saying this is just a tax. explain to us what they decideded here. >> i don't think it's just a tax, but it's interesting, the opponents of the law had said that, yes, congress has the power to regulate commerce. but it can't regulate someone who doesn't have insurance because they're not in the stream of commerce. five justices actually greagree with that proposition, and normally that would have ended it. but it also turned out that fife justices said it is a legitimate use of congress's taxing authority. so what happened is chief justice roberts joined the conservatives in saying you can't justify the law under that commerce clause argument, but then he switched and joined the liberals, but you can justify it as a legitimate use of the congressional taxing power and that's what made the difference. so a 5-4 decision upholding the law, saying it's a legitimate use of the congressional taxing power. there's another part to this, 26

states have challenged another part of the law and said if they didn't broaden their medicaid coverage and cover more people and provide more benefits, then they would lose their entire ability to take part in the medicaid system. the courts said, no, you can't go that for, if the states choose not to take the new federal ney toç expand benefits, you can't punish them by throwing them out of the medicaid system. >> and pete, you like so many others were wise enough to caution people from reading in between the lines, reading the tea leaves, you had so many who were darn sure, i don't want to use a swear word, but they were darn sure that chief justice roberts would rule against this health care law. >> you can understand that in a way because when the case was argued, the justices seemed very skeptical, including justice robert. you listen to the questions that

get asked and whatever side that asks the most hostile questions are going to lose. by that measure, it looked bad for the information, but the fall back argument that the congre supreme court made -- >> so many people have gone back to a john roberts opening statement, 2005, his confirmation hearing, he said that justices are an umpire, they make sure everybody plays by the rules, nobody ever goes to the ball game to see the umpires. you were banking on kennedy and not justice roberts here. siding with the more liberal side of the court here? >> yeah, i was actually cautiously optimistic that the mandate would be upheld. i'm actually delighted that it was a 5-ç 4 decision to be

upheld. kennedy has been the swing vote for too long occupying the position that justice o'connor occupied before her and justice powell occupied for o'connor. >> we'll talk more about justice roberts, but there was also a worry that if this came down along line debates, certainly shows how divided almost equally this country is, but we got the opposite here, clear decision from this justice who was appointed by george bush, we can't say that enough, i think, here. >> that's really important, and i think that's what's going on here is we got some partisan tactics in terms of the commerce clause, we can't lose sight of that. we already have randy burnett who was the inflexible opponent of obama care. he said the court actually gave us a very -- however with respect to the taxing power, we

actually have a much more expansion notion of the taxing power than we have hitherto had. so that expands federal power, on that, it's an expansion of federal power. >> and some provisions by way of the health care law are already, if you don't know, in effect. they include, children can stay on their parents policy until the age of 26, and children 19 and younger with preexisting conditions can no longer beç denied coverage. the rest of this law takes effect in 2014, including the individual mandate. here to help us break this all down, including the politics of it. chris hayes and michael crowley and washington bureau chief for "time" magazine, and a nyu law professor.

the spin from the right, if you go on any blog, if you listen to any republican lawmaker at this point is this is a tax, see what you get here. >> and i don't think that's going to have a lot of traction because people aren't going to actually pay this tax. they're certainly not going to pay this tax before the election and the big open secret about this bill from the beginning is that almost no one's going to pay the penalty anyway, it's an unenforceable penalty anyway. so the fact that in the abstract a court found this constitutional acceptable under the taxing power, i don't think this is going to persuade undecided voters one way or the other. >> i hope you're right that people click from the sexy headline that you're going to be taxed and the -- for people to understand that millions of people will be covered.

it got lost in the sauce because of some of these headlines. >> the çintermoderate of court- if they had done the opposite, would have been a massive political defeat for president obama, for the democrats. upholding it is a political win. i bet you you will see approval of the bill actually rise in the next few months in the wake of this. >> the number of people who were still really holding out, showed a significant number of people, perhaps would be swayed by what we have witnessed, this historic decision from the supreme court upholding the individual mandate, what are you hearing from people you have been talking to on the radio, michael? >> lots of passion, passion both ways, some who say this is going to be a return to 2010 with all of that motivation that existed on the right to change control of the house and others who were calling in saying they were

embowle emboldened by the fact that there was a chief jurist who ended up writing the opinion. what does each campaign do. divert attention from jobs and similarly, the obama administration, which tamron, i think here to for has done a terrible job of selling this. are they going to retrempnch, a say this is -- >> mark halperin was on earlier today and he believes that you will see democrats rung again away from this law and i find that to be suspicious for many reasons, because bottom line is people were scoring this as a win or a loss. i can't tell you --

>> well, i think that's true, although i noted that chuck schumer, who was a political operator tweeted earlier today something to the effect of, okay, we have settled this t law is constitutional. now let's move on to the economy and other issues that are really important. >> don't you think that's because they did not want to be accused of spiking the football. you had people salivating, wanting to accuse the president of having too much swagger walking out, you had others out wanting to accuse the democrats -- in fact nancy pelosi is throwing a small get together that's been identified as a party. perhaps some of that reaction was to keep people from saying that they were spiking the football, which i ham so tired of hearing that as an analogy. >> i think that's possible. nancy pelosi came out and gave some political remarks, she said that ted kennedy - some democrats are not exactly hiding out. but, look, i think a lot will

depend on someone raised the key question of public -- conservatives who i think it fairly effectively in a public relations sense arguedç that ts law was an overreach and was unconstitution unconstitutional. particular those independent voters who were not fans of the law, will you see those numbers move? if the independent voters are still skeptical, i think you will see more of a willingness on romney's part to comment on it. >> politico and you have noted and we all have noted what is the plan that the gop and romney will offer up. that is a part of the equation, if you're telling people millions of you can now have health care, the constitution -- it's not a violation of our constitution here, but i got nothing for you, other than the threat to repeal it. >> and what began as repeal and

replace as resolved to just plain repeal. the republican party is essentially now on record. even jim demint who's sort of a tea party standard bearer, was an abstract conceptional sense, they're now completely opposed to it. i think the two messages that you saw in the president's statement are the two messages democrats are going to -- what is good about this bill, the content of it and to hit the parts of the bill that are actual popular even if the bill isn't. let's not relitigate the past. i do not think voters want to see the romney campaign turn litigating obama care into the main message between now and the election. >> we have eric cantorç alread scheduling a vote in the house. but we'll replay what mitch mcconnell said. let me plays it here. >> the president of the united

states promised up and down that this bill was not a tax. this is one of the democrats top selling points. because they knew it would never have passed if they said it was a tax. well, the supreme court has spoken. this law is a tax. the bill was sold to the american people on a deception. >> michael, is that an adequate come back? this was sold on deception and now it is about whether it is a tax or not and not a penalty. and you have a choice of whether not to get coverage, if you don't, as pete williams points out, the supreme court says you do not, then you have this penalty, but to describe it or characterize it as a tax of some sort, marco rubio says the tax will come after you if you don't get health care.

>> i would argue that that statement is a bit of a deception. a tax for whom? it's an assessment against those who don't have insurance. this has to be categorized as a personal responsibility. people who have insurance don't have toç subsidize those who - to buy into the exchanges otherwise you're the ones who will be assessed a penalty in 2013 when you pay your tax bill. >> preferential tax treatment is everywhere in the tax code. i am a renter, and quite literally i pay a penalty every year to the government. >> our tax code base literally penalizes people for renting. that's up and down the tax code. we insent vise and --

>> any republican who says the supreme court has now ruled that the obama care is a tax is playing a very dangerous game and they need to read the majority opinion. >> why is it a dangerous became? >> it's a dangerous game because the first thing that romney has to -- the anti-injunction act says you can't consider a tax issue until the tax is collected. so for congressional purposes this is not a tax. the first thing he says in the opinion is this is not a tax. then he turns and says that congress can enact this as a taxing power. we're in the weeds here, but if they wt to go into the weeds -- >> it's a deliberate attempt to get lost in this and deceive or at least try to find -- >> michael's like yes, it is michael crowley what is your thought here? is it playing politics or a deliberate attempt to at least

find aç win here? >> unfortunately you're never going to get the nuances from a long legal opinion. but i think republicans looking for their opening here and they're returning to basically their favorite patch of land which is taxation, taxes. i do think there's something to be stayed said for the -- i mean i don't think that that necessarily means that the whole bill is a fraud, but i heard personally from a friend in a senior position in the house when this was going through the congress, he was chuckling at the irony here, he remembered how far they bent backwards saying that this was not taxation, and that ended up saving them. some republicans have some ground playing with that, but it's not going to win the public debate because it is a stretch. >> thank you for your time. the supreme court's decision as mentioned could turn out to be the most politically divisive ruling of our time.

next our panel attempts to break down the politics of this ruling. and speaking of things that are divisive on capitol hill, the debate has already started. the house is expected to vote whether or not to hold eric holder in contempt of congress. but first reaction from the twitter verse, congressman keith ellison say americans won today with health care, and this one comes from eric cantor. during the week of july 9, the house of representativesill once again repeal obamaç care. you can join our conversation on twitter, you can tweet me @tamron ha @tamron hall #msnbc. [ music playing, indistinct conversations ]

the charcoal went out already? [ sighs ] forget it. [ male announcer ] there's more barbeque time in every bag of kingsford charcoal. kingsford. slow down and grill.

let me take you right now, senator majority leader harry reid reacting to the news of the day. listen in. >> tough economy, we can't look back, we need to look forward. we shouldn't waste time refighting old, old battles. we should focus on creating jobs, improving the economy of the people of this country.

republicans and congress have made it clear that instead of focusing on jobs, they want to keep having this old, old political fight. republicans in the house have announced even a day early next month that they're going to have a vote on what? repealing, as they say, obama care. it's just a sh vote. a show vote on votes and votes that they have had so many different times to repeal the law. this is what my friend, the republican leader said just an hour or two ago. quote, the court's ruling doesn't mark the end of the debate. it marks a fresh start on the road to repeal.ç that's not what middle class americans want to hear. we should be working to improve the economy, not wasting time on partisan, strictly political issues.

in the coming weeks, we're going to take up legislation to cut taxes for employees, employers and these we want to make sure that these employers who decide to buy a new piece of equipment will be able to depreciate it this year, now. we want to make sure that when they hire new people, they'll be able to get a 10 percent tax credit for that. and wee going to consider a bill to give incentives for corporations that start up facilities here at home and we're going to do everything we can legislatively to stop corporations from shipping jobs overseas. my republican colleagues should think really hard about whether they want to continue to let the tea party promote their agenda. just because a small number of people said that was constitutional doesn't mean it

is? can you believe that? but that's what he said. so it's time to start listening to the middle class, the middle class that so badly needs our help and republicans should stop fighting yesterday's battles and start working with us to put americans back to work.ç senator durbin. >> thank you, senator reid. republicans said that affordable care act was unconstitutional and unnecessary. today, in this 193-page opinion, the supreme court made it clear that the affordable care act signed by president obama, passed by congress, is constitutional. period. the highest court in the land has spoken. and they have told us that what we did fits within our constitutional authority. is it necessary? i take that issue on in my state of illinois with republicans who argue we shouldn't do anything, explain that to the families, the 102,000 25-year-olds who now

have health insurance through their families, explain that to the hundreds of thousands of people in illinois who don't have to worry about preexisting conditions cutting off the life of a child. explain that to that the thousands and thousands of senior citizens across america who are now getting a helping hand paying for their prescription drugs. we also know that expanding medicaid, offering the expansion of medicaid, means that people will be paying patients going into hospital. today they estimate that only 1%, 1% of america will end up in the category of those who decide they don't want any health insurance at all. i think those people are shirking their personal responsibilify. when they are brought in to health care coverage, it's fairer for every family, every business, everybody in america. the bottom line is the president said it is time for us to put

some of these political battles behind us and join together on a bipartisan basis to not only tackle this problem, to make health care more affordable, and to make it more reasonable for people across america, but as the majority leader said, to tackle the larger more challenging problem of creating more good paying jobs in america. we'll come back after the fourth of july recess with a specific proposal to help small businesses hire more people. it would be a breadth of fresh air with the bipartisanship that we have seen in the senate will continue when it comes to the jobs bill. we should work together, democrats and republicans for affordable health care and for more good paying jobs in america. >> we're listening to the democratic response to the supreme court's decision, as well as really putting republicans on the mat, is it time to move forward and discuss jobs. joining us chris hayes, nyu

constitutional law professor, and "time" magazine deputy washington chief bureau. you listen to harry reid, he says it's time for republicans not to allow the tea party to really dominate the debate here, the supreme court has made its decision.ç there's nothing to make this maate or government takeover of our health care right. now if my memory serves me right, you had all of these tea party people, who are part of our country, and of course their voices should be heard, talk about protecting the constitution, our founding fathers and now you have senator rand paul referring to them as a

couple of people, just random folks. >> yeah, well, that's striking because i think the conventional wisdom around this town at least, was that democrats were going to be on attack against the court after a decision that struck down the mandate and people were worried that we were going to have a crisis of legitimacy, that people were going to say that democrats and liberals will say that -- i don't think you're going to see a lot of republicans talking that way. rand paul has some pretty unique ideas. he comes from a libertarian perspective. let me just say i was struck. i actually thought that the heart of what harry reid was saying there, the politics of it was interesting to me. he was saying this is an old argument, basically everyone is sick of it, it's a side show and republicans want to go back and relitigate it, but don't you middle class americans want to move on and talk about jobs and the economy?ç

it's a little maddening that democrats have never really defended this bill. they refuse to defend it. harry reid to get up there and the first words out of his mouth to be like, this is old, old, old news. you passed a piece of legislation, if you think it's a good idea, you should stand up there and say why. >> the president when talking about his accomplishments, very little was focused on what was an incredible effort with this president, incredible leadership, at times certainly people were ready to run him out of town and it was i think stirring for a lot of people, not just republicans but democrats seem to cower from the success that was health care reform. >> i thought the line he said which was pretty sort of turning

lemons into lemonade, he said at this point no one can think i did this because i thought it would be popular with the american people. >> there was trepidation that we no tt existed along. >> i want to go back to senator paul's comment. just a few months ago, when president said that he believed that congress should be given deference by the supreme court. his department of justice was given a home work assignment by a judge about whether they still believed in judicial review. áp essentially we're seeing the exact same thing, maybe the same homework assignment should be given to rand paul, our country was founded on this principle that the supreme court is the ultimate and final argument of the constitution. >> it's not extraordinary to have people upset with a decision from the supreme court, we certainly know that exists, but it's the particular language of senator paul that people have taken issue with.

>> i think we all can feel that supreme court decisions are wrongly decided, are erroneously decided. i think everybody ultimately accepts the legitimacy of the pronounszmentes, we're not going to have and an drew jackson moment. >> let me bring in -- there's so much to talk with you, sir, about, i also want to get some reaction on this contempt vote, but first let me get your immediate reaction on the decision of the supreme court. >> thank you for having me, tamron, it was a big, big win for the president and for the democrat who is worked very hard to fashion a bill that we felt would be constitutional. we believe that this is a first step, however, i have been saying for a long, long time,

that this ought to be considered the civil rights act of the 21st century. iç do believe that fundamental, all americans that have access to affordable health care and this bill starts this ruling starts us on the road to that. we're not there yet by any means, this issue will be revisited many, many times, as we did the civil rights, '64, '65, '68, '72. the civil rights act will be talked about so often, were all four distinctly different acts over the course of eight years. this is what's going to happen with health care, and this starts us on the road to get us where we need to be. >> you have republicans seeing it as an issue of taxes, let me play what senator lindsay graham said in his reaction to the

decision. >> as we go to every democrat including the president who said it wasn't a tax and ask them now what do you think and what do you believe? because the only way it can be legally upheld as far as for you to have used the power to tax. so if they don't know what they're doing, or they lied us. >> was it a lie? >> well, lindsay graham is a good friend, i like him a whole lot. he is sometimes given to hyperbole, and i think that's the case here. all of us remember when this debate was taking place. the president, as the constitutional lawyer who taught constitutional law, said çofte that this mandate, individual mandate is something that he grappled with, you remember we had a lot of other ways to pay for this. this allows us to grapple with how to go forward. and i think that we have seen, i

believe up in rhode island, where they have universal access to health care and they don't have an individual mandate. there may be other ways for us to get to where we need to be. let's calm down, let's stop all of the finger pointing. and collectively try to get to where we need to be. >> lets see if the others take your advice here. thank you very much, i greatly appreciate your time. >> what the court did today was -- >> what they did not do was say that obama care was a good law.

>> in fact it makes really clear in his opinion, it's the job of the court, he says is not to protect the people from their even decision, so he made it really clear that he was driving a wedge between constitutionality and public policy. >> we know theç spot he's in having been the governor of massachusetts, the president referring to his support. >> it was structured almost i'd dentdically. >> what does he need to do to at least be effective in his argument here? >> i don't think he can be particularly effective. i think the interesting thing about this is this is something that riles the base. it's unclear to me, it's clearly affordable care act is not popular as a piece of legislation, even though it's provisions are. but it's also clear to me that voters care either way. we're having this discussion about this abject piece of

legislation that's not been implemented yet. it's not politicalliedy ed advantageous for romney to -- >> there's more news to come here, but let me play the president referring to the individual mandate and slightly glancing by mitt romney as he made the turn. let's listen to the president today. >> that's why i knew it wouldn't be politically possible and i resisted this area when i ran for office. people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. in fact this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current republican nominee for president. >> so michael, as they say in hollywood, end scene, is that it? is that the whole argument now that you've got the supreme court's decision in a shell there? ì(lc% to chris's point, the last poll i saw, i believe it was in the

exit poll, 7% of americans called health care their top priority in this election, this goes back to harry reid's point, i think it's true that romney will try to fire up his base a little bit. there's no question that there are goingto be base conservatives who are hopping mad. i am told that rush limbaugh said is referring to the john roberts death panel court, or something to that effect. there's going to be a lot of anger and romney will try to tap some ofa, but the number of voters who think this is the most important issue is probably pretty small. >> and getting to the nbc news poll were probably waiting on this decision to make their decision. >> itches jujust two quick poinu think of the civil rights act of 1964 and you think about on what constitutional grounds was that enacted and of course it was the

senate -- it was actually enacted under the commerce law. to say is it a good piece of legislation or a bad piece of legislation, i think it will be seen as a human rights doctrine. >> thank you, chris, michael i appreciate you sticking around with us as ell. and no doubt today's health care ruling will not only be a major part of defining president obama's legacy, but also chief chief justice john roberts. coming up i çwill reaction froa patient in kansas city, missouri. >> it's a mixed bag, i have mixed emotions on it, it's a good thing, but there's still a lot of people that aren't going to be able to do it. imagined nearly everything in it? gave it greater horsepower and best in class 38 mpg highway... ...advanced headlights... ...and zero gravity seats? yeah, that would be cool.

♪ introducing the completely reimagined nissan altima. it's our most innovative altima ever. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪ if you made a list of countries from around the world...tes. ...with the best math scores. ...the united states would be on that list. in 25th place. let's raise academic standards across the nation. let's get back to the head of the class. let's solve this.

the charcoal went out already? [ sighs ] forget it. [ male announcer ] there's more barbeque time in every bag of kingsford charcoal. kingsford. slow down and grill. of we continue to follow breaking news on capitol hill, just moments ago debate got under way on the house floor over whether to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress.

members of the congressional black hispanic asian pacific american and progressive caucuses will soon walk off the house floor in protest. it's been a heated debate for more than two hours from now. and the con temt votes haven't even started yet. >> 100 inaccuracies don't tell me this is not above politics, don't tell me this is not a witch hunt. that's exactly what it is. >> nbc's luke russert joins me now, give us the lay of the land, as it stands right now, in the next couple of hours, as we wait, what happens. >> in the next few hours, tamron, you're going to see two votes, you're going to see a vote that would hold in criminal contempt and the vote to hold him in civil contempt. the vote in criminal contempt

would hold him to the justice department to bring up charges against mr. holder. that's unlikely to happen, the justice department usually does not do that, considering the attorney general is not at the top. the civil contempt charge would be the house's ability to tryç and hire outside council and take this to t court and say eric holder is not participating in this investigation. here's outside court, please force eric holder to participate in i.c.e.'s investigation. this contempt charge against eric holder only lasts until about january 2013 when the congress ends, tamron, so it's anyone's guest as to what this does. there's not a lot of teeth here in my conversations with legal analysts. it gives house republicans this red meat issue they want that

eric holder is corrupt. democrats are fed up, a lot of them are going to be walking off the floor today. nancy pelosi says she will not actually walk off the floor. but the timing is interesting that this whole action is coming on the same day as the supreme court ruling, it shows that the gop leadership did not actually be front and center. this obviously has nothing to do with jobs. >> okay, luke, thank you very much. now to some new information we're learning just now regarding president obama and how he found out the news of the supreme court ruling. kristen welker is live at the white house. kristen some very interesting details of the report. >> this information just coming in, tamron, according to senior administration officials, president obama was standing in the outer oval office watching some tv screens there to learn what the supreme court had in ficu decided on this issue. according to some of those other reports which had mistakenly

reported that the individual mandate was struck down. the president saw those reports, thought the individual mandate was shut down, walked back into the oval office. just a few minutes later t white house counselor walked in with two thumbs up and said actually the individual mandate habeen upheld and clarified the situation. we're also learning this afternoon, tamron, that the very first person that president obama called was the solicitor general. you may remember in the oral arguments that he was widely criticized saying that he was not strong during the oral arguments, so today really, from the president's perspective, vindication of donald verilli and of course vindication of this signature piece of legislation. >> we were just also getting in reactionrom secretary of state hillary clinton who of course you know waged her own war on

the health care system in this country when she was first lady. she spoke minutes ago as she arrived on a visit to latvia. >> i just learned that the supreme court has upheld the health care law, but i'm very pleased, that's how i hoped it would turn out. >> now turn to today'ç decisio on businesses. joining me now, the host of msnbc's your business, i was so struck by your appearance this morning on "morning joe" separating fact from fiction, so much opposition to the health care law, that businesses would be run out of town, they would not be able to cover their employees and that is not the case. >> there is so much misinformation, this bill is very complicated or the law is very complicated, but one thing is clear.

this only applies to businesses with more than 50 employees. 96% of small businesses have less than 50 employees. >> 96? >> 96 and those with 25 to 50 employees, they already provide health coverage. so we're talking about a very small percentage of businesses that are actually now going to be required to give coverage that don't. >> then you have heard, i know you have heard it as well, people quoting small business owners and they look at their books and say for example, i'm on hold until this law is repealed. i cannot hire new people for fear of what ais around the corner. whether the fear was a phantom or a reality, what does this impact? >> there's a tax credit if you have under a certain number of employees and you pay them a certain amount and that tax credit starts to go away as you hire more employees so that may

have an adverse affect on ç hiring. the other thing is are premiums going to go down or up and that' depends on who you're listening to. >> small business owners say they're confused on how the law affects them. they asked about a key element of the law whether this qualifies for the health care benefit. 66% said they were not sure. >> that was just the tax credit that i was just talking about. so somewhere between 1.5 and 4 million businesses can apply for this. this year, less than 200,000 people applied for this. so there is a problem with information rights now. it's not getting out there. >> all right, thank you very much, i greatly appreciate it and i love watching your show. we'll be right back.

olaf's pizza palace gets the most rewards of any small business credit card! pizza!!!!! [ garth ] olaf's small business earns 2% cash back onvery purchase, every day! put it on my spark card! [ high-pitched ] nice doin' business with you! [ garth ] why settle for less? great businesses deserve the most rewards! awesome!!! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? "today's" decision is a historic one for the obama

administration and the supreme court. the president spent a huge amount of political capital in getting the law passed. succeeding where many others have failed. and joining us now, nbc news historian. i just got in rahm emanuel, of course the president's chief of staff when they were battling it out. it says here in part, for somebody who likes winning, winning is everything. will there be politics yes, and then he goes on to say there's another set of winners in this and that's people actually that need it, meaning theç with hel health care so that they can live the lives we all deserve here. >> we know what people would say here, but what is the defining moment or is this certainly the big defining moment for the president.

>> you and i are from chicago and we know there's -- the interesting thing is for him to say that, because when rahm emanuel was chief of staff, he begged the president, don't this, especially in your first two years, don't exhaust political acapital. and barack obama, even his adversaries have to give him credit for the fact that he took a big political risk, got this through congress and now through the supreme court. and when you look at the way a president is evaluated by historians, we tend to look at did a president engage in basic issues like war and peace, the economy and better health. he said during the campaign that he wanted to be a transforming president. if this thing is not repealed by congress and if this law does work in the end, it will be a big part of his legacy. >> and let's switch to chief justice roberts, obviously he is the second most talked about

individual regarding this today. some on the far right, criticizing and feeling betrayed, i think would be an appropriate description here. but this is at least what he said in 2005 was his mission. >> absolutely. >> absolutely what he said in his confirmation hearings in 2005 which was, i may be a conservative, but i do not believe in reviewing theç law d striking it down just for political reasons. and he actually said in this opinion that we're not approving the policy, we're only saying that this is for the most part within the law. so i think many people, especially among the conservative side who expected him to essentially be an ide idealogue. a number of people are saying impeach john roberts, that's how angry some people will be. >> we appreciate you making time for us.

as always, it is such a pleasure to speak with you. thank you, michael. and we will be right back with our ne nation gut check. what makes the sleep number store different? you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you wanted a firm bed you can lie on one of those. we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. wow, that feels really good! once you experience it, there's no going back. and don't miss our special financing now through july 4th only. plus enjoy the lowest prices of the season on selected bed sets only at the sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $699.

today's news nation gut check of course is the big story. the supreme court upheld the health care law, the individual mandate, do you think public opinion will shift in favor of the law? go to facebook.com/newsnation and cast that vote. and that already does it for this edition of news nation. thank you for joining us, a lot of breaking news, it's always our pleasure to report it to you. tomorrow medal of honor recipient colonel jack jacobs will join news nation to talk about the other attempt to strike down the stolen valor act. the cycle is up next. last time i was at a sleepover my parents had kraft mac & cheese without me. so this time, i took precautionary measures.

looking for these? [ rattling ] [ male announcer ] kraft macaroni & cheese. you know you love it. that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to u. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about. and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too.

and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide

will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. the charcoal went out already? [ sighs ] forget it. [ male announcer ] there's more barbeque time in every bag of kingsford charcoal. kingsford. slow down and grill. i'm crystal ball, at 3:00 in king george, virginia. 2:00 in new orleans and high noon in sin city, las vegas, where i bet a lot of people didn't think this would be what's going on in the "the cycle" today, the health care law survives and chief justice

roberts is the decider. >> the doctor is in, now that the court battle is in, we'll talk to an actual doctor about how this law will work for patients. >> the court says the tax is a penalty if you don't get coverage, but there's no penalty if you don't pay the tax. so >> the man who helped president obama put the bill into action will be with us. >> the house vote to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress. day four of "the cycle" rolls on for june 28. good thursday afternoon to you. and welcome to "the cycle." the gang is here. hey, guys. so yesterday we were

anticipating the news, today we have a little bit of actual news. >> and as we have actual news, who was it that predicted that the mandate would be upheld? >> criss tall. >> who was the only person who predicted the mandate would be upheld. >> i giver to it you, you predicted it at the table. but i did -- >> w >> it's a great day for the court, and for america. >> it was a great call. you got it right. we are surprised. >> by now we all know the court's decision, the law stays on the books, but not quite as it was written. and here are the two men that will battle out health care2uj% the next four months. >> today's decision was a