and david rivkin, a partner at the baker-hostetler law firm in washington. he represented the 26 states that challenged the constitutionality of the affordable care act. professor tribe, i think let's start with your former student. there's been continuing speculation as to whether he changed his vote. it was reported by jan crawford of cbs that there had been a big internal battle from conservatives to get him to change back. does any of this matter? what does it say to you, that there's this speculation? >> well, the main thing it says is that somebody in the supreme court is leaking or that jan crawford greenburg has her facts wrong. i think shs a pretty good reporter, so i would suspect that some law clerk has some pretty loose lips. i think that's terrible because even though in some prior cases over the 40 years or so that i've watched the court, there have been leaks. four or five years after a decision. for somebody to go tattling on what justices said to each other or to law clerks just a day after a decision is really horrendous. i mean there reall

please welcome david rivkin. [applause] >> thank you for reminding me how old i really am.oing back to some professional endeavors and in the 1980's. i am torn about how i feel about the case. on one level, i agree with randy. that the commerce clause portion of the case is superb. not only in terms of the outcome but in terms of restoring, refocusing attention. on the core structural separation of powers division. randy has done a great job covering that. it is not only the big picture but the language of that to which the court majority has rejected the theories that obamacare had been advancing for over two years is wonderful, and build upon where justice kennedy concurrence was. probably one of the most rousing discussions. i cannot be happier than that. it is particularly good on the necessary and proper clause which is not the case -- which is not as abundant as the commerce clause which fell from the one -- day one. the necessary improper klaus has not been as well plowed -- clause has not been as well plowed. what bothers me and what i am not as cheerful as i would

retor h tax issue from david rivkin, jr.. david is a member of the beaker hofstadter's litigation gr, e-tal dieal 'sel do onta. s esiepre constitutional, administrative and international law litigation. he's been involved in numero he esh 6 athaalnghe onutlifore teatse counsel in the district court and in the court of appeals in the 11th circuit in tha litigation. he aorpsed reub ro be t fo heugv rnnaurue r number of years on a wide range of issues involving international humanitarian law iviatl rirall of the wr. agt te former secretary of defense donald rumsfeld. from 2004 through 2007 he served as an expert member of e unto somio e ot aroio hethcif uous emnd si including 1981 the u.s. legal proceedings and will make him an award for the best maritime ir rcli84d he onale he ifwrra mmryike all of our speakers for today. you are bound to have seen his articles in "the wall street journal," "the washington post," "the newortimea wh d gaduo orwnivtyreh d m. viafs n aa uafoumavety law school please welcome the it rivkin. yod nk fe

you will hear next from david rivkin, jr. eight tauter mur and lead counsel for the states that challenge the constitutionality of the affordable care act. after that we will hear from sara rosenbaum from george washington university school of public health and health services. she also directed the legislative drafting of president clinton's health reform proposal back in the 1990's. after she speaks we will hear from timothy westmoreland visiting professor of law at georgetown university and former director of the medicaid program and counsel to the u.s. house of representatives subcommittee on health and the environment. and then finally come to the organizers of today's conference we will hear from gregg bloche also of the hipaa craddock met and adviser to president obama's 2008 campaign and transition team comes with that i will turn things over to mike seidman. >> thank you, susan for coming. i want to start with a confession. my prediction about the outcome of the case was completely wrong. if i get any sense at all i

srtatni ar e onvdge ane fht cotutionality of this bill and the individual mandates my colleague david rivkinwall street journal piece in september of 2009 was the rst e id in a t tion quen t se stk deonyo knidoto ay we hoped it would and this was a real crushing blow to liberty and it was cshinbl tolf. wevtehe ls d stte t los i t fr bee llome things that came out of this case and i don't want to be characterized amho in theututng nrstlyimc vinutco asad a iwa lout jt cat s a bad day and a bad loss does not mean it could not have been woe. becaused veen. i knd ctaes le isenn ki of em alohani the stuff what we accomplished while still bemoaning wha we failed to accomplish is to give thhedeigviry any acbtne it nto as inerexnhat iant tot rwh this case was so g and historic and the reason why this -- the supreme court graed a st t d of argt ec t renoneutwoug es tth . the first was on obamacare. the first was on the issue of whether the government and the cotry would controlur mel re a rn dcol mel ive d erhail amlltee tiipinduo the government and essentially change our form of government to one mor

we're going to hear now the tax issue from david rivkin jr.. david is a member of the baker hostetler is litigation international and in armenta robertson and he cochairs the appellate and -- environmental group and he cochairs the appellate team. he has been involved in numerous high-profile cases. he represented the 26 states that challenge the constitutionality of obamacare and was the lead outside counsel of the district court and in the court of appeals in that litigation. he also represented the problem of croatia before the international -- the republic of croatia before the international tribunal on a wide range of issues involving humanitarian law and laws of war. he is also experienced with litigation involving national security related matters including issues brought before secretary of defense donald rumsfeld. from 2004-07 he served on the united nations commission for the protection of human rights. he has received numerous awards, including one for the best maritime article, as well as the burton award in 2011. he is a prolific wr

joining me david rivkin, one who represented 26 states in their fight against this.be coming from? >> well there is a great deal of pressure brought by the president, remember, he's giet bold -- his bold and inappropriate statement after the argument, and, congressional democrats and, the mainstream media and a lot of pressure on the court and my hope is the decision does not reflect the pressure but people are wondering about in. >> mike: did justice roberts gets it wrong. >> let me put it this way, we are arguing -- in the "wall street journal," the opinion is a mixed bag. he got some things right. we are gratified the commerce clause argument, the notion that the federal government is going to excise limit powers, is reflected in the the opinion and that is the good part and the bad part you mentioned in the lead-in, the court rewrote the law and it is ironic, remember at the front end nancy pelosi said we have to pass the statute, to understand what is in it? what the court's majority did in the end, rewrote the law and took something havthat was a mandate and tr