solicitor general verrilli is soft spoken, deliberate, cautious. mr. clement speaks quickly, very confident aggressive and at the end of today's argument the chief justice complimented both of them on good arguments. >> let's talk about this case. the law we're talking about in arizona has four distinct parts under challenge. let's walk through them one by one. there's one about warrantless arrests, being able to arrest people without showing proof. >> that's right, the provision says that if the police officer has probable cause-- which is a higher standard than, say, reasonable suspicion, but probable cause to believe that somebody that she has stopped has committed in an offense that could result in deportation from the united states that officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest that person. >> ifill: was that argued at all. >> there was virtually nothing on that provision. >> so that maybe would stand because it wasn't being challenged because... >> i wouldn't read the tea leaves on that. is s that immigrants-- legal or illegal-- carry i.d. >> two

donald verrilli, representing the obama administration, argued the states have no stay. the constitution vest exclusive authority over immigration with the national government. the administration sued arizona to block the law and is also targeting similar laws in alabama, georgia, indiana, south carolina and utah. arizona said its law doesn't conflict with the federal effort. the justices appeared skeptical at the administration's broad attack. they seemed ready to uphold the law's most controversial provision that requires police to check the immigration status of people they arrest or stop for a violation. critics say that could lead to racial profiling, but justice sonia sotomayor pointed out those inquiries aren't unusual in arrests. often there's an immigration check that most states do without this law. later when verrilli persisted sotomayor interrupted. you can see it's not selling very well. why don't you try to come up with something else. but the justices appeared troubled by another provision in the law that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or

donald verrilli, representing the obama administration, argued the states have no say. the constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration with the national government. the administration sued arizona to block the law and is also targeting similar laws in alabama, georgia, indiana, south carolina, and utah. arizona says its law doesn't conflict with the federal effort, and today the justices appeared skeptical of the administration's broad attack. they seemed ready to uphold the law's most controversial provision that requires police to check the immigration status of people they arrest or stop for a violation. critics say that could lead to racial profiling. but justice sonia sotomayor pointed out that those inquiries aren't unusual in arrests. often there's an immigration check that most states do without this law. later, when verrilli persisted, sotomayor interrupted. >> you can see it's not selling very well. why don't you try to come up with something else? but the justices appeared troubled by another provision in the law that makes it a crime for illegal

solicitor general verrilli is soft spoken, deliberate, cautious. mr. clement speaks quickly, very confident aggressive and at the end of today's argument the chief justice complimented both of them on good arguments. >> let's talk about this case. the law we're talking about in arizona has four distinct parts under challenge. let's walk through them one by one. there's one about warrantless arrests, being able to arrest people without showing proof. >> that's right, the provision says that if the police officer has probable cause-- which is a higher standard than, say, reasonable suspicion, but probable cause to believe that somebody that she has stopped has committed in an offense that could result in deportation from the united states that officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest that person. >> ifill: was that argued at all. >> there was virtually nothing on that provision. >> so that maybe would stand because it wasn't being challenged because... >> i wouldn't read the tea leaves on that. is s that immigrants-- legal or illegal-- carry i.d. >> two

general verrilli. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: >> before you get into what the case is about, i'd like to clear up at the outset what it's not about. no part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it? i saw none of that in your brief. >> that's correct. >> okay. so this is not a case about ethnic profiling. >> we're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case. mr. clement is working hard this morning to portray s.b. 1070 as an aid to federal immigration enforcement. but the very first provision of the statute declares that arizona is pursuing its own policy of attrition through enforcement, and that the provisions of this law are designed to work together to drive unlawfully present aliens out of the state. that is something arizona cannot do, because the constitution vests exclusive -- >> general, could you answer justice scalia's earlier question to your adversary? he asked whether it would be the government's position that arizona d

and solicitor general verrilli has been criticized by a lot of liberals and media commentators for not having a good answer. i think that's more or less killing the messenger. it's not that the solicitor general is a bad advocate or unintelligent or unprepared guy and i'm prejudiced, but the reason he couldn't give a comprehensive answer to this is because there is no comprehensive answer to this and the liberal intelligentia sort of talked themselves into this notion that our position was this tea party fantasy that didn't make any sense. so when the solicitor-general had a tough time asking the very pointed and obvious questions that the republican appointed justices were asking him, rather than concede they really had a weak case, they had to of course blame him for being a bad lawyer. i don't think that either that's true -- and i'm not going to make any predictions in terms of the outcome of the case given the tone of the argument. i can't say the argument went quite well and it went quite well, mainly for the reasons i just said, solicitor-general was unable to elani reasonable p

. >> did verrilli make the best case? what would it mean if the supreme court strikes down health care? >> i think the substance is very clear and it's one that republicans supported in the past. the notion that every individual should take responsibility for getting health care. otherwise, the free riders in the system end up driving up cost for everyone else. what i know, overwhelming majority of the american people know that the health care system had been broke. . when kids and others are denied health care because they a have asthma or other pre-existing conditions. that's a broken health care system. this is designed to address that issue. you saw premiums in the health care industry doubling between 2003 and 2008. profits in the insurance companies doubled. when they voted to repeal the federal care act, they said they were going to come up with a proposal for that. but they haven't done that. if the court struck this down, it would be a big loss for the american people. we're trying to prevent people from being de

obama administration lawyer donald verrilli argued. but conservative justice scalia said arizona is not trying to kick out anybody the federal government has not already said does not belong here. it seems to me said chief justice john roberts that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here legally and who is not. swing justice anthony kennedy said must the state accept at its borders illegal? briier said if they call the feds, what's the concept? sonia sotomayor warned the obama lawyer about its case. you can see it's not selling very well. >> arizona has a right and i as governor i felt was somewhat insured that i had a right to protect the citizens of arizona. >> reporter: brewer charged president obama sued her state to get a boost with hispanic voters. if the justices here uphold the arizona law, and after today that looks a lot more likely, senate democrats say they'll pass a bill to block the law and keep the issue alive through the november elections. i'm steve handelsman, news 4 live at the supreme court. >>>

general verrilli was on the ropes because he was asked multiple times, especially by scalia, to give an example. he had no answer to that question. there is no precedent. this is an unprecedented lawsuit and the justice department's answers today were very inadequate for the questions asked. that ultimately went back to the last-ditch argument where is mexico could cause this to be pre-empted. they took an action they never should have taken -- suing them. when we drafted this law, ran into the wall you saw today. conflict pre-emption asked if there was a conflict between federal and state law. he was asked by the justices can you give me an example of where the federal government can preempt a state merely by refusing to enforce federal law or by exercising prosecutorial discretion? the justice department's answers today were very inadequate to the questions asked. hopefully there will fall back to their last last-ditch argument that if the government of new mexico did not like this law, that is cause for it to be pre-empted. the justice department took an action they never should h

general verrilli. >> mr.ce, and may it please the court: >> before you get into what the case is about, i'd like to clear up at the outset what it's not about. no part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it? i saw none of that in your brief. >> that's correct. >> okay. so this is not a case about ethnic profiling. >> we're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case. mr. clement is working hard this morning to portray s.b. 1070 as an aid to federal immigration enforcement. but the very first provision of the statute declares that arizona is pursuing its own policy of attrition through enforcement, and that the provisions of this law are designed to work together to drive unlawfully present aliens out of the state. that is something arizona cannot do, because the constitution vests exclusive -- >> general, could you answer justice scalia's earlier question to your adversary? he asked whether it would be the government's position that arizona doesn't have

like the comments today and also the white house rushing to the defense of solicitor general don verrillit the white house is sort of setting up its backers for the possibility that this law's not going to make it and sort of looking for ways to control the fallout before it happens. >> absolutely. and the big thing here other than him playing this game with the supreme court, that's a political, that's a posture. interesting to me that he said if you take out the requirement that all individuals buy health insurance or be enrolled in a government program, if you take that out, that the law is dead. because the stuff he talked about at the beginning could have passed with bipartisan support. there were plenty of republicans that were in support of it. but the concept of a new entitlement program for middle class americans, subsidized health insurance for all these people, that he says that's at risk is very significant. >> chris stirewalt, always great to see you. thank you, sir. >> yes, ma'am. >>> this is a fox news alert, five people hurt at a shooting at a religious school in the oakla

clement, general verrilli. well argued on both sides. thank you. the case is submitted. >> next, a house to go on extending interest rates for federal student loans for one year. then president obama at fort stewart. later another opportunity to hear the supreme court oral argument. >> where is the national public radio table? you guys are still here? that is good. i could not remember where we landed on that. >> this weekend, the 98th annual white house correspondents' dinner. president obama and jimmy kimmel headline the event. coverage starts with a red carpet arrivals. watched the entire dinner on c- span. you can sync up your experience on line at the dinner hub. find the celebrity guest list, blog and social media posts at c-span.org/whcd. live saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> born in a north korea work camp, it was the on the world he had ever known. it was also the -- he was the only one who had escaped from camp 14. >> his first memory was going with his mom to a place near where he grew up in the camp to watch somebody get shot

. >> -- verrilli, because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized? >> well, that was the point i was trying to make, justice kagan, that you're young and healthy one day, but you don't stay that way. and the -- the system works over time. and so i just don't think it's a fair characterization of it. and it does get back to, i think -- a problem i think is important to understand - >> we're not stupid. they're going to buy insurance later. they're young and -- and need the money now. >> but that's - >> when -- when they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they'll buy insurance, like the rest of us. >> that's the problem, justice scalia. that's -- and that's exactly the experience that the states had that made the imposition of guaranteed-issue and community rating not only be ineffectual but be highly counterproductive. rates, for example, in new jersey doubled or tripled, went from 180,000 people covered in this market down to 80,000 people covered in this market. in kentucky, virtually every insurer left the market. a