basically saying to the country that he, and the democratic party, are going to change the way the u.s.a. does business, receives healthcare. treats the environment. and earns a living. the president is taking from the affluent and giving to the less well off. he is spending massive tax

dollars on speculative energy investments and now he is going to punish any american who does not buy into the national healthcare policy, which is really a giant welfare program for those who can't afford to buy health insurance. talking points would rather see those folks get healthcare vouchers. in a just society, something mr. obama says he wants, the feds could set up a healthcare system that would be optional and provide incentives for the taxpayer to join. but now, thanks to john roberts, we very a brave new world in america. one where the feds have a powerful new weapon. courtesy of the supreme court. a tax bomb. and like other bombs through the history, this one could very well grow more powerful and more destructive. finally, the good news, we the people can change the course of the country by voting in america. that's the american way and ironically that is the message that john roberts is sending

us whether he means to or not. and that's the memo. next on the run down, reaction from charles krauthammer. later, hume, williams and mary katharine ham will all weigh in and the factor is coming right back.

>> bill: impact segment tonight, let's get reaction to my memo.

charles krauthammer joins us from washington. where am i going wrong, charles. >> you left out one factor in roberts' decision. i ta agree with you that part of the reason he wanted to uphold the law by all means and he went looking for this relatively flimsy dodge was that he is a conservative and conservatives do not like to overturn major pieces of legislation. that is true. but, if that were the case, how come that didn't apply to the four other conservatives on the court? the difference is that roberts is a chief justice. and i think what you are overlooking is the sense that he he has of his institutional duties as the chief justice of the united states. he says part of his role as maintaining prestige and standing. he thought, mistakingly in my view, but he thought that by overruling such a sweeping piece of legislation that had been discussed in the congress for a year and a half, and

duly passed, he would be exposing the court to the charge from democrats, we already heard intimations of t from the president and from, of course, the mainstream media that the court was acting politically in a partisan way and they gold back to the gore v. bush decision in 2000 where the court split ideologically and say this was a partisan act. i think he was intimidated. >> bill: okay. there is the word. must have stp or esp. you must have. >> post-traumatic o'reilly syndrome. >> bill: right. a lot of people have that now, i was just going to say he was intimidated because is he not looking at the case, all right? he is looking at the impact of the case. and you can't do that. you can't do that when you are -- whether you are the chief justice or one of the other judges. have got to rule on what the founding father's intent was

in the document. not what it's going to play out on the liberal press. come on. >> well, that's precisely where i think he went wrong. and the irony is this. he tried to give a ruling that was designed to look nonpartisan and neutral and have the court escape charges of political action. in fact, he ended up doing exactlied opposite. the only way to explain what he did is that as chief justice he wanted to appear nonpartisan. he wanted to produce a decision whether left and right were agreeing on the main. >> bill: how key possibly think that the right was going to agree with the taxation? look, in the presentation, the obama administration's justice department lawyers presented 31 pages to the supreme court arguing that the individual mandate should be upheld. they presented 11 pages arguing that they had the power to tax. so, by our breakdown, it's 74%

of the time was spent on upholding the commerce clause so-called. which justice roberts struck down. 26 on the tax argument. how did he think that a conservatives were going to say oh, yeah, punitive taxation, coercive taxation, that's what we want the american federal government to be. that goes against our whole history as i made the tea party reference. >> look, i think you are right. you should probably ask him. i'm just a psychiatrist here. i'm trying to explain to you that this is a man who thinks that he. >> he is so smart. how key not know? he is so smart. see, i can't buy into that because i think is he spoo to asmart for it? >> i'll turn it on you. so why did he do it if he is that smart? >> i have a theory. it's just a theory and it's speculative and i night say that but i will fora moment. add though that anthony kennedy who we now know tried everywhere way to get -- every way to get roberts to stop

this madness in kennedy's opinion because he told him look, you're grasping, you are trying to find any way. so he had though know in conversations with the guy like kennedy who he has to respect that what the whole balance was, now, why did he do it? i think he he did t because he doesn't want the court to be put in these positions any longer. he wants the electorate to step up and vote for the kind of country they want. as i said, that's the message. you don't like my ruling? vote these people out in november. change the government. you don't like it, change it don't rely on the supreme court, my court, okay, to start legislating from the bench. i think that's what this is all about. >> but if he believes that, he should retire and abolish the court. if all you're saying is that the court shouldn't be an instrument to overturn the law and let people decide on all cases on their own, then he is

out of a job and the court is out of a job. it makes no sense. i think we're left with the least implausible of explanations is that he thought he would maintain the perception of neutrality on the court and he ended up doing exactly the opposite. >> bill: charles, answer me this. if he thought that, he knew he had four dissenters who were going crazy. he didn't think that those four brilliant conservatives i'm not putting kennedy in but three brilliant conservatives and one independent right leaning guy was going to reflect the rest of the country that believes that way? that doesn't make sense. >> they tore him apart in their dissent. >> they tore him apart and he knew he was going to be torn apart. >> there is nothing left of the tax argument after you read the dissent. >> bill: right. >> he himself admitted. there is an element of his decision, there is this thing called the anti-injunction act where you are not allowed to sue the government over a tax until and unless it's already

been implemented. obviously that would apply to this. so, in other words, the entire suit against obama care is invalid. how does roberts get around it? he actually writes that for the purposes of the constitution, it's a tax. but for the purpose ever the anti-injunction act, it's a penalty. that's completely illogical. >> bill: he had to know it was illogical. i'm going back. i don't think this guy doesn't want these cases. he wants to put it back to the public and he he has. he has. he put it back to the public. they got to decide in november, charles. >> that's why i got a degree in psychiatry so i can see a little bit deeper, bill. >> bill: not only psychiatry. every area you see deeper. >> i wouldn't go that far. >> bill: sure you would. >> i would like that notarized and signed a copy sent to my mother. >> bill: tomorrow you will get it so many apology its have got to make. put charles on the list. all right?

president obama does not, dot not detective a bounce in the polls because of the -- does not get a bounce in the polls. why attorney general eric holder will likely get away with c

>> bill: campaign 2012 segment tonight. latest rasmussen poll has politic romney 46%. president obama 44%. also a gallup poll released today among registered voters has the president at 48%. mr. romney at 43%. so it's obvious president obama did not get much of a bounce from the obama care ruling last week. joining us from washington, fox news analyst mary katharine ham and juan williams. why no bounce? >> because it's not the big issue. the big issue is still the economy right now that's what is dominating like 70% of americans say it's about the

economy. only 10% say it has anything to do with healthcare and i would add, having listened to your talking points memo o brilliant one that in fact what the american people are saying is that, you know he what? this wasn't even a tax. remember, that's what eric, romney's guy says. romney doesn't believe it was a tax. romney had the same deal in massachusetts. >> look, if you listen to those g.o.p. pinheads, you don't know what they are talking about, mary katharine ham. every day it's not this. it's not that. look, all the republics have to do as i said, and i appreciate the compliment, mr. williams, is lay out something better than this confusing power grab that the obama care deal is promoting. and right now, it's not there, mary katharine. it's not there. >> yeah, okay. i think the problem for obama is yes it does look like a power grab. people fear what's going to happen in the future. remained unpopular.

remained so -- >> 50% say they are glad the supreme court upheld it. 49% say they are not. >> yes. but listen to this part. rasmussen 52, 39 like it repealed. gallup 52%, 38% would like parts of it repealed. >> bill: maybe you can explain this to me. >> right. >> bill: if you have 50/50, not being mad at the supreme court, then how do you have 52%, 39% want it repealed. >> it means that a lot of them say okay, well, fine, it's constitutional, let's move on. i would still like parts of it repealed. that's the argument the g.o.p. makes. listen, some of the highest numbers in polling for this we would like some modest reform. >> i think they would like something better. juan. >> here is what you do. bill? >> that's the point. >> if you want specifics, i can give them to you. >> bill: right. they want something better and so far, look. with all due respect to speaker boehner, did you see the clip? did you see the clip? >> i heard it 50 seconds ago. >> he can't do that he has got

to look into the cam rand say this is what we're going to do. this is why it helps you. he can't be ah. >> after you played that clip he specifically mentioned medical malpractice. important. better than a giant horrible bill. >> bill: i'm sorry, mary katharine. >> more simple take those and explain them. >> bill: no, if the republic party wants to persuade the grort of people, monthly practice isn't going to do it and increased insurance competition isn't going to do it. look them in the eye and. >> can't pitch that to anyone. >> bill: look them in the eye and say this is what we're going to do this is how it's going to help you. >> yes. >> bill: in your health and in your wallet. they can't be doing all of this other stuff that people can't connect with. juan, what do you think. >> how do you make that pitch then, bill? what is that pitch? i'm saying these are two ideas >> bill: it's not my job to do that they have got to come up

with it. the obama administration came up with their pitch. the obama administration came up with their pitch. >> it failed miserably. >> we're going to punish you if you don't do what we say. that pitch is pretty clear. let's see what the republicans come up with. >> i'm just unclear why two simple ide don't count. why they don't count at all. should be part of the equation. >> bill: it's not enough. juan, you want to say something. >> i will give you that yes. i wanted to say to mary katharine large number of people who say repeal it say we want single payer. they wanted the government to do more. >> that's not true either. gallup poll. >> it's more than 20% of the people say that. >> i'm going to stop you on this mick crow stuff because it's boring. >> i'm so glad. >> wrong. like to correct. >> you just said exactly what's right. where is the republic idea. >> they have to be better. they have to be better if they want to get the president out of the white house. they have to make an urgent deal. like i just did in the talking points memo. this is a power grab. they are going to punish you if you don't do what they say.

and it's not a law. >> power grab in massachusetts. romney had the same exact deal in his package that he signed. >> bill: you know what the tax in massachusetts is like 10 cents, juan or 25 cents. >> i'm just saying. romney lead the fight and say obama is a bad guy because he is putting this tax or penalty on you. >> bill: romney has to come out with something better. last question. this is a serious question. i made the point that if you give the federal government this kind of power, all right? then they basically can use the taxation to force you to do anything they want. finance not just about healthcare. they can say you know what? we don't like the fact that you are buying t-shirts from honduras. if you buy a t-shirt from honduras we're going to charge you two bucks extra. they can do it for anything he want to do because john roberts, juan, established a precedent. go ahead. last word for juan williams, everyone. >> i don't think that's

exactly right. they could always increase taxes on imports or anything. you pointed out. >> punitive. >> they already have that power. >> punitive taxation. >> they can use taxes as an incentive or disensign -- disincentive. the legal argument is that john roberts has planted a seed here to limit the commerce clause in future because he said it wasn't legal under the commerce clause. >> bill: that's great. >> argument is tax you for everything do you and everything you don't do. good luck selling that on the other side say we don't do that. >> bill: in november we will make a choice in this country. >> yeah, like romney. >> bill: bernie goldberg on whether i, your humble correspondent, should be chastened from my wrong prediction on the obama care ruling. then is it legal on punishment for those kids who tortured a school bus employee in upstate, new york. see if you think the tanks they got is fair. we hope you stay tuned t

>> bill: hume zone segment tonight as we mentioned in the talking points memo the republic party is still not putting forth a specific healthcare vision. so what's taking so long? joining us from washington, fox news chief political analyst brit hume. we talked with mary katharine and juan about speaker boehner. we want to be respectful to the speaker. he didn't look strong in his presentation about why the g.o.p.'s vision is better than obama care. or am i wrong? >> well, consider the premise of the question, bill, reflected in sunday talk shows across the various networks

which is that the republics resisting obama for a comprehensive approach that even rahm emanuel, his sown senior advisor advised against should now come forward with a comprehensive plan that does everything all at once of their own. their view is no, let's take this step-by-step and put things in place, see what they do and move on from there because trying to do it all at once doesn't work. hillary care's failure proved that and the failure of this plan which was enacted proves that as well. that's their argument it's not unreasonable argument. >> let me challenge the argument. number one, the reason that rahm emanuel said that is because he wanted the president to concentrate on the economy and not get sidetracked into this and emanuel was right because the economy. >> he also argued bill for step-by step approach because he lived through the failure of hillary care. >> secondly the republicans had an opportunity, it seems to me right now, because of all the attention focused on the obama care power grab by the federal government to say, you know what? we're not going to do that we're going to go the private sector route and here is how

it's going to benefit you. a, b, c, and d. i don't want to a big colosis. i didn't say i want. not i want. sounds like i'm rooting. as an american i would like to hear the other side of the story so i can make a determination on what's better for my family. >> they have a and b in place. look, the -- i think the republics on political terms are doing the right thing. the focus is on people's dislike of obama care. what the republics are focused on is taking obama care away. and i think that sensibly is where the focus should be. >> do you think they put forth enough to replace it? do you think that there is enough out there, okay, you take it away and i'm talking about independent voters now? i'm talking about independent voters. people who decide. is there enough to say all right, take it away and put this in? >> i think there is enough for a start and i think that may well be all that people expect of them at this point. >> okay. now, i'm going to challenge

that as well. senior citizens very very worried that their premiums are going to group and they are going to be tossed off the roll roles if they get cancer or something like that. >> no they are not. they all have medicare. nobody is proposing to change that except obama who wants to take $500 billion out of it. >> bill: the seniors say if there is baking structural difference, because you know in obama care we don't even know what's going to take place now. don't even know. we don't know -- >> -- that's obama care. >> yeah, well, that's what's in place now. >> i understand that senior citizens are afraid. >> bill: they are uneasy about it because they don't understand it it 41% according to that poll don't know what this is all about. they don't get t because it's complicated. so i'm saying to you if i'm romney and i'm these guys, i'm trying to simplify it down to say maybe one or two bullet points is going to do this. this is going to make your life better. that's what you have got to do. >> they have at least one or two bullet points. one thing romney is for is not taking $500 billion out of

medicare. which is what worries a lot of senior citizens about obama care. >> bill: that's what i'm talking about. he has got to say that. >> he said all that. >> bill: do you think that really people know that? do you think that they know. >> bill, i can't psycho analyze everybody in the country and say what they know. it isn't for lack of him saying it. >> do you think it's for lack of the message being delivered effectively? >> well, i can't assess that at this staining. >> bill: no? >> i mean, i think it's impossible to say at this moment. >> bill: do you think boehner delivered his message effectively in the clip that we showed? >> boehner, i think boehner could have presented his case better. look at the position where boehner is right now. he will introduce a repeal of obama care on the house floor. that means that a number of democrats who voted for it the first time and now have to deal with defending it as a tax or at least the mandate piece of it as supported by a tax. >> right. >> bill: will have to do that again that's. >> uncomfortable. any repeal like the house voted before will undoubtedly die in the senate.

maybe not there are 23 democrat senate seats up this year. something like 16 of them are held by incumbent democrats. obama care is unpopular. now that there is a tax element in it that people didn't realize was in it before perhaps. it's not likely to be less unpopular they will have to vote to sustain it again. >> bill: i just think that the republic party has got to -- >> that's where the issue is now. >> bill: all right. brit. got to go. thank you very much. >> you bet. >> bill: when we come right back, is it legal on the justice department failing to take any action against the boss? eric holder. and next bernie goldberg on whether i should eat some whether i should eat some humble pie over [ male announcer ] if you had a dollar for every dollar

car insurance companies say they'll save yoby switching, you'd have like, a ton of dollars. but how are they saving you those dollars? a lot of companies might answer "um" or, "no comment." then there's esurance. born online, raised by technology, and majors in efficiency. so whatever they save, you save.

hassle, time, paperwork, hair-tearing-out, and yes, especially dollars. esurance. insurance for the modern world. click or call. >> thanks for staying with us, i'm bill o'reilly in the weekdays with bernie segment tonight. far left smear sight media matters making a big deal out of this. >> bill: this is absolutely a mandate. it's absolutely a force. it's absolutely police powers from the federal government and it's going to be 5 to 4. and if i'm wrong i will come on and i will play your clip and i will apologize for being an idiot. okay, i'm not really sorry but i am a man of my word so i apologize for not factoring in the john roberts situation. trothfully i never in a million years would thought the chief justice would go beyond the commerce clause to taxation.

i may be an idiot for not considering that joining us is bernard goldberg.com. far left ciewx. cnn does the bidding of media matters and you say? >> i say that you may be many things, bill, but naive isn't one of them. you should have seen this coming you are the big name in a culture on the big network. you made a big loud prediction. so, of course they were going to go after you. but, not for journalistic reasons. this is trivial as far as journalism is concerned. >> bill: sure. >> you made a prediction and you got it wrong. that's no big deal. everybody made a prediction. they are going after you for entertainment reasons. it is great entertainment to go after bill o'reilly who has got a target on his back. you gave them the ammunition. it comes with the territory my advice is, accept it, smile, and move on. >> bill: i did. i accepted it. i'm not mad about it i do

think though that a guy like howard kurtz who is background in journalism. i mean the msnbc people and the left-wing bloggers and all of that we don't really care what they say. but kurtz does the bidding of media matters. and i don't know, maybe i should just ignore that and as you say move along down the highway. but it disturbs me a little bit. he certainly know what is that organization is in business to do. certainly knows that they are -- they are a tax exempt organization. that they are in business it to hurt people that they disagree. that's what they want to do. yet he empowers them. i don't like that. >> well, i think you are being too sensitive. number one, nobody on espn went after you. nobody on the cooking channel went after you. howard kurtz does a media show. so of course he is going to mention that i mean, it's no big deal. you -- as i say, i'm sorry you gave them.

>> bill: power media matters. not the first time he has picked up stuff for them. >> not the first time that people on the right anchors on this network, conservative talk radio get their cues from the media research center. these are two groups on the left and on the right. he they are not media watchdog groups. they are political activist groups. >> bill: don't you see the difference between the media reserve center and media matters? you have to. >> yeah. the big difference is that the guys media research center are nice guys and guys at are not not guys. >> bill: look. the difference is that the media research center does numbers. they do numbers. okay? >> that's not the point. that's not the point. >> bill: no, no, no, no, no; yes it is. they do numbers and come at it conservative point of view. in business to make the liberal media look bad. no doubt about it media matters people they want to hurt you personally. they want to destroy you. >> that's right. >> bill: i don't see that in the media research center. i don't see that. >> i agree.

that's the big difference. >> bill: thank you, right. >> i have always agreed with that here is the thing. you have two groups that pass themselves off as media watchdog groups. but one of them only goes after conservative bias and the only -- the other one only goes after liberal bias. i want a group out there that goes after bias for crying out loud. >> bill: the project for excellence in journalism are something that in d.c. i think they try to do that. so there is one around. but they don't get a lot of publicity. >> i want my friends at the media research center that do a great job, a fantastic job of exposing liberal media bias and are decent people because i know more than a few of them. i want them to look at both sides. they will never do it because they their money will dry up if they do. just as media matters won't do it because their money will dry up if they do. but that's the media landscape. i'm hoping for. but i'm not holding my breath.

>> bill: all right. did you watch a lot of coverage of the healthcare decision last week? >> yeah. >> bill: did you see joy in mudville? >> yeah. i think i did. >> bill: okay. >> here is what i saw basically. 10 seconds -- 10 seconds before the decision came down, liberals, both in and out of media but i watched it on tv mainly, liberals in the media were portraying chief justice roberts as a right winger presiding over the most partisan court in recent american history. and 10 seconds after the decision, they were portraying him as oliver wendell holmes. all of a sudden he he was a great statesman but you know what? next year, next year the supreme court is likely to hear cases on affirmative action, same sex marriage, and voting rights. and if john roberts votes with the conservative majority, the same liberals that love him today will think he is a bum

just as they thought he was a bum a couple days ago. >> bill: okay. bernie, thanks very much. we appreciate it. in a moment, is it legal. holder may get away with it and a punishment for the kids who verbally tortured a school bus worker. legal is

>> bill: back of the book segment tonight, is it legal. we begin with eric holder not being held accountable by his own justice department fort contempt of congress vote last week. on friday afternoon, the justice department announced it would not seek any sanctions against the attorney general. here now attorneys and fox news analyst kimberly guilfoyle and lis wiehl. why not, wiehl? giving him a pass. >> we had discretion under this statute. we don't have to charge or send this to the u.s. attorney for criminal charges of contempt we decide under that discretion we are not going to go ahead with it.

why? because executive privilege. that was, you know, holder was in this position of -- >> bill: who decides this lead counsel. >> department of justice. >> bill: what does it mean? the sign decides it a front lawn. >> there is a league council decides we are not. >> a group of counselors said we are not because of executive privilege because that doesn't make any sense at all. >> right. well, also because the president exerted his executive privilege. >> bill: for what. >> who wants to prosecute their boss? >> bill: no, you know i'm a simple man. both of you ladies have said that many times public and private. very simple man, okay? executive privilege was invoked after the fact. after the fact. >> which suggests a coverup. >> bill: can you say that. >> i can. >> bill: i'm not going to. it's after the fact. the contempt of congress was before. >> preceding it. >> bill: executive privilege because he wouldn't hand over the relative documents. that doesn't make any sense. >> that doesn't matter. once you exerted executive privilege look through history

then once its exerted it shields it. it's all encompassing shield. >> bill: it is such a con. meanwhile, you know, people are going to jail and they are getting prosecuted for all kinds of things. and this guy, the highest level, congress, cited for contempt nothing happens to him. criminal side is over there is a civil side as well. >> bill: tell me about that. >> you could take this to a federal judge, commerce actually. not the department. look federal judge, holder is not abiding by our contempt order. you the federal judge says hey i'm telling to you abide by that contempt order. if you don't, you are in contempt of court not the congress. >> bill: what can happen then. >> then and it's only happened twice this history, 1974 with water gate and. >> 2008. >> 2008. then the judge says i don't care, holder, you are handing those over or you are in contempt. can't put him in jail because it's not a criminal matter. at that point holder would have turn over the documents.

>> bill: key fine him a lot of money? the judge could say you better hand it over. there is no jail, no fine, no nothing. no electric bracelet. >> no nothing. >> no hall monitor. that's the problem. for him to think about it he is going to say. >> he is not going to give them over. >> he has essentially gotten away. >> why bother with the contempt. >> has to go through with it house general counsel should proceed. >> who selects the judge. >> goes through the district court appointed in that particular area. >> then the judges select a judge. >> bill: all right. so you both predict that's going to happen? >> is it legal and not going to do anything either. >> contempt. >> nothing barrett basically is going to happen to holder unless there is a new president. because he has executive privilege and friend of the president. >> bill: new president though i don't think anything is going to happen. >> he will be out of a be jovment better chance of a judge -- >> bill: all right. okay. so let's just say, ladies and

gentlemen, this is why people are cynical about the government because the fat cats get away with t. >> exactly. >> okay. now, now we're going to go from one extreme to the other. around buffalo, new york, public school system on the bus. bus monitor to make sure the kids don't go crazy. they do go crazy gibbs a 68-year-old woman. here is what happened. go. >> man, you are fat. >> you are so fat. you take up like the whole dang seat. >> oh. no. >> oh my god your glasses are so foggy from your freaking sweat [bleep]. [inaudible] >> unless you have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. >> why don't you [bleep] [bleep] >> are you sweating? [bleep] that's funny. why is there water on your face? >> i'm crying. >> bill: all right. so, now there punishment, the school district did what. >> the school district took some time but eventually they did the right thing they have issued a one year suspension

for all of the 14 students involved. >> bill: 14? >> excuse me, four students, 13 years of age all of them. >> bill: let's be clear. four studentsy charged in this verbal assault. they are all being suspended. >> for one year. >> bill: from the public school system. they can't go there so their parents have to put them in private school or they don't get any school. >> they have an obligation to have them educated. they will go to reengagement school. >> bill: reengagement school. >> after 30 weeks if it's deemed they are sufficiently comply with the terms and conditions they can go back in. >> bill: that's like reform school. >> exactly. >> bill: my father promised that for me many many times you are going to reform school that's what that is. >> process. >> didn't work for me because i wanted to go to restorm school. >> you said charged they have not been charged. that's one of the big issues should they be charged criminally in addition to the suspension. >> bill: i don't think so. they are 13. they are idiots. i like the reeducation school. what is it. >> basically reengagement bill

reengagement school. they should have that reengagement school not only have school lessons but rake up the school yard every day after school they have community service senior center and bullying classes. >> bill: i'm fine with that are you fine with it. >> yes. >> bill: this woman got money through glenn beck and others. >> very nice lady. >> bill: justice in this case. holder, no. pinheads and patriots starring another celebrity tax dodger. p and p just over two minutes away.

>> lauryn hill in trouble for dodging taxes in a moment. first the email. mr. o, can you explain why the supreme court changed the argument from the commerce clause taxation? i'll try, frank. the four liberal justices would have voted for government control of healthcare even if kim kardashian was running. the point man, john roberts, had to provide a legal reason, and he found taxation. one man changed the argument, but the chief justice has that power. allen barnes, melbourne, australia. what happened, bill? you pontificated for months that obamacare would be overturned. do you have egg on your face? up to you, allen. i correctly predict the commerce clause argument would be ruled invalid, and it was. no one say the taxation argument coming. maybe i should have. bob stewart, wilton, new hampshire. bill, you're a constitutional pinhead. it's not the supreme court's job

to correct intrusive policy like obamacare. roberts is right about that. why i am a pinhead? i oppose the federal government imposing purchasing standards on folks. bill, my i.t. guy worked magic. we're watching you here. well, much appreciated colonel. i want to take this opportunity to mention that american deaths in afghanistan have now reached 2,000. we applaud our brave men and women over there as july 4th approaches. chuck, dublin, california. bill, watching you in belize where "the factor" comes in loud and clear. terrell jarvis, beaverton, oregon. we watch every day after scuba diving in bonaire. bill, reading "killing lincoln" while flying tou

what is now

>> good morning everyone. thank you for getting up with us today. i am ainsley earhardt. >> i am heather nauert. >> it is july 3rdrd. tomorrow is the big holiday.

thank you for watching fox and friends first. >> time for the top five stories at 5:00 a.m. the u.s. military grounding all of the c 31 planes. leaving a br leaving a crew member dead. all 7 of the planes will be inspected some will be back on-line within the next couple days. this is a a>> attorney general eric holder firing back from republicans since the house voted. they are making him a quote proxy to attack president obama in an election year. hoerld fwundz in contempt for failure to turn over documents in the botched fast and furious operation. they claimed $3 billion. this is the largest healthcare settlement in all u.s. history. this after the company admitted