the vote was 5-4 with chief justice john g. roberts joining for more liberal members. he wrote the affordable care acts requirement. that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. because the constitution perms such a tax, it is not our roll to permit it or pass upon the wisdom. that chief justice john roberts and the decision handed town today. the court did limit a major piece of the that expanded medicaid. to tell us what it means, we spoke earlier today with neal. he argued all of the health care law challenges in the lower circuit courts including the 11th circuit court of appeals case decided in the supreme court today. he was in the court when the decision came down and discussed his reaction, analysis of chief justice roberts's opinion and the court's decision in the medicaid portion of the oral argument. heres. >> the former acting general and in that role argued all of the health care cases including the health care case before the supreme court. he joins us now by phone. neal katy

g. proud sponsor of the olympic games. >>> one of the biggest mysteries in washington is why chief justice john roberts joined the supremeourt's liberal wing in upholding president obama's healthcare law. almost everyone considered him a vote against the law. perhaps roberts decision shouldn't have been such a surprise. >> reporter: conservatives are still shaking their heads. >> i am disappointed. they came to' decision i respect it. >> reporter: how could one of their own uphold the constitutionality of the democratic president's health care plan. in many ways, it was still a conservative decision. >> this was a conservative judicial philosophy that says the role of the courts is to be the last resort, not the first. we only strike something down when it is a big piece of economic regulation if we absolutely have to. that's still quite conservative. >> this type of thinking shouldn't be a surprise coming from roberts. you need look no further than his confirmation hearings for the evidence. >> judges and judges are servants of the law, not the other way around. judges are like umpires. umpires don't make the rules. the