Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Which joining us now Florida's attorney general Pam -- one of the lead attorneys general arguing against obamacare.
Seeking to overturn it before the High -- great to have you with -- and attorney general let me ask -- this -- -- impressions first of -- -- -- issue -- this case unfold before.
The Supreme Court today.
While I was sitting at counsel table with Paul Clement who will be arguing the case for for us for the 26 states -- I agree with everything Sheehan and -- And I'll tell you that was my favorite quote as well the quote from on -- -- -- today.
Because what that what what the federal government's trying to doing to simplify this as much as possible.
What what they're saying what what argument says is that -- -- if you're disputing attacks.
That you big that the federal government says you the -- injunction that says you don't even have the right to dispute that tax until you've -- attacks.
If that was to be upheld we wouldn't even be able to continue on with our case however.
Just like Shannon pointed out what do we heard President Obama say time and time again this is an attacks it's not attacks it's not attack -- -- -- Action to.
Breyer who he said no over but nowhere as congress used the word tax.
And I thought that was very interest he said this is not and the internal revenue code but for purposes of collection.
My lord what else do they collected is not attack.
-- yeah exactly.
That's and that's exactly right in any year to day.
If for it with a unique situation because the federal government they were on our side because they're saying it's not attacked -- penalty.
Sell I felt confident based on all the questions by -- all the justices except Justice Thomas.
All ask questions they were very intelligent.
They were very -- -- on the subject and I feel confident that that they all agree.
That it is not attacks it's a penalty and that we will be able to go forward you come -- Course we're gonna hear all three days of argument anyway.
-- RA and all three days of arguments and the third day will be what the world would do what they do strike strike down the individual mandate issue of so called.
It's it's ever ability.
Yes which makes you wonder why they would even bother with that third day of -- -- very.
Likely serious possibility.
That is ruling it unconstitutional.
Tomorrow you mentioned Paul -- will be arguing for the states.
Yes that argument how -- -- bar does he have how tough will it be for him to.
Persuade the justices are at least five of them.
Well we firmly believe that this is the greatest.
Overreach by the federal government in our history.
Excuse me and we firmly believe that it's unconstitutional.
And that Paul Clement will make a compelling argument.
We believe that -- advocates will be forced it to participate in a vigorous debate I'll tell you the federal government they're gonna try to focus on health care policy.
That's not what this is about.
This is about.
It being un constitutional.
And there are two way that the federal government could win here.
Why is by saying they can do this under the commerce clause and as we've discussed before.
There's no commerce here they're trying to force us to purchase a product we're not participating in -- commerce which has been your size you know why.
From the from the outset absolutely and this -- Lou is to say that they can do it under -- clean power.
That's why Justice Alito made a very strong point well tomorrow.
You're going to be arguing that it's a tax.
See -- because that's -- to give you the authority to do this and that's absolutely ridiculous -- I we feel we felt very comfortable.
I have to say.
Attorney general -- -- I'm one of those folks who thinks.
That because of the confused.
Nature of this piece of legislation.
It is the biggest mess I'd ever -- Created by congress of the United States in my career.
There it is so much about this law that is internally contradictory and all that has been said on the part of of this administration's support of its creation its passage.
Has proved to be utterly untrue we're gonna go into that a little while going through -- -- talk here.
To just have to bring that into focus but -- is there -- -- in which the Supreme Court could just simply say this law is so.
That it should not even -- in the code.
Well what we firmly believe that the Supreme Court.
Will rule as the eleventh circuit did and does the northern district of Florida did and say that this is such an over reach by the federal government.
If the federal government can do this they can force us to do.
Anything in there would be no absolutely.
No limit to their power.
And that is what is so frightening for every state and for every citizen in this country.
Attorney general -- body thanks very much for congress to thank you -- The great state of.
Filter by section