the rule of law is not a one-way traffic. law, which only the government have to obey. the government have to obey it too. indeed, by chapter 60 of the original charter, the customs and liberties which the king had granted to our men, which meant my men, the barents, had also to observe their men. -- the barons. they cascaded down through the feudal ranks. these ideas, the essentials of modern constitutionalism can all be found in the original magna carta of 1215. the idea that fundamental life can only be taken away or interfered with by due process and in accordance with the law. although when i get to the end of my lecture, you will see the debate whether "and" means "and" or "and" means "all." the idea that consent rests upon the governed and that the government is bound by the law. no wonder lawyers get so excited by it. all three ideas begs the question of where the law comes from and who makes it. but i will come back to. historians, at least in my country, tend not to be so excited about the, but the 15th of june of 1215. -- about the magna carta. they do it was

that's because of this law.u are a senior or american with a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions. something that has saved 9 million americans an average of $1,600 so far. if you are a woman, you can't be charged more than anybody else. even if you have had cancer or your husband had heart disease or just because you are a woman. your insurer has to offer free preventative services like annuals or mammograms. because of this law, and because of today's decision millions of americans, who i hear from every single day will continue to receive the tax credits that have given about eight in ten people who buy insurance on the new marketplaces the choice of a healthcare plan that costs less than $100 month. and when it comes to preexisting conditions some day our grandkids will ask us if there was really a time when america discriminated against people who get sick because that is something that this law has ended for good. in that effects everybody with health insurance, not just folks who

what is the law generally? must it be a drug law or could it be any law? >> you should give it up ms. harrington. >> let me try one more time. we think it would be consistent with the way this court has treated other men's rae issues such as, you know willful standard. >> i don't think the problem is with your articulation. i think the problem is we're sitting here thinking of examples like, you know there's an anti-bird hunting statute and says you cannot hunt green-i had turkeys and the guy has never heard of that and you say, okay, i don't know if this is a green-i had turkey and gone yon if it violates the green-i had turkey statute but maybe it violates something. that sounds like an odd principle even if you limit it to all laws concerning birds. do you see the problem? am i suddenly worried the government is going to start skull king around in the bushes. >> i think that has not turned out to be a real world problem. i certainly understand the court's concern i do think in the willful context that that has the court -- brian said that's sufficient i

it means that the affordable care act is not just the law of the land it will remain the law of the land moons that the millions of people who have been receiving subsidies that make all the difference in terms of whether health insurance is affordable. people will continue to receive the subsidies, and will continue to have health insurance. >> if the court had known the other way, 6.4 million people in 34 states who buy their insurance through the federal web site would have lost their tax credits, their subsidies, making health insurance unaffordable. at issue before the court, four words in the affordable care act that reads - tax credits are available for those that enroll in health care through: chief justice john roberts writing for the majority said the words must be taken in context: roberts said: lip looup justice scol era announced his dissent. saying: the group behind the challenge wasn't disappointed. >> today's ruling was a tragedy for the rule of law. the supreme court twisted and summer assaulted on rules of statutory interpretation. this is the second time in three years

this law takes the cake.his was a law that they tried to get out while they still had a democratly controlled congress. but there has been a lot of talk about the so-called death spiral, what would have happened if the court ruled in favor of king. there is a little bit of misnomer. this would have jacked up insurance for people in many states many people would have been kicked out of the marketplace, and it is sort of the linchpin of the affordable care act but there are some other big portions of this law that would have stayed in place. the inability to discriminate against those who have a different gender. women have had higher insurance premiums. people that had a preexisting condition like diabetes would have paid more. but as we look forward clearly -- this is still a political hot potato but when you look at the rollout, and 16 million who have gotten insurance in the wake of this i think it's important to put it in historical context. in 1965 when they rolled out medicaid and medicare you still had

if you don't like the law, rewrite the law, that is the way it works.ed at this saying what was the overall intent of congress and they came in my opinion i said this from the beginning to the ultimate right decision. if you don't like it change the law. >> that could happen under another administration or future congress. >> certainly. the problem is this is a political issue not a legal issue. i am an attorney. when i read this and what is established by the state, it will make no sense because the law wouldn't have been implemented. all laws are not written perfectly. it was clear what the intent was. if you don't like it don't make a political process out of the supreme court court process, change the law. >> it was said the supreme court is taking sides and doing whatever to make sure obamacare leads. >> i love justice scalia but i respectfully don't agree with him on that. we have to respect the rule of reason. what was the congress intending to do here and if we can gleam what congress was intending to do they are allowed to modify or if you will

i don't think they interpreted the law but very dramatically revise the law. if you receive subsidies on exchange established by the state under section 1311 anyone who speaks english knows that's not a reasonable interpretation. the proponents have argued they can't this butte that the language commands the opposite of what it said so they tried to change the subject. they said while they took that language out of context but in reality either of those is true. in fact the context in which those words reside confirms in every way that the language means exactly what it says and following that plain language is the only way will accomplish the broader purpose of the affordable care act. they act. they have argued this is an unusual place to put restriction on subsidy but the reality is this is the only provision in the act that fuels the availability of subsidies and the reality is the only section for example that makes it clear that you need to make a purchase often in exchange in order to receive the subsidies. it's the only logical place in context that ma

what does the law generally must it be a drug law or can it be any law? >> give that up, ms. harrington. >> let me try one more time. it would be consistent with the way the court treated other issues such as willful standard. >> not willful. the problem is not articulation. we are sitting here thinking of examples like the anti bird hunting statute you cannot hunt the green i'd turkeys and the guy's never heard of that and you say ok don't know if this is a green i'd turkey and don't know if it violates the green i'd turkey statute but maybe it violates something. it sounds like an odd principle even if you limit it to all laws concerning birds. you see the problem? skulking around in the bushes. we could go around like this but i'd better not. >> that is a real-world problem and i understand the questions, i am not trying to avoid answering it but the willful context, that has sufficiency if the defendant believes what he's doing is illegal he doesn't have to have a sense what what he is violating, and the higher standard than knowing what is intentional and the court never

law? >> i think that's a wrong way of understanding and i disagree with professor turley. the chief justice's opinion is not based on chicken. it's based on the idea that congress couldn't have possibly intended to pass a law with these crazy consequences. it's a way of understanding what the statute means. so i think the chief justice's opinion is not based on chicken, not based on ideology or trying to make the court look good. it's based on straightforward simple legal principles. the court for the second time in three years upholding president obama's affordable care act. >> jeffrey toobin, you seem to be represented here by neil. i want to give you an opportunity to speak as well. >> i'm fortunate to be so well represented. the notion of what is conservative and what is liberal has kind of changed in recent years. you know, it used to be in the 1950s and 1960s, conservative meant the court defers to the political branches of government. the court says, look, we don't want to get invol

but law enforcement has not given up. they have stayed on the hunt and as the state police told us yesterday there was a high probability that one or more of these individuals had secured a weapon, a shotgun, a rifle, a handgun -- something from one or more of these hunting cabins. so i think every one of these 1100 law enforcement officers realized when they finally see these individuals, if they raise a weapon, knowing that these guys likely might not want to be taken alive. i don't think anyone was going to play games with them. this is a very deadly game of hide and seek. right now we know one of the two has lost. the search continues for the second. >> and thank you clint van zandt. stay with us tonight throughout the rolling coverage. joining me by phone is msnbc reporter adam rece who has been covering this from the start. adam. >> reporter: i can tell you the intense man hunt is probably getting under way right now. i want to tell you according to the sheriff of franklin county he was shot in elephant's head. sout

he decided not to rewrite this law, he decided not to pretend this law wasn't something it wasn't.e decided not to believe a genuinely ridiculous argument. i was really -- reading the brief, the opinion on this was somehow -- it was cathartic. the world became slightly crazy, that there was this pretense that obama care was somehow unclear on this question of whether people got tax credits in nonstate based exchanged states. which had been 100% clear through the debate. we were sort of forced to take this sort of ridiculous idea seriously, and in this decision they did not fwlinch at all, they did not give any quarter to this argument they did not do what they did in the individual mandate decision where they split on medicaid in these weird justification for the mandate, they just said this law is perfectly clear in what it does in how it works, and it's not for us to reinterpret it and it's not for us to pretend that there is another viable interpretation i honestly found that refreshing, it was a refreshingly nonpolitical judgment. you also saw that in the split by the court. >>

it means that the affordable care act is not just the law of the land it will remain the law of the land. it means that the millions of people who have been receiving subsidies that make all the difference in terms of whether health insurance is affordable people will continue to receive those subsidies and they will continue to have health insurance. >> msnbc chief legal correspondent ari melber joins us now from the supreme court. i have a flood of reactions to read to our audience. but first let's start with the basics here which included key words in the law itself that were being challenged. >> reporter: that's right. the challengers said because part of the law referred to state exchanges in a way that suggested that perhaps they shouldn't be funded in a sense that the congress ultimately didn't want to fund health care subsidies in certain parts of the country. that was the argument. that was rejected today. the news out of the supreme court this morning, as you reported, tamron is that the law stands obamacare stands and all of its federal subsidies, regardless of where you live

law school. he is known for his prosecution of white collar crime on wall street. in 2012, he was named by "time" magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. his speech is 20 minutes. [applause] >> dean childry, distinguished faculty, proud parents, family friends, and graduates congratulations to the class of 2015. you have so much to be proud of and so much to be grateful for. congratulations to all of you. i want to congratulate the student speakers and also professor brought who i will tell you on the record stole a lot of my material. i was totally going to make the joke. [laughter] thanks. i learned -- i always learn something when i come to law school, even when i'm not an attendee of the law school. i graduated from columbia law school 22 years ago, and it was new to me that in all that time, it turns out there is still a legal writing requirement. i thought we had gotten rid of that. i was a little bit nervous, i will tell you, when i came here to speak this morning.

creation of a law. we have to have a system although it's under tremendous pressure. the bureaucracies that surround the jury trial or squeezing it in trying to eliminate it as an aspect of our system for their own bureaucratic interests. so the rather formal part of our system in which formalities are respected in the democratic aspect of our system offer hope although those who have studied this process the most are less than optimistic. because the pressures are so great. >> host: professor bernd to have a background as a criminal defense lawyer. would you encourage your clients to plea bargain? >> guest: it depends upon the situation of course. the situation which we find ourselves as one where there are enormous incentives to plea-bargaining. the potential exposure at the high-end of the trial of a conviction after a trial suggests that a plea bargain is often in the self-interest of the client. we have in the united states what's called a trial tax so if you choose to go to trial to exercise your

it is now law.gress will have 30 days to review and take a decision before the president can lift any sanctions given that situation, and that president has signed up for this has to be aired in public. >> it is going to be, you haven't even got a deal yet though. >> that's true, once again the iranian side has said that it is not going to agree to many of the components of the deal. so othe question is either we will sit there until they change their mind or we will change our mind if it requires us changing our mind better to walk away. >> so is you think the president needed to push. >> i think he needed to push. >> more than a push? what is it going to take for the president to live up to what you would like him to do. >> i think this is a gentle push, you have many that would go much further. you saw the letter, pacicly what the bulk of those who signed this letter said is this isn't the agreement we would have liked to have seen, but we are willing to look at it in good faith if it means the c

it will remain the law of the land. it means that the millions of people who have been receiving subsidies that make all the difference in terms of whether health insurance is affordable, people will continue to receive those subsidies and they will continue to have health insurance. >> if the court had gone the other way the 64 million would have lost their tax charges subsidies, making their health insurance unaffordable and unraveling the healthcare law. at issue four words in the affordable care act reading tax credits through an exchange established by the state. chief justice john roberts writing for the majority, said that the words must be taken in context. "congress passed it to help the insurance markets, and not to destroy them and if at all possible, we must interpret the law in a way that's consistent with the former and avoid the latter. roberts said that not having the subsidies could push the state's individual insurance market into a death spiral. scalia gave his dissent from the bench calling it absure

today, as you graduate and you receive this degree and you receive your law degree from this great law school, you have become a guardian for the rule of law. and by doing so, you are a guardian. for our international students you are a guardian for our country. for all of us, we are guardians for our democracy. regardless of the role that you choose in the law, every lawyer has the ability to speak truth to power. that means standing up for what you believe is right, no matter how difficult it is. you have the ability to do so and the talent to do so with your law degree. that means standing up for the weak or disaffected or those who do not have a voice. to understand that when we defend the most unpopular among us, you do a great service to our justice system. it means telling clients not what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. that is what a good lawyer does. i will tell you it means admitting what you don't know. because often there is so much we don't know and we need to know if we are going to do a good job. in our legal profession. and finally, it always means apply

the law is broken.ing costs for american families it's raising costs for small businesses and it's just fundamentally broken. and we're going to continue our efforts to do everything we can to put the american people back in charge of their own health care or not, the federal government. >> congressman from indiana basically saying the same thing. he said people in indiana, they're complaining to him about the rising cost of health insurance. >> you know this is a case of sour grapes and a case where republicans are entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts. the facts are that health care insurance rates are increasing at their slowest rate in 50 years. we have 16 million people who had health insurance coverage that didn't have it before and if you go with the republican plan you have young adults millions of them who would lose their insurance coverage this they can stay on their parents' plan until they're 26. on average, seniors now save about $1,600 because the aca closes the donut hole in

. >> it is clear it is a law that two states that the state could say we won't fly this states's law is. >> even though it is the same as ours? mike new york, i happen to know there's a law that a federal judge from washington couldn't marry someone if you are married to your own wife but you can't marry two other people that the district of columbia has the opposite law. if i marry two people in washington d.c. and they move to new york u.s. a new york doesn't have to recognize that marriage because it doesn't comport with the marriage of new york. >> what case is that? a few people get nervous about this. [laughter] >> my answer is based on the court's decision in nevada vs. hall because the state's home law sets its own policy and the state's law would be in conflict with the state's policy but the policy would be we distrust federal judges from outside the state. even that they would get away with in your view. because i am next going to ask what is the difference between that kind of policy and the policy that says we don't recognize the gay couples's marriage for the reason tha

we are left with a law that is the law of the land.here is no question but was law o not drafted and didn't go through some of the editing and t go thr revisions that would have been typical for a piece of legislation that's this complex.of leg that leads to the kinds of challenges we're seeing. >> steve is in our line for artins democrats good morning. >> caller: good morning.ev i'm juste trying to figure out the law. it's my belief that the federal government cannot coerce states to do something. especially financially.do do this or we won't give you the funding. not giv if they interrupt the healthcare subsidies provisions the way the republicans would like it it it see seems toms me that would mean the law says make your own exchange or we won't give you the money. and that's straight up coercion. your opinion? how can they take it away for states that don't have an how exchange and leave it?it away it seems like it puts you in a legal quandary where if they change it, you know to what the republicans interrupt it as they're making

leaving the law where you found it, and we presume that congress knows the law, especially when the law is that clear in uniform, means there will be disparate impact actions except in these three circumstances which we are going to lay out for you very clearly. >> justice kagan, in 1988, the state of the law was in flux. the solicitor general filed a brief in this court saying the fair housing act only prohibited acts of discrimination. two months before, this court decided and emphasized that the phrase "adversely affect" was the language that gave rise to the impact liability. if congress was assumed to have known that the presidents was in place -- >> how do you interpret "adversely affect? " they have to write it, "otherwise adversely affect someone by making housing unavailable? " it is a little crazy, don't you think? otherwise, adversely affecting someone by making it unavailable? there is a shortened form of that. >> otherwise limit housing opportunities in a way that would adversely affect -- congress couldn't use the same language that appeared in title vii. >> instead what i

that's because of this law.enior or an american with a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions, something that has saved 9 million americans an average of $1600 so far. if you are a woman, you can't be charged more than anybody else, even if you have had cancer or your husband had heart disease or just because you are a woman. your insurer has to offer preventative services like mammograms. they can't place annual or lifetime caps on your care because of this law. because of this law and because of today's decision millions of americans that i hear from every single day will continue to receive the tax credits that have given 8 in 10 people who buy insurance on the new marketplaces the choice of a health care plan that costs less than $100 a month. when it comes to pre-existing conditions, someday our grandkids will ask us if there was really a time when america discriminated against people who get sick because that is something this law has ended for good. that affects everybody with heal

law.ears after the civil war, the nation stitches itself back together and chaos rules the indian territory. the most dangerous place in the wild west. but deputy u.s. marshal bass reeves fights for the rule of law. >> what's it going to be? >> come on here, boy. >> the lone ranger symbolizes the pra tag mist of the western region but people don't know who he is. the lone ranger closely resembl resembl resembles bass reeves. >> bass reeves' name and face has been overlooked and obscured by history. >> bass reeves, a new deputy? >> yes, sir. >> bass reeves is one of only a few dozen deputy marshals who serve the federal court and jail in ft. smith, arkansas, a place that more than earns the name hell on the border. these men are charged with keeping the peace in the new home of the so-called five civilized tribes forced out of the southeastern states. >> the indian removal act took place a lot of the tribes were moved to oklahoma. indian territory is what it was called at the time. it was a

all these laws?any that no one understands so ma so many that even the government admits it can't count them all? n let's let's get rid of some of these laws. tha that's ourit's tomorrow. >> foxandfriend.com for the after-the-show show. bye. >>> the desperate hunt for terrorists is on. not over there. here. just this week alone, five isis-inspired terror suspects arrested in the u.s. one of those stabbing an fbi agent investigating reports of a plot to attack us on july 4th. so just how big of a threat is this getting to be for our lives? for our economy? hi everyone. i'm brenda buttner. this is "bulls & bears." here they are, the bulls and bears this week gary b. smith, jonas max faris, john layfield along with naomi canseco and ashley pratt. it seems like the threats are going. how worried should

based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to stay. >> well perhaps if it was here to stay not if my next guest party is successful. let me bring in congressman darrell issa. congressman issa wonderful to have you on. >> thanks for having me on. obviously this is an extremely important decision on two fronts, the affordable care act and the subject on whether laws have meaning, whether words matter to this supreme court. >> let me stop you because, listen i did want to say that a lot of people like to spin and do talking points and we appreciate your honesty. let me hit that off the top. from what i understand the house and ways committee, they had already legislative text written by the cbo if and when the court decided the opposite direction which it did today and had that happen you have this whole mess of what to do with the 6.4 million people who wouldn't be able to afford this. my question to you, out of the gate is is there some relief among members of your party that you d

of law in iowa city.in washington, d.c. and we have mr. robert winer who is a partner at arnold & porter. i'd like to ask each of the witnesses to stand and be sworn in, please. will you raise your right hand? do you affirm the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? so help you god. thank you very much. mr. carvin, we'll start with you. please turn your microphone on. >> is it on now? thank you. i was just talking about the importance of this hearing as a number of senators have already indicated while the policy issues here are obviously very important, i think the real issue for this hearing is the rule of law. is this going to be a nation govern by laws enacted by this body pursuant to constitutional prerogatives or unelected bureaucrats? and i think that that's exactly what happened in this case. i think this is an extraordinarily simple case and i think the irs has not interpreted the law, but very dramatically revised the la

and federal law. it is evident to any reasonable person that neither i nor my ex-wife the marriage act would not apply to us. yet three different levels of courts in india reached a complete opposite decision. i urge this committee to take special note of the broad and subjective interpretation and application of family law being applied in extra territorial manner by indian courts to foreign nationals and nonresidents as cause of concern of our rights as american citizens and protection by the constitution of the united states are being impinged upon. the hague convention has been in place for 30 years. how many more hearings before we see american children being returned from countries like brazil, india and japan? who have either failed to recognize parental child abduction as a crime or disregarded international law and their own obligations. we are not demanding special favors from our government but when parents are being left behind twice, once by their abductor and then by our own government t

the real issue is the rule of law. is this going to be a nation governed by constitutional prerogatives or the policy preferences of unelected bureaucrats? i think that is executive what happened in this case. this is an extraordinarily simple case. the irs is transformed it into something that we receive subsidies on exchanges there is not a reasonable interpretation of that language. they cannot dispute that the plain language is the opposite. they try to change the subject. they say, you ripped the language out of context and the language is contrary to the underlying purpose of the statute. in reality, neither of those is true. the context in which those words reside confirms in every way that the plain language means exactly what it says. following that plain language is really the only way to implement the broader purposes of the affordable care act. for example in terms of context, it is argued that this is an unusual place to put a restriction on subsidies, but the reality is that section 36 b is the only provi

questions about the change in law. the law changed after the opening and answering briefs were filed. mr. gura referred to it as cementing a victory for the plaintiffs. at the panel level, we were asked, i believe by chief judge thomas, whether or not that would prevent the case from going forward. and counsel agreed it would not in both cases. in richards, the reason why i took that position was because as i read the district court opinion, the changes that had been made in the law -- and i will address those in a minute -- would not have changed the district court's view. judge smith: then how do you explain page eight and nine in peruta and page 10 in richards where both district court's put an emphasis on the presence of carry law in california and suggested that was maybe some reason why intermediate scrutiny would not strike down the law? because they had carry provisions which were allowed then. you simply could not put the ammunition with the gun. attorney: those exceptions still exist. albeit in lesser form. t

this law scotuscare. there was a chuckle in the courtroom and some laughter, but it was very dramatic. >> and there are a cacophony of voices there, and not to suggest that the voices on the steps of the supreme court are the majority of those in america, but can you give me a feel of what people are saying and how it's being received, at least on the stairs? >> as soon as the ruling came out, there was a loud applause, a lot of celebrating. you can hear me right now, they're talking about the rolling we stand with aca, aca is here to stay. a very vociferous, loud crowd, because this is a very big deal, ashleigh. again, half the justices come out in favor of the challengers who said that those millions of people shouldn't receive subsidies. this could have gutted the affordable care act. so, a big victory for the obama administration with today's ruling. ashleigh? >> stand by, if you will. i know it's getting loud out there. jeffrey toobin, to the quiet confines and the thoughtful situation you're in righ

and essentially the court did uphold the law simply because the law should alone survive. it gave the chief the license to interpret it as you did. >> you have to have a real ambiguity before you look at external signs and purposes or you are doing purposism and rewriting a statute without regard it what it says. >> reporter: he said the court saved the law so many times it is lotus care. >> shannon, thank you. >> today's ruling a big victory for president obama. and you heard his remarks an hour and half ago, you heard the pleasure. what options would a republican president have for changing or over turning the law. we played the president's remarks in the segment that jenna had with shannon bream, you heard chris, the affordable care act is here to stay is it? >> it is certainly through the rest of his term. there are other cases that may come up with the court the opposition to the contraception man date when it comes to religious institution like little sisters of the poor. that would not strike at the heart of obama care the way this would have. this will last through

secret laws are union-american laws. there is no such thing recognized under our constitution as a secrete statute or treaty. we have been experiencing it without any legal authority whatsoever. we aren't asking them to stop the negotiating. we list the vale of secrecy that has been dropped over these goisheses and the american people can't see them but foreign governments can see them. why is it we have confidentiality and we have a system and not seeing this information but to keep foreigners to see the information. and we have a situation where foreigners see it but the highest members of our government, our senators and government, we don't get to set it. it its un-america can. the only way to come up with agreements is through an open, fair and transparent process. it says none of the funds made available by this act may be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement. it is time for a little sunloit. it is time for the members of this body to take control of our constitutional responsibilities not to let the t

what is your rule of law? you've just instilled a new constitution that directly upholds your supreme court and it's -- and its rulings and you turn around in the face of those and say, well we don't have a ruling, we don't have a final judgment. well if your supreme court is not the final judgment then what is? and i do applaud the tunisia judiciary for following the international law and upholding its legal obligations in the face of what is very obviously an interest of society to protect its citizen because they see my children as tunisia and not as vids and they do not see them as children who deserve the familihood of both a mother and a father they see them as symbols of their national -- of -- as national symbols. my children are tunisia and american as well and the home is the united states and the tunisia courts have rules and the american courts have ruled and it is simply time that those judgments be enforced. and i don't know if you call that corruption, i certainly call it a problem. >> gentlemen

have to impose those laws if laws are unfair, no, we need to change those laws. and we've done that many times over the course of our country's history. we've said these laws do not treat people fairly, therefore, we need to change them. in addition to being a nation of laws, we're a nation of rights. and one of the questions -- again, from the idealistic, fill softing call perspective finish is do people have equal rights. and this is where the idea of creating a new status seems problematic to me. because be we're a nation of rights then everybody should have equal rights. we should not create legal differences where some people have rights that other people do not have. again, we've dope that many times -- done that many times over the course of our country's history, we still do it. but i think our goal if we're going to be changing laws is to create a system of laws that treats everybody equally. i firmly believe that. however, for the undocumented people who i work with, i would have to say that judge gonzalez's proposal is going to look very attractive. th

on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, affordable care act is here to stay. the court upheld a critical part of this law, a part that has made it easier for americans to afford health insurance, regardless of where you live. --the partisan challenges challenge to this law would have succeeded, it millions of americans would have had thousands of tax that it taken from them. for many, insurance would have become unaffordable again. many would have to come uninsured again. ultimately everyone's premiums could have gone up. america would have gone backwards. that is not what we do. does.s not what america we move forward. today is a victory for hard-working americans all of us this country whose lives will continue to become more secure in a changing economy because of this law. if you are a parent, you can keep your kids on your plan until they turn 26. something that has covered millions of young people so far. that is because of this law. , or anare a senior american with a disability, this law gives you discount on your p

legislation by the mechanism by the department may enforce you you know being in compliance with the existing law. >> we're going to inflict onerous fines $500 is expensive thursday offense rather than to have someone levi a $500 offense what's going to happen you'll spend a lot of time and money disputing this so this is an because you are amending the legislation and some opportunity to address and what is nothing like that an obvious short coming of the existing legislation and relate to the business specific business entities you're trying to legislate to clean up some of the stuff so. >> uh-huh. >> there's a tremendous amount of ambiguity there's no ambiguity i'm saying fine that person didn't come to buy gasoline and put it in their car if they brought a gasoline container give me two ounces of gasoline it didn't matter they're not putting it in their vehicle if that's the way you want to leave it maybe that's the best possible thing they're great i'm clear on what the businesses say but if you're intention is not that your lying a big gray area for i mean quite frankly let's make is it eas

it is law of the land. so it not only stays as a practical matter but the uncertainty that some policymakers, doctors, hospitals, and regular citizens had will this change this will court or another do something different with this money? that ended this morning emphatically as the chief justice said this law clearly was designed to fund and advance health care, that's what it intended to do the the court let that stand. whatever people's personal opinions are of it. >> does that mean this is the last time anything to do with the acaal pear alwill appear before the supreme court? >> that's a good question. the court has so much power in our lives. i would say it is clear we can say this. this roberts court is not interested in challenge that's are going to drastically change or roll back obama care. they had door number one. the constitutional challenge. do you have the power to do it and said yes. this morning, door number two, what does the statute itself say and kit be limited? again, yes. this statute s

we had local law enforcement, we had federal law enforcement hand in glove. collections sorteen, headed by. the fbi did an outstanding job. i spoke to agent vail. the u.s. martial's clinton county. the district attorney's office plattsburgh police vermont state police governor peter chomlin who was extremely cooperative, visited the prison. brought vermont aspects to work hand in glove with eunique, border protection washington county sheriff's office as the thank them all very close. last but not least, i want to think think -- thank them. they were on the lookout. law enforcement did not end here. every citizen did their job, and they did it bravely and courageously and they dealt with the incoming police presence and the fear frankly, with having to go three weeks knowing there were murderers loose in your backyard. but murder i is tough. thank dwrau. >> every law enforcement officer,officer was engaged in this. it's nice when it ends well. we said we would have a celebration at the appropriate time but we wish that everyone goes home safe. and the escapee

law. they would be true advocates for abducted and abused children and be measured by the president and congress on their progress. mr. chairman, i know we cannot get to such legislation and get it enacted overnight. the ustr took decades to develop to its current state. but that needs to be strategic direction. our children have to be, as important to us as international trade considerations. our kids' human rights have to supersede other issues with foreign countries in the context of bilateral relations. they should, but at present, they don't. and this is causing an enormous amount of suffering, needless suffering, by the parents sitting before you here. the thousands of parents who are not in attendance today. and the thousands of abducted american citizen children out there the world. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much for your testimony and for your tenacity of speaking not just for yourself and your family, but for all of the families. ms. barboure. >> just to inform y

gave that agency the tools to enforce the laws? a sort of financial cop for american families. and then we held that agency accountable? a tough cop who was willing to take on wall street and big banks. what would happen then? i talked to everybody i could about this idea. i went to washington, i talked to folks in congress, policy gurus, newspaper people, anybody i could. pretty much all of them told me two things. first, that is a good idea. that is actually an idea that could make a difference. and the second thing they told me, don't do it. think about that. they gave me 1000 reasons not to do it, but the reasons all boiled down to one very painful point. you can't win. don't do it because you can't win. don't even try because you can't win. you will never get to this consumer agency passed into law. they pointed out that the biggest banks in the country would hate this idea and they would send hundreds of millions of dollars to stop it. and they said to me, you are just a teacher. you've got nothing. you've got no money, organ

with federal laws in place a separate state law for late crimes isn't necessary. >> all i'm saying ishe end of the day you are going to be killed by lethal injection in our state versus another state that may have hate crime legislation but at the end of the day, you will live out your days, the consequence is are more severe in srk than other states. >> we need in-house laws to send a strong message to excite things when they happen. >> sending a message to the victims that their state supports them. >> there are people in the state who grow up every day scared and gay. and african americans we have to put that in context. >> police officers to wear body cameras but after the april shooting death of walter scott an your honor armed black man this month south carolina's governor signed that bill into law. representative giliard is hoping that wednesday's shooting will help his colleagues pass hate crime laws. >>> in colorado a judge has denied a defense motion to dismiss against the aurora, colorado theater massacre. the prosecution rested its case after presenting victim testimony th

these laws are out of character in an unprecedented in many respects. >> you say that the law in some state are contextual? >> i think the nonrecognition losses have the distinction between same-sex the opposite sex was the most dramatic variation it is a racial marriage is the closest analogy but it goes to justice sotomayor question being. >> what is the most erratic variation in marriage laws of the state's. >> it probably is age. >> 13 through 18 but the tradition of the state is to recognize that is entered into that could not be entered into with in the state because of the nature once established recognizing the fundamental nature of that relationship is not one the state should put asunder. >> guide that you said it could refuse to recognize with of minimum age was puberty? >> they could with the individual case it would show because of lack of consent. >> but that perception of such as state at age 13? vitter faq are right but 15 instead of 16 the courts probably would recognize it with the reliance of their marriage the couple already conceived of a child would do no one any

they wrote this law.u look at it as a whole, it's clear millions of americans keep their subsidies. and without the subsidies it could create chaos. that's something the court didn't want to be responsible for. jake tapper pass it back to you. >> thank you so much. i'm going to go back to wolf blitzer right this second to talk more about this big overbheming victory for president obama and the u.s. supreme court. >> a huge win for the president of the united states. a 6-3 decision by the united states supreme court in favor of continuing the affordable care act, obamacare. the chief justice of the united states john roberts, siding with the majority justice kend also going with the majority. senator rand paul is joining us a republican presidential candidate. the senator from kentucky. senator, you must be pretty disappointed with this decision. >> yeah wolf. as a fashionphysician, i think the supreme court missed an opportunity. i think we made a mistake. if they would have ruled and adhered to the liter

. >> this law is working. and it's going to keep doing just that. >> but republicans say today's decision is not the end of the fight. that and how today's decision could actually turn into a win for the g.o.p. >>> scandal at the irs. word that staffers erased thousands of e-mails related to the tea party scandal and they did it after the government ordered them to save e-mails. >> they destroyed evidence. that's what they did. >> but investigators say this was all just a terrible accident, not a coverup. all of that ahead. this hour, on "shepard smith reporting." >> hellozvi'm greg jarrett in for shep. a huge win for the white house and the millions of americans who rely on tax credits to pay for health insurance. the u.s. supreme court today upholding the nationwide subsidies in probe reb's health care law. the justices ruling the government can hand out tax credits to people in all states, not just those that run their own exchanges. so, bottom line, if you get health insurance through healthcare.gov, you g

the law of the national guards is now being discussed. what do we need from this law. some say that if this is going to be a new case, it's going to be like the rest, it's not going to do what it's supposed to do. others say no it's not going to be like that. >> mr. speaker, if this if this unified national command and the military effort is successful in certain areas when the military in these various components does liberate areas and areas are liberated from daesh, you mentioned in your remarks that reconciliation, that stabilization would be important. we have some experience. you have some experience. so americans have some experience in this effort. how would this time be different from the previous times, stabilization, reconciliation to avoid the problems that could come if we make the mistakes again? >> translator: of course in is an important matter. it is a comprehensive project. some areas in which daesh they have committed heinous crimes and was liberated, the local population in several areas need some kind of harmony to be able to coexist. there are som