&pwoold klaymannhave challenged roberts and kagan -- if laa was struck down?ddits riif -//- asking... for kagan ...tooáreeuseá herself -- / before... the justices... ever... pook up.. the health care case. the justice department says it will ánotá prosecute u-s attorney general eric holder... ...one day afttr holder was congress.in a letter to house speaker john boehnerr..the justice department says it will not take the ass to federal grand uryy.....or take any other action against him......beccuse - theyysay his withholding oo he "and you heard me make a crime.- terry... i shall not rest ms until evvrybody involved in that... i ssall not rest until all of that is addressed." addressed."that was representative elijjah oversight committee hearing a little more thaa a year ago... ...saying he would fully investigate the fast and furious program......that &poo border patrol agent brian terry in 2010.he seems to be ...because afterrholder was held in contempt... he rrleased this statement... saying... "this issa sad day for our democrrcy. today's contempt vote agg

you can go back to, go back to justice kagan. don't forget her question. >> i've forgotten my question. [laughter] >> i -- i was facing the same dilemma, justice kagan. >> let me -- let me ask a question i asked mr. clement. it just seems junior justice? [laughter] >> it just seems very strange to me that there's no question we can have a social security system besides all the people who say -- i'm being forced to pay for something i don't want. and this it seems to me, to try to get care for the ones who need it by having everyone in the pool, but is also trying to preserve a role for the private sector, for the private insurers. there's something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, oh, yes, that's fine, but if the government wants to get -- to preserve private insurers, it can't do that. >> well i don't think the test whether it more adheres to the libertarian principles of the cato institute or the statist principles of someone else. i think the test of a law's constitutionali

justice kagan wrote today's opinion. she said that the court's decision followed really two precedents of the court involving juveniles and sentencing. the first one... the first one was actually in 2005. that's when the court ruled that juveniles under the age of 18 could not be sentenced to the... to death. the second one was just one term ago. in that case the court held that juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes could not be sentenced to life in prison without parole. so this is the next step, she said. and that involves juveniles who commit murders/homicides. >> woodruff: this is a 5-4 decision. what's the essence of the majority. >> justice kagan explains that two prior decisions were really based on the fact, very essential, basically that youth matters when it comes to sentencing. those prior decisions pointed out the juveniles are less culpable, less responsible for their actions. they're immature compared to adults. judges need to consider those factors when they are being sentenced. also the context of t

one justice recused her elena kagan. >> reporter: in a 5-3 decision the supreme court said arizona does have the constitutional right to implement its own immigration through allows police to check people's immigration status during routine stops. the justs say for now pending further legal challenges. >> we will be challenging those actions in court. >> reporter: three other sections of the law were struck didn't. arizona's governor brewer signed the controversial law two years ago the justice department quickly filed suit claiming there could only be one immigration code. governor brewer said the federal government was not providing enough support and the obama administration was focused on politics. >> the claims to the latino -- they are playing to the latino community and trying to use that scare card for elections. >> reporter: hundreds of protesters gathered outside opponents says the law amounts to racial profiling with >> we need comprehensive immigration reform in this country not laws that treats the thousands and millions of latinos as suspects. >> reporter: the justices see

role of absurdities here let's we'll charge of the crime it won't let us take it only brought out kagan recused herself she did the right things on all the behavioral code of ethics what about on this obamacare case we're going to be tomorrow morning kagan that wasn't involved in obamacare. she was she to not let it get that as solicitor she did litigate the providers that i used to provide advice the administration that's not the minimal this is this is. ok if she did than take her out to i'm saying that apply the judicial code of conduct to these judges what's wrong with that mark this is to me no he should not be impeached i don't believe that and skule should be impeached what's happened though is it's become so political from bush v gore to citizens united to what we're going to see tomorrow the supreme court people forget once justice scalia was confirmed it was almost unanimous i think it was unanimous and maybe somebody's work i mean it was almost unanimous i don't like for the for the people to know as the kind of people that were going to be put on now and i think you know can

. >> it's important to look at justice kagan for potential i am paetschment .e lied in order to get onto the court. >> denny thomas papered up clarence thomas's study with 0 peel obama wallpaper. senator rand paul had this to say: just because a couple of people on the supreme court declare something to be constitutional does not make it so. >> that's brilliant, rand. yes, a couple of people on the court would not make it couldstitutional. however, and i only went to public school here five people on the court tends to do the trick. joining us now for more on the supreme court decision we are delighted to welcome congresswoman lynn wooley from the great state of california. good evening. >> thanks for having me. >>light delightful to have you here bain or and cantor say they are going to work on repealing this as soon as the house is back in session. i work in new york. we have a lot of theater here this isn't real theater? this won't create jobs? >> no. they are serious. i mean they are going to let us enjoy the good works of the supreme court for about an hou

one justice recused her elena kagan. >> reporter: in a 5-3 decision the supreme court said arizona does have the constitutional right to implement its own immigration through allows police to check people's immigration status during routine stops. the justs say for now pending further legal challenges. >> we will be challenging those actions in court. >> reporter: three other sections of the law were struck didn't. arizona's governor brewer signed the controversial law two years ago the justice department quickly filed suit claiming there could only be one immigration code. governor brewer said the federal government was not providing enough support and the obama administration was focused on politics. >> the claims to the latino -- they are playing to the latino community and trying to use that scare card for elections. >> reporter: hundreds of protesters gathered outside opponents says the law amounts to racial profiling with >> we need comprehensive immigration reform in this country not laws that treats the thousands and millions of latinos as suspects. >> reporter: the justices see

he responded by calling for the impeachment of, catch this, of justice elena kagan.u know? >> we still have the issue of justice kagan as i've been raising for months now, either she was totally negligent in her duties as solicitor general and had absolutely nothing to do with the most important bill to this president, her boss,ç or e did have something to do with it. she has violated law and as such, she needs to be removed from the supreme court. i think it's important to look at justice kagan for potential impeachment. >> you know, i don't know what the say. back to joan on this. you know, it seems to me that did you all watch gene schmidt and her physicalreaction? she was listening to fox and got the story wrong. she was seized with kind of a seizure of excitement that the bill had been declared unconstitutional. it was physical. these people's reaction. what do you make of it? is it that important to them? the president be destroy ed? >> well, that's exactly what it is. it's that important to them and they've been saying this all along. it was going to be this

and justice kagan says i have forgotten my question. she sees what it means to be the junior justice. the term has been very taxing. some have called it the term of the century. perhaps that explains why the funniest justice called council's argument extraordinary no fewer than 10 times. some of us think that justice scalia's extraordinary is perhaps becoming rather ordinary. [laughter] there was the decline offset by a decision issued in cases decided without full briefing or any oral argument. summary dispositions already no. 10, more than twice the number issued at this time last year. too many? i will leave that for you to judge. opinions have been released to date in 58 of 80 argued cases. one petition was dismissed post argument as improbably made. 21 cases remain to be announced before the judges scatter for the summer. the court the5-4 or 5-3 with one justice recused in nine of the 58 cases so far handed down. in comparison to that, 16% sharp disagreement record, we agree unanimously on the bottom line judgment in 26 or 42% of t

they operated advisory rather than mandatory. >> justice kagan, our point as well. there's two aspects of the remedial holding of poker. the first part was very much supports their point is for the majority rejects the approach of the defense, which would've required nothing in the statute to have been to construct a single word. but nonetheless come a discourse that if you do that, but all sentencing is basically going to be done by a combination of the cherries and the prosecutors and the judges will be cut out in the course of the one thing we notice that's not the manner in which congress thought they should operate. later they make a different judgment about which particular provisions to cut out. but it certainly consistent with what we rely on because they're the court only reached that part of the opinion after they aired he found a higher provision operated functionally independent from legislative. >> mr. clement, there's so many things in the act that are questionably okay better reauthorizing what is the indian health care improvement that, the black lun

and then justice kagan reads her opinion. justice alito read his -- and then justice alito said that justice kennedy has the decision in arizona versus the united states. and then justice scalaa read his dissent. and then we're all waiting s there another opinion? the chief justice says, no, we will return on thursday for all the remaining cases of the year. and then we all file out. it's opinion by opinion, which makes it even more excruciating, not only do we know right at 10:00, we don't know until the chief justice says so, which opinions are going to come out today. >> it's a lesson in the judicial branch of our democracy. you call it e cruciating--i want to bring in our chief white house correspondent jessica yellin. when waiting for the health care rule k, waiting for the health care ruling, not only to see the decisions, but waiting for the fallout in what of course is a presidential election year. you see what is for the most part a victory for the administration, but the show me your papers, the arizona provision le

bush appointedee joined the liberal wing kagan, sottomayor. so what's it all mean mr. president?> if you are one of the more than 250 million americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. they can no longer discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions. they can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. they can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. they are required to provide free preventative care like check-ups and mammograms. there is more: because of the affordable care act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parents' healthcare plans. >> really? is that all you got? >> if you are one of the 30 million americans who don't yet have health insurances starting in 2014, this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable private health insurance plans to choose from. insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminalte against any american with a pre-existing health condition. they won't be

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

eleea kagan.../. the... judges... voting... in dissenn..../ anthony kennedy... samuel alito. . antonin scalia... and... ccarence pere's... our question of the dayy 3 do youuagree with the supreme court's ruling on the health care laa? go to fox- baltimore dot com .../ tell us what you think./. soond off thrr facebook../. send us a tweet./ or text your answer to 45-- 203../ enter fox45a for yes../ fox45b for in today's ruling... the majority of 3 &p conservatives... are clearly... -pd with... he nntion's highest court.../. but... many... vow... to conttnue... their fight.../. melinda roeder ... here... those groups --/ americans for prosperity is a group born out of fruutration pnd hope.stemmmng back to 2009 - hen taxpayers whh opposed the so-called "obamacare" - began protesting at congressional town hall meetings in maryland - and across the nation. they said they didn't want the government o come between them and their doctors. they increases. ironicalll, they say - the supreme court oday p cemented those fears.... essennially marrying thee issues of socialized medicine and t

during he march oral arguments, justice elena kagan responded to assertions that the manddte represents an unconstitutionnl over-reach by regulate commerce.kagan ssys: "theeaggregate of all these uninsured people are increasing the normal family premium, conggess says, by a phousand dollars a year. those people areein commercc." theeman many view assthe swing vote - justice anthony kennedy - appeared to grapple with the lonngterm impllcations.kennedy says: "here the government is paying that the federal gooernment has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases. and that changes the relationship of the federal governneet to the individual in theevery fundamental way." in our new poll, 55 percenttsaid ttey believe part or alllof the law should be struck down by the court - while 30 perceet say it should all of it be upheld. but if the mmndate goes - the court will have the task of figuring out which parts dd survive. ustice ruth bader ginsburg said a precise salvage ob would be the more cooservative way to go - versus

here's the way the supreme court voted to uphold the law the pwhrl wing of ginsburg, kagan, and -- boehner and mcconnell say they will begin to appeal the bill later this year. nancy pelosi says should rejoice at the outcome. >>> amy hollyfield is downtown san francisco now with reaction from people talking about today's ruling. >> reporter: they covered a lot of ground in the city today it was tough to find anyone in liberal san francisco who is against this morning's ruling. from the financial district to the ucsf medical campus san francisco seems pleased about the supreme court's ruling. >> phenomenal, i'm thrilled that's what we were hoping for. >> reporter: this doctor says she is sick of basing her medical decisions on people's coverage. >> sometimes when people don't have insurance that covers them enough it is sad when there's things that you can't do because of that >> reporter: in the doctor's office, there are those who are excited about the ballot box. >> a definite win for democrats. pleased. >> reporter: in the financial district we did find one man concerned about how this

the justice elena kagan did not take part of the immigration case because of her former job as solicitor general should help the obama administration craft the legal arguments. in other rulings today of 54 decision said its unconstitutional to sentencing juvenile murder to life in prison without parole. in another vote the court stripped of a lot montana the limited political spending by corporations and affect the ruling reaffirms the citizens united decision from 2010 a decision on health care reform is expected on thursday. a redwood city police investigating too early morning car fires in the same neighborhood within minutes of each other. on what police are saying about the fires. >>> redwood city police think this morning suspicious car fires could be the work of an arsonist. looking into all leads. the second fire broke out a few minutes later 15 ft. away. credible, but sought out the window and suddenly i saw the car was in flames. only guy said a was word about the car. >>> on card car on the street the other the carport and no major damage reported on the heels of another car f

kagan and breyer. they hammered the government on its expansive notions about this commerce clause and all we heard from nancy pelosi and everybody else about how this had lots of precedent. this has been been done many times, it would be unprecedented for the court to strike down. liberals, including kagan who worked for president obama. >> laura: 5-4 on the commerce issue. >> the language in the majority opinion, which she joined, was scathing for him. i mean they went on and said congress has never tried to go this far before. the commerce clause is not a general license to regulate any individual from cradle to grave. that -- there has been some limitation on the congress' power under that clause. >> i would say it's limited the congress clause but exploded the -- what it means to tax. that's great. but creates other problem. can we get to holder? i'm dying to know what you think about. this the holder vote went forward criminal and civil contempt. what next here. >> so now they are going to go bef

justice kagan takes great care not to step on the comments of her colleagues. at one time, she tried to enter the fray, only to be silenced by louder voices at last, a justice briar instructed them to go back to justice kagan. she smiled and said that, i have forgotten my question. the term has been more than usually taxing. some have called it the term of the century. perhaps that explains why the funniest justice called the argument "extraordinary" no fewer than 10 times. some of us believe that justice scalia's extraordinary is perhaps becoming ordinary. the argued cases this term numbered 80. that is a decrease of six from last term. but the decline was offset by the decisions issued in cases decided without full briefing or any oral argument. summary disposition of that kind already numbered 10, more than twice the number at this time last year. too many? i leave that for you to judge. to date, opinions have been released in 58 of the 80 argued cases. one petition was dismissed as improvident granted. 21 cases remain to be announced before the judges scatt

(laughter) it was a 5-3 decision with elena kagan recusing herself and sonia sotomayor allowed to votey after she showed her papers. (laughter) nation, nation, this decision is a disaster partly because it throws open our country's borders but mostly because mitt romney now has to express an opinion that might upset his pick voters. of course, it's great for obama, he's been pandering to latinos all year. what with last week offering to let young illegals stay and, of course, his shameful entrance at the state of the union. >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states! (playing "mexican hat dance") (laughter) clearly mitt romney had to get on top of this issue. so last night he told a room of 200 donors in arizona "i would have preferred to see the supreme court give more latitude to the states, not less, there are states now under this decision that have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws. and states have to be able to enforce their own immigration laws. as justice scalia said yesterday in a fiery dissent "in the first 100 years of the republic the states

elena kagan.../. the... judges... votiig... in dissent..../ anthony kennedy... saauel alito. &p . antonin scalia... and.... clarence thomas. response ... prom... capitol hill... was quick.../, kathleen cairns... spent the day... in d.c..../ where ... she... poke ith members... of... maryllnn's del. delegation. at the us cap in wash dc a busyyday of debaae over otter issues seemed overshadowed by the sup cts decision involving health care. -standup--harris- opinions.-harris--dutch-so f - whats next???-dutch--harris- the debate now moves back to the olitical arena. in wash edition. 45 news late - &p conservative groups ... react... to... the ruling..../ and... vow... to fight... to epeal...//. group... stemming... back to 2009. // many... members... attended ccngressional... town hall meetings... to protest .../ they... also fight... against tax increaaes... in... several states..../ ironically,... the supreme court... ruled... congress ...could impose ...mandatory health coverage power... tt átaxá the publicc < "the court of public opinion and large, hate ttis thing. don't like whe

but absent that, you are in this market and you are an economic actor. >> justice kagan, once again it depends which market we are talking about. if we are talking about the health care insurance market -- >> we are talking about the health insurance market designed to access the healthcare market. >> the health insurance market designed to have payment market everybody's not in the market and that's the premise of the statute and the problem the congress is trying to solve through incentives we wouldn't be here what it's trying to solve it in a way no one's ever tried to solve an economic problem before to say it would be so much more efficient if you were just in this market -- >> in the sense that they are creating a risk the market must attempt for. >> i don't think that is right certainly in any way that distinguishes this for many of the context. when i'm in my house deciding i'm not going to buy a car and causing the labour market in detroit to go down south to avoid causing somebody to lose their job and for everybody to have to pay for it under welfare so the cost shifting tha

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

here's the way the supreme court voted to uphold the law the pwhrl wing of ginsburg, kagan, and -- boehner and mcconnell say they will begin to appeal the bill later this year. nancy pelosi says should rejoice at the outcome. >>> amy hollyfield is downtown san francisco now with reaction from people talking about today's ruling. >> reporter: they covered a lot of ground in the city today it was tough to find anyone in liberal san francisco who is against this morning's ruling. from the financial district to the ucsf medical campus san francisco seems pleased about the supreme court's ruling. >> phenomenal, i'm thrilled that's what we were hoping for. >> reporter: this doctor says she is sick of basing her medical decisions on people's coverage. >> sometimes when people don't have insurance that covers them enough it is sad when there's things that you can't do because of that >> reporter: in the doctor's office, there are those who are excited about the ballot box. >> a definite win for democrats. pleased. >> reporter: in the financial district we did find one man concerned about how this

. >> that 8-0 vote was because elena kagan recused herself on the case. mitt romney was in arizona for a fundraiser yesterday, issued a brief statement about the court's ruling. he said nothing about whether or not he agreed. writing only that president obama had failed to provide leadership. a traveling spokesman nick gosha was reportedly asked for more clarity on the position. >> . >> this debate is spun from the president failing to address this issue. so each state is left and has the power to draft and to enact immigration laws. >> we've governor again each state has the right within the constitution to craft their own immigration laws. >> later on last night romney told a room of about 200 supporters, i would have preferred to see the supreme court give more latitude to the states, not less. and there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws. you remember in february during the republican primary, romney offered support for parts of arizona law, specifically the one that requires companies to

. >> justice kagan did not take part in the case because in her former job as solicitor general, she helped the obama administration craft its legal arguments. >>> the supreme court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the president's health care legislation. republicans say that the law drives up health care costs and make it is harder for spall businesses to -- small businesses to hire workers. democrats say the law gives health coverage to millions of uninsured americans. republican lawmakers promised to vote to repeal any part of the health care bill that the supreme court leaves standing. >>> meanwhile lawmakers have less than a week to renew low student loan rates. the current low rate of 3.4% will double if lawmakers do not take action by july 1. experts say this could be a major issue in the presidential race. >> both parties agree that they don't want to see the increase in loan rates, particularly right before an election season where students are going to be up for grabs for both parties. >> figures show a third of all college students use federal loans to help

>> i don't think that's a fair characterization on the actions of congress, justice kagan. on september 23rd with respect to the law the sponsor center bachus defended as an exercise of the taxing power and the responsive point of order the senate voted 60 to 39 on that proposition. the legislative history is replete with members of congress explaining that its constitutional as an exercise of power by its opponent, so i don't think it is a situation where you can say that congress was avoiding any mention of the tax priority. one thing the congress explicitly disavowed and exercised it seems to me that it's not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this court has an obligation construed as an exercise if it can be upheld. >> why didn't the conference call that a tax? >> the thought of it as the tax and defended it on the tax power. why didn't they say it was? >> they might have thought calling it a penalty as they did would make it more effective in accomplishing its objectives but it is in the internal revenue code and is why the irs. >> that's

even justice sotomayor and justice kagan voted against them and john roberts who is developing a reputatione succinctness said in his opinion he found the obama administration's position remarkable, that there would be no special protection for religion in the first amendment since religion is mentioned twice. now the hhs mandate is another example of the ugly face of secularism. they want to take us from the broad uplands of religious freedom to down to a valley of freedom of worship where they will tolerate our expressing our religious faith within the narrow confines of our church and our home or as was pointed out to just ourselves, if we just want to minister to ourselves and talk among ourselves and they'll let us do that. that's kind of them. religious freedom involves the ability to be obedient to go out into the byways and to be like and to share the gospel and to share the love of our lord and savior jesus christ and that's what's protected in the first amendment. [ applause ] >> make no mistake about it. make no mistake about it. the hhs mandate is about religious freedom and not