>> well, justice breyer, let me start at the beginning of your question with mcculloch. mcculloch was not a commerce power case. >> it was both? >> no, the bank was not justified and the corporation was not justified as an exercise of commerce power. so that is not a case that says that it's okay to conjure up the bank as an exercise of the commerce power. what, of course, the court didn't say, and i think the court would have had a very different reaction to, is, you know, we are not just going to have the bank, because that wouldn't be necessary and proper, we are going to force the citizenry to put all of their money in the bank, because, if we do that, then we know the bank of the united states will be secure. i think the framers would have identified the difference between those two scenarios, and i don't think that the great chief justice would have said that forcing people to put their deposits in the bank of the united states was necessary and proper. now, if you look through all the cases you mentioned, i do not think you will find a case like this. and i think

we would think it would ameliorate justice breyer: and if so, what? general verrilli: it would ameliorate the practical problem; but, there is still a structural problem here in that this is an effort to enforce federal law. and the under the constitution, it's the president and the executive branch that are responsible for the enforcement of federal law chief justice roberts: it is general verrilli: and chief justice roberts: it is not an effort to enforce federal law. it is an effort to let you know about violations of federal law. whether or not to enforce them is still entirely up to you. if you don't want to do this, you just tell the person at lesc if that's the right is that the right acronym? general verrilli: it is, mr. chief justice. chief justice roberts: lesc, look, when somebody from arizona calls, answer their question, and don't even bother to write it down. okay? i stopped somebody else, is he legal or illegal, let me check it's, oh, he's illegal. okay, thanks, good-bye. i mean, why it is still your decision. and if you don't want to k

justice breyer in a case which was the third of the trilogy which is basically the supreme court weighing in on the admissibility of scientific evidence or expert evidence more generally, justice breyer referred to making sure that the science works for the task at hand. this notion of the task at hand i think ought not to be forgotten. the neuroscience might work for certain tasks very well and for other tasks not so well. so i think we have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. i very much agree with anita's point that a lot of the neuroscience right now works quite well at the group level and has not yet been shown to work particularly well at the individual level, but having said that, i think that there is, again, a legal necessity issue that is presented. if you go back to graham versus florida it is true that justice kennedy and the supreme court, the majority of the court said that you cannot impose life without parole for a non manslaughter offense for an add less is sent and therefore, he drew the line's did in roeper versus simmons at saying that at less sent are simply diffe

opinion.the four judges considered liberal voted to uphold the law.they are sonia sotomayoo...stephen breyer. in dissenn weee... anthony g - kennedy...samuel alito.... thomas. the impact f the supreme court's decision... will be felt by doctors as well. well.doctor john chessare... baltimore meeical cenner... spoke out thursday... about the landmark ruling. one thing he says he likes... is the ban oo insurance commanies denying coverage to people witt pre-existing medical proviiion that bars insurers from setting a doolar limit on requires companies to cover preventative care at no additional cost to consumers. but not everyone agrees. (1:37) we can save money make the americcn people happier have better healthier stme andd citizens....-butt to-"its gonna destroo the quality of &phealthcare its gonna destroo budgets and most of all its gonna destroy a patients ability to go soooa doctor and get the quality care they desperately need." need." the americcn medicaa aasociation supports the affordable care act... while the largest medical society in &pmaryland.... "medchi"... does not support th

justice breyer says you don't need magic words. you can look at what congress was doing here to divine its intent and he found that in six separate areas. and most importantly he said if they did not apply this more lenient law there would not be uniform sentencing. and that's very important. there continue to be disproportionate sentencing for these offenders for years down the road. >> suarez: well, there's a much larger group of prisoners now serving time who were convicted under the old formulas and if they had committed their crime today they would have gotten much less time. is there any relief for them in today's decision? >> no, there isn't. the u.s. sentencing commission had urged the court to make it... the law fully retroactive but the court stuck to the issue that was before it, just this narrow band of offenders. >> suarez: the service employees international union case had to do with union dues, political activity and public employees. this is a complicated one. what did the justices rule? >> very basically, the union

breyer and kagan concur. first amendment scrutiny so congress could probably rewrite this. it is the stolen valor act is the heart of it. passed in 2006 which makes it a federal misdemeanor to lie about receiving any u.s. military decoration or medal. first case out of the court this morning. u.s. versus alvarez. >>> and you're watching the crowds as they are anticipating the supreme court's ruling on the president's health care law. right now inside the courtroom, the first case of the morning, the alvarez decision, the decision was affirmed. the alvarez 2006 stolen valor act didn't meet the first amendment test by supreme court. three justices, alito, scalia and thomas dissented and right now u, reading the opinion and as that goes on, crowds outside anticipating the supreme court's major landmark ruling of the day op the health care law. we have a twitter feed going for your comments as we know more about the decision. you can tweet us and we will use many of your tweets on air throughout the day today. >>> the sec of three cases, financial corp. was dismissed. that mean

>> it does, justice breyer. and if congress were to enact laws like that we -- >> would be up here again. >> i would defend them on a rationale like that. but i do think we are advancing a narrower -- >> if the question is whether or not there are any limits on the congress clause -- commerce clause, can you identify for us some limits on the commerce clause? >> yes. the rationale currently under the commerce clause that we're advocating here would not justify forced purchases of commodities for the purpose of stimulating demand. it would not justify purchases of insurance for the purposes -- in situations in which insurance doesn't serve as the method of payment. >> but why not? if congress says that interstate commerce is affected, isn't, according to your view, that the end of the analysis? >> no. we think that in a -- when congress -- the difference between those situations and this situation is that in those situations, your honor,ongress would be moving to create commerce. here congress is regulating exist

justice breyer dissented joined by justices soto maier and it is inherently harmful, humiliating and degrading which a serious affront to human dignity and individual privacy. as there was no cause to suspect that florence was concealing drugs or otherwise presented a security risk, we judged that the searches to which he was exposed were unconstitutional. a third case, fcc against fox television stations. asked whether the fcc's current indecency policy violates the first or fifth amendment. the paris hilton's of this world, my law cloerks told me, eagerly await the decision. it is beyond my comprehension, i told my clerks, how the fcc can claim jurisdiction to ban words spoken in a hotel on french soil. the case came to us on a return trip in fox 1, we held that the fcc did not violate the administrative procedure act act when it altered its long standsing decency policy to regulate the broadcast of fleeting expletives. the "we" did not include me, i dissented, with justices stevens suter and bryer. they court remanded the case to consider the constitutionality of the fcc's newly m

opiiion.the four judges connideeed liberal voted to uphold the law.they are sonia sotomayor...stephen breyer.. ruthhbader ginsburg...and ellna kagan.the judges voting pn dissent weree.. anthony kennedy...ssmuel alito.... thomas. coverage for people with pre- existing conditions.that's a welcome relief for some families we ssoke with. the mckkever ffmily as but they'rr happy to ind out 12-yearroll kyle, who suffers from a genetic nerve disorrer, insurancc plans... now there pre no pre-existing condition limitations. jjnine murphy ii in a similar sstuation. her-4--ear old son suffers from cerebral palsyyand is covered by medicaid. murphy says: afforddble pealth care is really important to me right now and therapy and hhs ndition - coveerd" mckeever says: "when your child has a medical condition when you have the fiiances with it thaa you are not going to ave the abiiity toopay for mri's, or x-rayssor medicinn. ii's just aaother burden" burdenn the most controversial part of the new law requiies all americans to a fine. there will be ce - &psubsidies for those who canno afford to pay. ii's anot

long, for the reasons that justice breyer said. and i thought the we have a principle that ousters of jurisdiction are narrowly construed, that unless it is clear, court are not deprived of jurisdiction. i find it hard to think that this is clear, whatever else it is. it is easy to think that it's not clear. >> well, the anti-injunction act applies not only to every tax in the code, but as far as i can tell every tax mot and the code. >> mr. long, you said before and i think you're quite right that the tax injunction act is marbled on the anti-injunction act in under the tax injunction act, what can't be enjoined is an assessment for the purpose of raising revenues. the tax injunction act does not apply to penalties that reduce compliance with a lot of other than to raise revenues. and this is not a revenue raising measure because if it is successful, nobody will pay the penalty and there'll be no revenue to raise. >> well, in bob jones, the court said they've gotten out of the business of trying to determine whether benefaction is

justice breyer wrote the dissent. he said that he felt that citizens united did not preclude montana from showing why the unique facts of its own history and current elections system could justify a ban on corporate spending and its elections but he said he saw it was clear that the five who made up the majority if citizens united were not going to change their minds. it's interesting to note that justice kagan joined the dissenters. we didn't know what position she took as a justice even though she had argued citizens united on behalf of the government. >> woodruff: there had been a lot of speculation about whether the justices who were in favor of the citizens united decisions might have had second thoughts but from looking at this it appears they have not. >> right. and justice breyer and justice ginsberg had earlier suggested that given all of the money that we're seeing today flowing in to the current campaigns around the country that the court might want to reconsider the proposition that independent expenditure

. >> i would like to hear you address justice breyer -- >> the other principals are lopez, and this case is not -- it is a lawyer met on the affirmative exercise of people who are already in commerce. the question is is there any other limit to people who are not and the commerce. so this is the case that asks that question and the first point which is i take it the solicitor general's point is all the insurance market itself a limiting principle. it's the justification for why this is a foul the regulation of commerce. these are economic decisions that have an effect on other people my failure to purchase market has a direct effect on others already in the market that's true of virtually every other market. europe absolutely right you are in the commerce power it isn't going to police that except maybe to the lopez limit and that is exactly why i think it's very important for the court to think seriously about taking an unprecedented step the commerce power not only includes the power to regulate but prescribe the rules by which the commerce is governed. it is the power to compel people

ruth bader ginsburg, stephen breyer and sonia sotomayor. and justice roberts, one of the court's more conservative justices. the three other conservatives consented, that makes eight. elena kagan the ninth sat this out because she worked this case when she was with the justice department. you have to wonder, why was justice roberts there and it may be that, you know, interesting note here, because there were only eight justices if this were a 4-4 split, the decision wouldn't count. the lower court ruling would be in effect. this would have no effect. perhaps he was trying to find a way for the court to have a holding. >> mike, all eight justices voted unanimously on the papers please aspect of the bill, roundly called the most controversial aspect part of the bill and divided on the other three. did we all have it wrong? do court watchers look at this as a surprise or this what is supposed to happen? >> justice sotomayor and stephen breyer, both in the liberal wing, both expressed concerns but not overriding concerns over the papers please

justice breyer equipped defensively, i'm not trying to get out of

justice breyer, a democrat, voted with the republicans and justice souter voted -- voted with a dissenting democrat, i think justice ginsberg, so in effect you had a bipartisan decision on constitutionality and then they took up the question of remedy after they said that the scheme that the florida legislature has put in place for recount is -- is illegal, unconstitutional, and then they said the time has expired for further recount because by gore's own admission, the critical date was december 12th and this was december 11th. they said there's no longer any time to count. the gore campaign made a big mistake when they asked for recounts in only four counties, and they were pro-democratic counties, all of them, very heavy democratic counties, and they asked for a recount instead of a statewide recount that should have come in. when they did that, that gave us the high ground, and their mantra was count every vote, count every vote. our mantra was, look, we've counted them five times, six times, seven times, and every time we count them we win, and so finally the supreme court said, yeah,

you had the chief justice siding with justices gins burg and breyer and -- ginsburg and breyer and alito more conservative votes on the other side he. so again, a remind he of what should happen normally doesn't. nobody really knows what will be done. both parties are playing the game out behind the seens to try to figure out what their response should be. that could be as early as this thursday or it could be next week when the term wraps up. >>> so much at stake. and you can signed a link to the insider blog just go to ktvu.com, pull down the news menu. and we're on stand by and are prepared to cover that decision when it comes down next week, likely. >>> how is traffic to, sal? >> southbound 880 near 16th, there was a crash nest lane. now they've moved it and you can see some real improvement on 880 heading south. >>> let's go to steve. a lot of low clouds and dash. >> a lot of low clouds and -- a lot of low clouds and -- >>> a lot of low clouds and the low cloud deck is back. it came back yesterday but it was still very slowly. one last look at the temperatures on saturday because th

the other liberal justices, breyer, ginsberg, kagan, sotomayor.g is outside the supreme court. john, you've actually been going through this document, reading the decision. >> it's a fascinating decision. if you read it, wolf, there are always questions, people say can you find in the constitution the heritage, can you connect the dots back to the founding fathers for any decision issued by the supreme court. that's what the chief justice tried to do in his decision. one of the key arguments is can you penalize somebody, tax somebody, make them go out and tell them you must buy insurance even if they don't want to do it. here's what the chief justice says in the decision. the court holds that our constitution protects us from federal regulation under the commerce clause, so long as we abstain from the regulated activity, meaning insurance is regulated. if you don't buy it, under the commerce clause, the government can't force you, or penalize you. then he goes on to say, but from its creation, the constitution has made no such promise with respect

democrats say the same thing about justice breyer and sotomayor. what about it in our system that scalia is automatic, roberts is automatic, kennedy is a swing vote. >> in a sense that people are calling this a victory for the obama administration, it is really a victory for the rule of law and what our system is all about. congressmen say this is an automatic lock, the chief was a republican appointee, and similar people say that about the democrats. i think what today's decision demonstrates is these justices think impartially, they do indeed cross lines. it's a real resounding victory for the rule of law in america. >> the language of our politics, jeff, we have liberal and conservative. we apply them often to the court. you could say this is a victory for liberals. but chief justice roberts argues what used to be anyway the conservative view, is if congress passes the law, they are elected by the people. the court is not supposed to get involved. the court at all costs tries not to mess with that. >> there has been a reversal in sorts for years

stephen breyer... ruth bader ginnburg... kagan.../. the... udges... vvting... in dissent.....anthony kknnedy... samuel alito. . antonin scalia... and... clarence thomas. the... house.... controlled... by republicann.../ scheduled... a vooe... to árepealá... the... health ccre.. law..../ the... house ...will votee.. july 11th.../...but... theemove... will almost... certainly end.. there.../ since... democrats control the senate. the... decision... seemm to fuel... battle--lines.../. now... maryland lawwakers... are... lookiig at ... what... phis... means... in tte coming monnhs. (dutcc) "ttis is the law, its forward" (harrii) "in two weees were gonna come back aad file a bill to repeallbill in its enni" opposing sides... are... aa odd's... over... how... ...from small busineeses ... to... the... presidential election. the... rulingg.. came ...as a disappoinnment ... to... conservatives ... who... protested... "obaaacare"... all... along.../ melinda... roeder... tells us whyy.. "americans for prosperity."says... the law... áwillá be repealed pepealed :32 "it'' disappointing. we

former obamaç administration solicitor general elen tha kaga against the president as did justice breyerho won and who lost? joining me now is the host of nbc's now alex wagner, richard wo wolffe, the author of "renegade -- making of a president." julian, the ruling was striking today ways, obviously using the power to tax to sustain the mandate. but yes, justice scalia's broccoli example is accepted by the chief justices and a majority of the court as knocking out the individual mandate under the commerce clause. it seems that this opinion is trying to write a very strict limitation on any future expansions of the commerce clause. >> that is the conventional wisdom as people read it. but as you and i and so many people got wrong the arizona immigration ruling, they're drawing the distinction between activity and inactivity. if you didn't want to buy health insurance, the federal( this is no different than the tax incentives we have throughout the tax code. he kind of said this was a no-brainer. the idea that this came out of left field, i think roberts in his majority opinion kind of de

you never hear the claim that justice ginsberg or breyer should have sided with the constitutional conservatives on the court to strike this down and that would protect the integrity as well. it is always to support big government and claims that the constitution doesn't limit power at all. again, look, the reason the court is independent that we don't have elections for the justices, that they serve life tenure or during good behavior are is so they can have the fortitude to withstand such political pressure. they didn't do their job here. that is quite clear and we need to fix that. >> he he thought could lead to basically a tyranny over the people and lots of conservativessed to in looking that the decision how peculiar the reasoning was on the commerce clause so strong and then coming around to rescue this statute, people are talking again about what judge talks about limiting the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. could that argument be seriously considered again? >> there is problems in terms of limiting the supreme court jurisdiction because then you might leave it to a bunch of liber