on that point, roberts sided with the conservative majority. but the chief justice swung the other way on a narrower matter, voting to redefine the mandate as a tax, which he and the court's four liberals said is constitutional. right off the bat, the first question -- what's the difference? >> you have to look at this through two lenses. through the law itself, it's upheld. it's upheld, it stands, it's the of barack obama's domestic agenda. he goes forward with it, it's a very big deal that way. in terms of the liberal rationale, the most important thing is what does it say about john roberts? here's the chief justice who has never been a key fifth vote with the liberals on a major case and it comes in this big matter and it shows him trying to bridge ideological differences. he decided to go with the the obaman administration's secondary argument, on the taxing power. it didn't get a lot of play when we were presenting this in march but it was always in the case, it was always there for him to pluck if he wanted to pluck it. gwen: in the end,

roberts nominated by george w.tutional under the power to levy taxes adding, quote, it's not our role to forbid it or pass upon its wisdom or fairness. president obama was eager to give mitt romney special recognition for supporting the idea -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> it was his idea to have a mandate in massachusetts when he was governor there. take a listen. >> even though i knew it wouldn't be politically popular and resisted the idea when i ran for this office we included edd vision in the affordable care act th people who could afford to buy health insurance should do so. this is enjoyed by members of both parties including the republican nominee. >> there may be a campaign message blooming on the republican side. mitt romney undeterred by the court's ruling pledging to undo the law one day if elected president. >> what the court did today was say obamacare did not violate the constitution. what they did not do is say obama care is good law or good policy. obamacare was bad policy today, it's badç policy today.

roberts and the court did not find it under commerce.in fact, there was questions on that which could be troubling on other cases. we'll leave that for a moment. but he found it constitutional based on the law in terms of interfering with taxing, is that correct? >> that's exactly right. the constitution explicitly gives coress the power to pass taxes. though there was a debate in congress. was this or wasn't it a tax? initially the democrats say it was not a tax and the republicans said it is. then as soon as it was challenged in court, they rushed to the courtroom and all the republicans say obama is raising your taxes. and the democrats said it could be justified under the taxing power.ç roberts shifted through those and says as a constitutional matter, this looks like a tax and therefore it can be upheld. >> now, ian, this was stunning that the chief justice john roberts who is a bush appointee actually voted with the four considered liberals of the court. what was it -- you were actually in the chambers. could you share with us wha

robert go ahead and you want to jump and look at most of the reports coming. around now sure are going to be. going to say that libya there at the moment i think the russians are still very very angry actually sat down. and i think that that port is the only mediterranean warm water port they've got left to them and they want to keep it and i suspect that it's more militarily important to putin to keep that port than we realize and when it comes to tough politics remember this is a russian government that smashed up chechnya it's not going to have second thoughts on russia's wasn't going to get its own economy is going to smash the very different robert when you look at russia's territorial integrity and you when you look at libya but i agree with you one libyan talking no excuse me a second we're talking here about a middle east that's been chopped up by other powers and russia is not yet chopping up the middle east is a russia russia is seems to me you're not seeing a sin really going to be i don't think anybody is running russia is now on the chopping us. a

roberts was nominated to the court by president george w. bush, and he has been a solid conservative. we asked wyatt andrews to tell us more. >> reporter: almost every conservative scholar in the country is now asking what happened to the chief justice? >> oh, i think everybody is surprised. >> 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 ba

i'm just thrilled. >> you love john roberts now. >> i love john roberts today.oberts t-shirt under all this. >> i woke up this morning to howard dean on "morning joe." he doesn't know that, but i woke up to him this morning on "morning joe" doing what howard dean does best which is spin. and he put on this incredibly impressive performance, we all love howard dean as the network. this is amazing agility, take a look. >> romney claims victory but obama gets victory, this is the most unpopu i don't think it should ever have been there in the first place. there's a lot of things that people like, so i believe that even though the obama folks have put up a huge fuss about the individual mandate, romney is going to say the president's initiative got ruined and all this kind of stuff. but the truth is people now have a lot to like in this bill. >> when it comes right down, huge bin for obama. by that logic, it was upheld, it was a huge loss? >> democrats were moping and saying what are we going to do to get over this. and republicans were excited that we're going to w

he unloaded on john roberts yesterday in a rant.o crazy to rationalize, but let's listen to the worst. >> it's well-known that roberts unfortunately for him has suffered from epileptic seizu s seizures. therefore, he has been on medication. therefore, neurologists will tell you medications used for seizure disorders can induce mental slowing and other problems. and if you look at roberts' writings, you can see the cognitive association in what he is saying. >> okay. for the record by the way, justice roberts has had some seizures. never said he's epileptic nor is he taking medication for it. congress jack casick of georgia tweeted today, with obamacare ruling, i feel like i just lost two great friends. america and justice roberts. ron, this is so over the top. like so high school. i don't know how to explain it but it's sad. >> the republicans feel betrayed here. they thought they had the supreme court comfortably on their side by a 5-4 margin and ç there goes roberts in the other direction, so they're furious at him. but roberts i

john roberts? and of course the decent. apparently roberts switched just in time.ight then the democrats come out, they celebrate. watch. >> this is a good day for the american people. they won today. >> this day is what democracy looks like. >> thank you president obama. it is a great day for americans. >> the justices have spoken, now let's get back to work. >> we are going to head forward and continue to make healthcare truly something that all americans can have and enjoy. >> so what was the switch all about? funny thing is, chief justice roberts actually said the main argument, the commerce clause, he didn't buy the argument. he said this was not within the power of the federal government but here is what he said quote, it is reasonable to construe what congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income or choose to go without health insurance. such legislation is within congress's power to tax. he said, look basically if you are not paying the health insurance and within a certain range, and they want to tax you for not paying

and judge roberts himself.me of this court, it is the roberts' court, a different role, in a sense, historically, than anthony kennedy does, the usual swing vote he is not a swing vote he is the court. this will go down in history as the roberts court that upheld the landmarkç achievement of t obama presidency. so, these two men have a very important and distantive role here. roberts put theis ism prompr.oi it. the roberts court upheld the obama law and these men were have plan particular responsibilities here. i do find it fascinating all of us are trying to wrestle with, why did roberts seize upon this historic role so powerfully here, to leap frog anthony kennedy and to find himself or to place himself with the liberal majority here? he doesn't want this court to be three strikes and you're out. they did the gore versus bush or bush versus gore in 2000. they did do citizens united. in the eyes of progressives and a lot of independents in this country, it was becoming a clearly partisan right-wing court. wit

a vote by bush-appointed chief justice john roberts.and we'll with talk about presidents who have for a hundred years tried to bring health care to all americans. now barack obama has done it. we'll speak to two members of congress in just a moment for their reaction. but i want to begin with what happened inside the supreme court today. joining me now is jeffrey rosen, law professor at george washington university and legal editor of "the new republic" and ian millhiser. he was inside the courtroom today. thank you for joining me. >> thank you. >> jeff, let me start with you. jeff rosen. the chief justice said the law's individual mandate was constitutional. he wrote quote, the law's requirement that individuals pay a penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. because the constitution permits such a çtax, it is not our rol to forbid it. was that the sentence that saved the health care law? >> that is absolutely the sentence that saved the health care law. lots of people have been focusing on a

to cross-talk the wave of violence across lebanon i'm joined by robert fisk in beirut he is the middle east correspondent for the independent in pittsburgh we have typhoon goal he is a member of the answer coalition and in washington we cross to wear off he is a professor of middle east studies at the national defense university are a gentleman cross talk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime on robert if i go to you first in beirut there seems to be two countervailing narratives going on right now is that the the syrian free army is in lebanon causing trouble looking for allies to topple assad or if you like the other one you have assad and his people influencing domestic politics again in lebanon which one do you like or a neither or a combination. i don't think it was by chance that our side made his speech in the syrian parliament at almost exactly the same time that the violence restarted in tripoli with fifteen dead and fifty wounded that's almost too much of a coincidence but i don't believe the law the the line that's being taken by many people here particularly in

but that was only the first part of roberts' decision. outside the courtroom, the mood quickly changed when it became clear that a different lineup of justices had concluded congress could require insurance by taxing people who didn't have it. as roberts explained, "the federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. the federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance." on that key last point, roberts parted ways with conservatives and joined the court's liberals to uphold the bulk of the health care law. the court based its decision on a theory that no lower court had accepted and supporters of the law thought was a long shot-- congress had authority to pass the individual mandate as the result of its constitutional power to lay and collect taxes. the health care law goes to great lengths to call the mandate a penalty, not a tax. but the justices said it functioned as one just the same and, therefore, it was constitutional. "because the constitution permits such

did roberts change the vote late in the process? court prepared to strike down part of if not all of the healthcare law? shannon bream has the story. >> there are a lot of clues in the structure of the opinion it was a late switch. >> strong signals that chief justice john roberts may have flipped his vote. decide with the liberal block, to find the mandate and healthcare law constitutional use of congressional taxing power. after initially agreeing with conservatives to throw out the entire law. >> this looks like verbal opinion. the other notables a spent is they point out the tax issue wasn't discussed as argument. so that suggests it might have been a late-breaking development. >> as legal scholars continue to digest the opinion, some assert that the dissent many reference to ruth bader ginsberg's quote dissent is telling because she didn't write one per se. however, she did break from the majority opinion on key issues. so what she wrote could be characterized form of dissent, that she was in the minority at some point. law sup

america and justice roberts.ell, if it's any help, congressman, phil gingrey is looking for someone to drink with. (laughter) and you know what [bleep] it, i might join them. look, why not, why not. my liver's covered now. (cheers and applause) i mean if i don't get cirrhosis i'm losing money. (laughter) we were fools. roberts has always been in o billiona's pocket. think about t he's the one without single-handedly made o billiona president. and come to think of it, come to think of it, folks, what kind of name is john roberts. where did he grow up? indiana. oh, isn't that nice, that sounds suspiciously close to indonesia. where obama eight that dog. plus what kind of american sits around in robes all day and calls himself a chief. i heard on drudge that his middle name is-- (tongue clicks) that's t i've had it, i've had it. (laughter) (cheers and applause) (laughter) (cheers and applause) folks, saving the mandate and calling it just-- is disastrous government overreach. >> in the dissent by justices scalia, ke

robert go ahead and you want to jump and look at most if there is poor it's going. to show america going to be a really good ways to save it would libya there is a moment i think the russians are still very very angry actually sat down nato effective way to libya and i think that port is the only mediterranean war multiple they've got left of them and they want to keep it and i suspect that it's more militarily important to pretend to keep that pull than we realize and when it comes to tough politics remember this is a russian government that smashed up chechnya it's not going to have second thoughts russia's wasn't going to get its own economy is going to smash that very different robert when you look at russia's territorial integrity and you when you look at libya but i agree with you on libya talking not excuse me a second we're talking here about a middle east that's been chopped up by other powers well the russian actions but you know the middle east is a russia russia is seems to me you're not seeing a city really telling. anybody that's running russia is not

saying this is an act of genius on the part of the justice roberts. he's playing chess, he put limits on the constitution in the long run ncommerce clause, but in the short run you have to accept obamacare, but that's worth the price. >> yes, i've heard nothing, but, it was the only amusing thing. the most monumento rationalization to what was essentially the justice caved before the threat of exactly what dan just said. >> paul: you think it was the intimidation by the press and the politicians? >> yes, he was covered by the most extraordinary explanation, and what was it they said, he was burnishing the stability, the status of the court which was his so it would look look less like a political instrument. is it the business of the chief justice worried about burnishing the court's credentials rather than doing justice and a sane and rational and not extraordinary bizarre piece of reasoning? >> james. >> whether this strategy he's adopted is genius or too clever by half only time will tell. let's get together in 20 years and look back. i will say he

but in 1937, one of those justices eye ron clip named justice roberts, owen roberts, he switched his vote to join the lib rams in the minimum wage case and gave the president a victory. his volt change was known as the switch in time that saved 9 because it lessened the need for roosevelt to remake the court. here we are 75 years later and another justice roberts saved the supreme court or at least its reputation. the supreme court has plummeted until public esteem from an 80% a approval rating in the 1990s to 44% now. but our justice roberts rebooted the switch in time that saves nine. i have been quick to criticize the politization of the u.s. supreme court. too quick, it turns out. justice roberts, i had you pegged for just another bush v. gore justice. you seem to me as partisan as any member of congress. but today, you gave us faith that a bedrock institution of government can actually work can rise above partisanship that the court is simply do its job for the good of the nation. rare washington move this was. you actually did what was promised. you called balls and strikes as

it was chief justice john roberts, an appointee of george w. bush, who broke to join in the majority. the decision is held as an election year victory for president obama. a rallying cry for republicans who want to see him out of office. susan mcginnis with more. >> terrell, good morning. house republicans scheduled a vote for july 11th to try to repeal this, but it stands virtually no chance of getting through the senate which is controlled by democrats. one thing we do know for sure is that this law, which affects virtually all americans, is moving forward. after the supreme court handed down the momentous decision, president obama called the ruling a victory for the american people. >> it should be pretty clear by now that i didn't do this because it was good politics. i did it because i believed it was good for the country. >> by the narrowest of margins shall the court voted to uphold nearly all of the law, including the mandate requiring all americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. in the majority opinion, justice roberts said

defense university or a gentleman cross-like rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime on robert if i go to you first in beirut there seems to be two countervailing narratives going on right now is that the syrian free army is in lebanon causing trouble looking for our eyes to topple assad or if you like the other one you have assad and his people influencing domestic politics again in lebanon which one do you like or an either or a combination i don't think it was by chance that assad made his speech in the syrian parliament at almost exactly the same time that the violence restarted in tripoli with fifteen dead and fifty wounded that's almost too much of a coincidence but i don't believe the law the the line that's being taken by many people here particularly in the political opposition but there are hundreds of syrian fighters among the allawi community in tripoli although there are hundreds of opposition fighters fighting the allo is when i've gone to tripoli and i do it regularly and have done for the past year on this story although there are many people in tripoli who are

wrong i think first of all had whatever side roberts was going to be on roberts was going to write the opinion so the idea that the opinion that the four dissenters conservative dissenters. joined in. was originally majority opinion seems completely implausible because roberts would have been writing that opinion one way or the other. secondly it just doesn't really feel. right that roberts would be waffling like that roberts is not other people might well feel but i think i don't know roberts personally but he seems like a very decisive person and a very intelligent person and so i think that. this unusual of decision as you say. knocking the mandate down under the commerce clause which is what everybody expected to be the only clause they got serious consideration of holding it under the tax power which no other judge had had gone gone near in the course of all the litigation in the lower courts. and doing a very sort of deft maneuver with respect to the medicaid expansion part of the law to me showed. a chief justice who has a very refined political sense of how to assert his will o

>> well, they tell us that justice roberts is growing, eyes of the media.ears ago some wise guy in d.c. coineded the phrase to describe the process for which the new york times reporter linda greenhouse was discouraged to move to the left in her direction and sure enough, "the washington post" on friday, a nice puffy picture of john roberts. the right wing and nows' on his way to the-- before the decision, chris mathews on mnnbc says that john roberts could be compared to a civil war era supreme court judge who upheld the dread scott slave act. the same chris mathews after this, praises roberts as bold, defiant, and a hero who upheld obamacare. >> yes, i'm beginning to feel that thrill up my thigh. and look, here is a bias, so obvious. chief justice roberts agrees with the liberals and upholds the president's signature legislation and suddenly he's a hero, but that's not the way the legal immediate yar covering t the immediate media see his as specious and about-face and jeffrey smith on a legal scholar who was a first amendment scholar, jeff stone, forgive

even john roberts said so.ore. >> so where do republicans go from here? right? john boehner saying yesterday, if the supreme court didn't repeal it, we'll repeal it. mitch mcconnell says the american people want us to start from scratch. right? mitt romney says, i will repeal it on day one of my presidency. you know talking points memo this morning, if i bring it up again, after healthcare ruling g.o.p. hits rewind as democrats look to the future. >> that's basically all they've got. right? >> that's what they've got. i think they are going to try to force some kind of replay of the summer of 2009. >> that's what we need. >> that's exactly what we need. but i think that's what they are going to try to do. you know, they have already started on the tax increase thing. you know, i don't blame them for doing that. if i were them, i would come out of this saying that, too. this is now a tax increase and it breaks its pledge not to raise taxes on middle income people. but the democrats have to answer that, bill, pre

the liberals plus the chief justice john roberts. this was his first time doing that. >> and, pete, for the people who were trying to read the tea leaves during oral arguments when this was presented that day in court, wasn't one big factor the fact that the administration's lawyer had a pretty rough go and was fairly roughed up and people thought that didn't bode well for passage of the law? >> that was a bright, shiny object that some people fastened on, but if you look at the comments of the justices, really, the seeds of john roberts' agreement with the health care law were there. yes, we had some skepticism but he also made comments suggesting he was willing to uphold it as well, brian. >> pete williams reporting for us at the end of a long day of superb, spot on reporting from the supreme court. pete, thanks. one more note here tonight about the president. when the decision came down, he was apparently in the west wing of the white house watching a bank of tv monitors and at first he thought his health care law had been defeate

chief justice john roberts nominated by george w.four liberal justices upholding the individual mandate. just take a look at some of the headlines in the past few hours, in fact some of them just this hour. politico, obama wins big in ruling. "the huffington post," justice, obama care lives, roberts saves it. and from the far right, justice roberts drawing ire from the conservatives. the job report from the chief justice with the headline, take your medicine. and this from the daily caller, obama care becomes obama tax. let's bringç in justice correspondent pete williams and a controversial law professor. as i have pointed out, at least from the right, at this point, they are explaining away the

but roberts and the conservatives disagreed. >> roberts, under the government's logic that authorizes congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. >> but that was only the first part of roberts decision. outside the courtroom, the mood quickly changed when it became clear that a different line of the justices had concluded congress could require insurance by taxing people who didn't have it. as roberts explained, the federal government does not have e power to order people to buy health insurance, the federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. >> on that key last point roberts parted ways with conservatives and joined the court's liberals to uphold the bulk of the healthcare raw. the court based its decision on a theory that no lower court had accepted and supported the law was a long shot, congress had authority to pass the individual mandate as a result of its constitutional power to lay and collect taxes. the healthcare law goes to great lengths to call call the mandate a penalty,