i want to bring in randy barnett.storing the rost constitution, the presumption f of -- randy, you basically said you were satisfied -- not satisfied with the outcome and you think this is a bad law and you object to it. but you were heartened by the fact that chief justice roberts joined the majority saying that this was not permissible under the commerce clause. >> yeah. what we had was a decision in which eight justices voted their principles. one justice gave us a political ruling. i'm happy with the part of the political deal we got and unhappy with the deal he gave the other side. >> i should say this is a broad reading of roberts's behavior. none of us are seeing into the man's mind. it's possible he was persuaded by the tax argument on one side and persuaded by the commerce clause on the other çside. >> i don't think anyone who reads this opinion can reach the decision that he was persuaded by it. i think most of the people who were so outspoken after the oral argument looked like it was going the other way w

i called randy barnett, visited with him about the paper he had written along with several others, got better educated and gained insight from their perspective and as myself and my fellow state attorneys general learned more and studied more about this, drawing from the insights and expertise and research from the heritage foundation, we decided that we were going to proceed forward with litigation. we couldn't have done it of course without a tremendous partner with nfib. for one, we questioned whether or not we would even have standing to bring a claim. nfib did and some people involved in small businesses in this country were able to step up and get involved also. so this was a true team effort that began on shaky grounds that even when we filed the lawsuit, we were ridiculed, criticized, condemned, given short shrift, mocked. we were told that the lawsuit was going to be quickly dismissed. there was no grounds whatsoever. everyone knows that since the time of fdr, the commerce clause has been expanded and congress can do whatever they want to do, and all that tune changed when we

. >> georgetown law professor, randy barnett was among the first to argue the mandate was unconstitutional. he's surprised because the chief justice struck down the key administration arguments defending the affordable care act but then went out of his way to approve the law under congress's power to tax. >> as to why he decided to uphold the act under the tax power to rewrite the law as a tax and say that it was constitutional, that's something that only he really knows. >> roberts wrote the 5-4 opinion to end school integration based solely on race. he was part of the majority upholding the ban on late term abortions and the 5-4 majority allowing unlimited corporate spending in campaigns. so what happened? tom goldstein, founder of scotusblog, a respected blog site says roberts followed the law but knew he was making history. >> where does this fit in the roberts legacy? >> this is item number one. this is his signature statement that i'm not a partisan. i'm here to provide a limited back stop and i don't see it here. >> to conservatives, this was a signature statement just not the right

. >> reporter: georgetown law professor randy barnett was among the first to argue the insurance mandate was unconstitutional. he's surprised because the chief justice struck downtown key administration arguments defending the affordable care act but then went out of his way to approve the law under congress' power to tax. >> as to why he decided to uphold the act under the tax power to rewrite the law as a tax and say that it was constitutionap, that's something that only he really knows. >> reporter: until this morning, chief justice roberts was a reliable conservative vote, especially on social issues that split the court 5-4. roberts wrote the 5-4 opinion to end school integration based solely on race. he was part of the 5-4 majority that upheld the ban on late-term abortions, and the 5-4 majority allowing unlimited corporate spending in campaigns. so what happened? tom gold senior founder of scotus blog, a respected web site on the court, says roberts followed the law but knew he was making history. where does this fit in the roberts legacy? >> this is item number one. this is his s

randy barnett, a law prossor and who has been very deeply involved in this case, was quoted in "the washington be overturned but he was pleased with two ways the court went, one they believed his argument on the commerce clause which was highly criticized and also that the court did strike down part of the medicaid expansion that was part of the law. that's a really new area of law that may turn out to be more consequential because the court said there are limits on congress' ability to influence state behavior by spending money. there's a point at which that becomes coercive. the court had gestured in that direction before but never of actually laid out a limit. >> good commentary there. josh, when we look at chief justice roberts, something we were talking about earlier this morning, fe wif he was an assoc justice, would he have made a different call on that? >> i think that's very possible. i think as an associate justice you consider a different decisions. i think as chief justice you speak for the court and have the responsibility to look out for a court in a way no other justice does. i

i called randy barnett. i visited him about the paper he had written. i got better educated and gain insight from their perspective. as we learned more and eat more, drawing from the insights and expertise and research from the heritage foundation, we decided referred proceed for with litigation. we could not have done it without nfib. we questioned whether we would have standing to bring a claim. nfib did, and some people involved, and small businesses in this country were able to get involved. it began on shaky grounds. even when we filed a lawsuit, we were ridiculed, criticized, condemned, mocked. we were told that the lawsuit would be quickly dismissed. there were no grounds whatsoever. congress could do whatever they wanted to do. all of that changed when we finally got that federal district court ruling in florida agreeing with us that obamacare was unconstitutional. those attitudes change when the federal court of appeals upheld that. but they changed even more when the pundits saw the figure that was used by the justices on the u.s. supreme cour