>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and politico, reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> health care is a human right. >> freedom is a human right. >> this week on "inside washington," the supreme court wrestles with the affordable health care law. >> it changes the relationship of the government to the individual in a fundamental way. >> marco rubio endorses mitt romney but will not run with him. >> i am not going to be vice president. >> we are going to say this country from a future of debt, doubt, and decline. >> the conversation over the killing of trayvon martin.

>> trayvon was our son, but trayvon was your son. a lot of people can relate to our situation. >> after the election i have more flexibility. >> and open mike nights the president at the south korean summit. russia, to ou without question our number one geopolitical foe. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> the supreme court took up the affordable health care act this week. it was a rare three-day oral argument. outside the court, a full throated display of democracy with protesters, politicians, and yes, pundits. date to, the justices took up the mandate, the provision that

would force americans to take up insurance or pay a fine. we heard justice kennedy say that the many changes the relationship of the government to the individual in a fundamental way. his vote could be a key. so could chief justice roberts'. justice scalia suggested that if the mandate goes, a whole thing should go. >> if you take the ball hard out of the statute, the statute is gone. >> nina, you reported that by the end of the argument, it seemed clear that there are five votes to strike down the individual mandate, and if there are five votes to strike at down, there will be five of votes to strike down the whole thing. >> i said if there are fireboats to strike an amended, it looks like there are five votes to strike down the hall law. it very much looks like it's in the hands of the justice kennedy, and he seems to be

agonizing. when justice kennedy says that something changes the liberty relationship between the federal government and individual, that is a reason for those on the side that are trying to defend this proposition to worry. >> i want to ask you about roberts later. let me move to mark. "whether we strike it down or leave it in place, the congressional process will never be the same." do you agree with that? >> no, i don't agree with that. i believe that congress will react based upon this decision. if the mandate is eliminated and we are left with the other provisions, that you have to provide for those with pre- existing missions, you have to cover children up to the age of 26, congress will have to do something. otherwise the price of insurance will go through the roof. >> colby, your turn. the argument against the law is that it is government overreach.

buyre forcing americans to service they do not want or need. couldn't you say the sending about medicare? >> professor charles fried it addressed this with ezra klein of "the washington post." he made the point that healthcare is a national problem, and national interest that can and should be regulated and has been regulated, as with medicare, and that the individual mandate should be held constitutional. i think it is the position that a lot of people take, those who are conservative as well. >> charles, if the court strikes down the whole olaw, a single payer system will be inevitable. >> if i had to choose between that system, the canadian system, and the monstrosity that obamacare was going to be, or perhaps will become financially ruinous, intellectually

incredibly dishonest, and unworkable, i would choose the canadian system and the american people would. before we go to a canadian system, assuming the law is struck down, we will try the conservative alternative, which would begin with tort reform, which would have to do with competition. i think that would be the more proximal alternative. if that doesn't work, we will surely end up with a canadian or british-style system. >> nina, i heard you on msnbc with chuck todd about the politics. it makes chief justice roberts nervous? >> he is chief justice of the united states, not of the supreme court. the great chief justices in history have been those who have understood that this is an institution to be protected, whose authority is to be protected. the 5-4 decision does not help do that. he may not have real control over that per.

the court seemed very split along the same kind of ideological lines that you see in the public. >> it comes out in the heart of a presidential campaign. if the court strikes down the mandate or will law -- >> you can argue that round or flat and people do. the white house is in sort of a panic. >> they think this was not going to happen? >> they at do not want to discuss health care. >> i think in the short run is a devastating defeat for the present rat -- for the president. his signature achievement is shown to be unconstitutional. in the long run, after this year, after this election, it could have the effect of galvanizing liberals, who would say that we work for 100 years to achieve this, we passed it through the house, the senate, and the presidency, a row court

struck it down to it could have an effect on the left that roe v. wade, and striking out all the abortion laws, had in radicalizing the religious right. >> the losing side has the energy. it is of help, it becomes, i think, -- if it is is upheld, it becomes, i think, a galvanizing issue for republicans. if it is overturned, it becomes an organizing principle for the democrats and president obama -- what are we going to do, that is what they have done. on nina's point about john roberts, the court has suffered as an institution. it has gone from 61% approval down to 46, following the citizens united case, where 89% of americans think it is the monti to have unlimited money in american politics -- it is the

wrong thing to have unlimited money in american politics. >> we have been down this road before. the supreme court struck down provisions. to its own chagrin, the public was galvanized around fdr, and eventually those programs -- social security. i am not sure this is a defeat for barack obama it they happen to strike down this health-care law. >> fdr also tried to stack the court. . >> i did not want to get into that. >> part of it is that the court changed. >> it had to change. >> those of us who have insurance are already paying for the uninsured. justice ginsberg says the whole purpose of insurance is to spread out the rest. >> -- risk. that> there was a lot of

in the recommended the problem with some of the people on the court is that they have had government insurance all their lives. most of them have worked for the government of the lives and they have always had easy and good insurance. they don't worry about some enormous thing where the insurance industry says "you have just reached the cap." those caps are already gone as part of this law. if it is struck down, we will go back to having caps on insurance spending, we will go back to having a 26-year-old not covered, 25-year-old not covered. there are also in this bill just thousands of things that have nothing to do with this -- drug regulation, all kinds of things. i kept getting e-mail from people who deal with that stuff would go "what is going to

happen?" as a friend might puts it, legal expression, "god only knows." >> the point nina makes is key to this. no question that congress has the power to levy taxes. does the congress have constitutionally the power to require you to private transaction? that is why single payer becomes the logical -- >> is the mandate that tax? they talked about that. >> nobody questions, clement or any of the libertarian scholars, whether congress has the power to levy a tax. i think a single pair becomes an act just as the logical, but the inevitable next stop. >> is a mandate a tax?

>> according to the president of the united states, absolutely not. he kept saying over and over again -- >> he said it it is not a tax increase. >> he had to pretend it is not a tax because the americans to like taxes. he had to pretend that there would be no tax increases, etc. what happened this week is beyond health care. hinge a constitutional chang point in history. colby spoke about the new deal. for six to seven years it has been assumed that we can expand the power of government. the reason liberals were so shocked by what happened in the court today -- remember nancy pelosi dismissed questions about constitutionality, saying all but of course ideas constitutional." it was dismissed when the first objections were raised -- >> excuse me, charles.

>> the nation heard serious arguments from the justices about having a limit, respecting enumerated powers. >> about every scholar, lawyer, big business lawyer initially thought the idea of t challenging this was a joke, then it became a laugher, dent in court it became a real reality. >> elections have consequences. going back to the new deal,ou had a republican-dominated supreme court, a democrat president. scalia himself as a political question about the attorneys general who filed suit against this. most of them or republicans. this bill passed without one republican to vote in that house -- in either house of congress. this overarching a a political question.

>> mitt romney picked up high- profile endorsements. . >> rick santorum is a good guy, is running a good campaign. we have given as on some issues, but basically a good guy. i am happy with him saying he would be part of the administration with me to read nothing wrong with that. >> that is mitt romney on "the tonight show." santorum got off to a testy start, saying that romney would be the worst republican against barack obama -- >> he meant it did only on the issue of obamacare. >> he was on the steps of the supreme court and said "i would be willing to run as a vice president." meanwhile, romney picks up an endorsement from marco rubio of florida, a big one, and also from the press president bush. how important are these endorsements? >> they signal that the tribe is

coming together. it has all the passion and excitement of a bride mailed in from turkey. [laughter] not exactly an intense emotional encounter. there is a sense of inevitability. >> how important is the rubio endorsement? >> i have had a lot of images of romney, but never as a turkey bride. [laughter] trying to get my arms around that one. it is obvious that they are sending a signal to santorum and gingrich. rubio is your tea party died. he ran against the establishment in florida. president bush's senior is the ultimate in the establishment. over,ody is saying it's guys. it is getting some real. santorum at a rally this week at the jelly belly candy company.

i think he is looking for a golden ticket, like "charlie and the chocolate factory," except he is not going to get one. jellye never been to the belly place. >> nor have i. >> romney is going to pick up the involvemen -- endorsement of paul ryan. this is the inevitable thing that has happened. >> the ryan budget passed the house this week. >> and romney in race to the budget. >> it is not going to make it in the senate, is it? >> it doesn't have a prayer in the senate. the senate passed a mass transportation bill by 70-plus votes, more than that, and it cannot get past the house? that is not a democratic bill.

that really is a bipartisan bill. it cannot get past the house? >> with the ryan bill, do we get another brawl on deficit reduction? >> absolutely. this budget demands and requires committees to come up with further cuts. you recall the great thanks and anxiety and pain and anguish we went through to come up with the budget plan for the future. this would reopen that all of a sudden. it becomes a campaign document. two bodies have established themselves. republicans have played to the tea party, mollified them, assuage to them. the democrats are playing to their constituency, whether it is medicare, social security, or white. they are not going to attack a single gray hair on the bid of lead.

>> when i think you stds the left out of your presentation -- one thing you studiously left out of your presentation, the budget of the president was defeated by 414-0. which is exactly come as happened last year, when it was rejected by the senate 97-0 but when we're talking about serious budget, which the democratic senate has not presented in three years, the republicans choosing to be responsible a slightly ahead. >> that was an orchestrated vote. the more telling about -- >> i shot out is a shot out. -- a shout out -- shut out is a shutout. >> dear scandals proposal went out and if limit -- the erskine

bowles proposal went out in defeat. the administration is publicly why is not even push it. >> florida shooting victim trayvon martin's parents come to capitol hill. >> a lot of people relate to our situation and it breaks their heart. >> that is the mother of trayvon martin, the high school student who was shot in florida by any bird watch captain, george zimmerman. zimmerman says he acted in self- defense and has not been arrested. that set off protests in washington and across the nation. this week, democratic congressman bobby rush was kicked off the floor of the house for wearing a hoodie. martin was wearing one when he was killed. this has reignited the issue of race in america. the public forum has called attention to so-called "stand

your ground at" laws like in florida. what is your take, charles? >> well, that law is an abomination and that is the root of what is happening. this man is a man called the police 50 times in one year to report so-called suspicious activity? when you have a law like that, you are giving citizens who don't have the training with the discipline and experience of a law-enforcement officer in using a lethal weapon and dealing with tense situations and giving them a kind of authority to act in place of police. i think that invites this kind of ouhorror. i am not sure it is the only cause of this, but i would like to see laws like that look and repealed because it is the wrong idea of having citizens do police work. >> you often see this, wannabes. he was a wannabe.

he tried to be a policeman tried to give a person who is all want to be are gone, at it is a prescription for disaster. 35 justifiable homicides before the standard rout -- stand your ground law. >> the argument charles makes is persuasive, and that is a first -- >> i would like to reconsider my position. >> the police opposed this law. the police are taught restraint. the police are taught to bring a negotiated settlement to this. i don't know mr. demint. i await the investigation. -- mr. zimmerman. i with the investigation. this is bad public policy.

>> the justice department is investigating. >> look at the uproar over this one case. here is the difference. if you come with me to the superior court of the district of columbia or the d.c. jail, you will find young men in those systems to have committed crimes, shot and killed somebody. the difference in this case is that somebody shot an unarmed kid and is free. that individual to not go through the criminal justice system. that is where the outrage comes in. they can understand and of individual shooting someone -- cannot understand an unarmed individuals shooting someone and not facing the court of law. in cities, you have a black on black crime, but they are prosecuted. >> zimmerman gets the benefit

of the doubt from the police immediately. the police chief steps aside and the victim does not. >> i think he still has begun. i don't think they have even taken the gun away. >> zimmerman says he was acting in self-defense. >> his story involves having his nose broken and having wounds on the back of his head, but we have now looked at a video and it is not conclusive, but looking at it, it is hard to believe that that actually happened. it could be, we will find out. but in the absence of evidence, his stories on the question. >> president obama's open mic problem. is he making backdoor deals with the russians? >> after my election, i have more flexibility. first of all, my mike's on? >> that is the president joked about his open my comment to the president of russia he was

talking about a missile defense shield. mitt romney said it was no time for the president to be pulling punches, that russia is our number one geopolitical enemy, which sounds like cold war talk. the speaker of the house would not criticize him when overseas but he wrote him a letter when he got back, strongly worded, saying "i and other members of the house have expressed concern about your willingness to make unilateral concessions to russia that undermine our missile defense capabilities." is this a legitimate foreign policy debate or a political deal? >> well, i think it is are legitimate when the president makes that kind of comment. i would not go so far as to say he should bring back joe mccarthy or have a citizen's arrest. but he has got some explaining to do. it is not the kind of thing you expect the resident to say in private to the leader of another country, particularly on an

issue that is crucial to u.s. national defense. >> i am always amazed by seasoned politicians who are careless around open mikes. >> i confess that i saw less to this and other people did. when i read it, i thought it was pretty serious. when i look at it, i thought it was just political my stock -- political and nice talk to a visitor. as jon stewart said, the worst was that the response was "i will pass the message on to vladimirrr." >> i disagree. it is embarrassing. >> it is embarrassing. >> it raises questions about what policy will be after the election. on your point about seasoned politicians around open mikes, why not, if you are going to have a conversation outdoors -- in a room with any russian, you are sure there is going to be a

bug. [laughter] >> middle of a flower -- >> it is a very serious. he is telling the dictator of another country "wait until after my last election" -- after my last election bid on like you, i don't have to answer to an electorate. why is ceiling on missile defense in the first place? why are we making concessions on missile defense? the treaty that recommend -- regulates a missile defense expired in 2002. we have no obligation. the russians had been trying to curtail our missile defenses for 30 years because we are ahead, we have a tremendously, and it improves everywhere. a defense our country. why is he offering a deal for the future, which he will speak

about today? why? he knows he will be heard in the election bid -- hurt in the election. >> this serious problem he has got is that he caused people to ask questions about what else will he do in the second term that is not telling us about? that plays into the hands of his critics, plays into the hands of other countries were worried about his commitments. that is the real problem. >> you get the last word. see you next week.