. >> david rivkin.at we've seen today, led by chief justice roberts, is it a form of judicial activism do you think? >> it is a form of judicial activism. i think all three of us agree that chief roberts wrote the statute to save it. but, again, the statute upheld was not the statute that congress passed. but i'm more optimistic. for a simple reason. there are limited principles associated with the tax power. from now on, no politician who enacts or tries to enact a mandate accompanied by this kind of a penalty will be able to maintain as president obama. speaker pelosi and harry reid. that this is not a tax. all they paid a high political price. for fr now on, that would be associated with the tax provisions. they have to originate in the house and i'm not convinced that that would not be a future case where this kind of tax would be struck as a direct tax if not a portion. the court majority kind of brushes by this but this is, by no means, resolved. >> okay. now i have to leave it. thank you very muc

. >> david rivkin. is what we've seen today, led by chief justice roberts, is it a form of judicial activism do you think? hard-earned money. now meet jack. after 40 years, he finally saved enough to enjoy retirement. angie, the waitress at jack's favorite diner, is also enjoying his retirement. with just a little information, she's opened up a credit line, draining the equity in jack's home. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft, and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. see, ordinary credit monitoring services tell you after your identity has been stolen. they may take up to 60 days to alert you-- too late for jack. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified in time to help stop it. if jack had lifelock's 24/7 proactive protection, he could have been alerted by phone or e-mail a

. >> david rivkin. is what we've seen today, led by chief justice roberts, is it a form of judicial activism do you think? >> it is a form of judicial activism. again, the statute upheld wallace not the statute that congress passed. but i'm more optimistic. for a simple reason. there are limited principles associated with the tax power. from now on, no politician who enacts or tries to enact a mandate accompanied by this kind of a penalty will be able to maintain as president obama. speaker pelosi and harry reid. that this is not a tax. unless people experience amnesia. they would laugh. tremendous political cost associated with word "tax." why do you think the obama administration did not pass it as the tax? which they could have done. they could have written a true tax. because they pay a high political price. so from now on that political price will be paid. second of all, there are limiting principles associated with the tax provisions. i'm not convinced that there would not be a future case with th

i just had david rivkin in here, one of the folks who led the lawsuit.ly were involved in it, too. you talked about there were good andç bad victories and defeats here but given the fact that the expectation going into yesterday's decision, rightly or wrongly, the conventional wisdom seemed to be it was very likely the mandate would fall, the whole bill might fall. are you disappointed today with the outcome and does it impact what you do going forward? >> you know, keep in mind when we filed the lawsuit, we were told it was frivolous, we were told sanctions should be given to the state attorneys general, and we won 7-2 on the case that we took the most grief, that being the medicaid expansion argument. so there's significant language on state sovereignty in that opinion that we very much appreciate. yesterday from my perspective was a pyrrhic victory for the president. we need to not only repeal and replace obama care, we need to replace president obama and i think this has engaged and energized both republicans and independents with the need for a new

mig david rivkin and john flankery rejoin me now. the letter to issa wrote to mr. you have consistently told us that inappropriate tack tackis used in fast & furious were not authorized by department leadership. he says we now know that statement is false. each and every wire tap application included a memo from lanny brewer and he says the close involvement of these officials much greater than previously known is shocking. john, does lanny brewer get fired as a result of this? >> i don't know. the question is, did lanny brewer sign off on subordinates assuring him of something without him knowing about it. i think it's a very different question if he knew in detail what was going on. find it difficult to believe that anybody can review the sufficiency of a wire tap application based on a summary, since the summary may distort what's said in the application and may exceed it or understate it in a way that's critical. megyn: how do you get to the bottom of that, john? how do you get to the bottom of what lanny brewer really knew? because they hedge when they go befo

constitutional case against it that was developed by people like law professor randy barnet and lawyer david rivkint the fact is that, you know, the constitution provides limited powers to the congress to regulate interstate foreign commerce. and there's some pretty serious arguments against it. it was clear that at least five of the supreme court judges, justices, a majority, took those arguments very seriously. whether or not that, you know, five of them or more will vote to overturn all or part of the law, we don't know yet. but, obviously, there's a serious chance, and jeff toobin, another commentator came out of that supreme court case hearing saying, wow, this is totally different than what i thought. he wasn't paying enough attention to the arguments rallying against the constitutionality of this law. jon: we'll see what the supreme court ruling is. could come maybe as soon as next week. michael, thank you. >> thank you. jenna: big news just breaking this morning, the president is set to speak about his administration's ground breaking announcement on a new immigration policy. the homeland s