You're watching...
FNC senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Supreme Court hearings on the health-care law and whether the law will survive.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Look at three days of intense arguments over -- controversial health care law wrapping up in the Supreme Court so the question now becomes now watch.
Judge Janet Napolitano as a Fox News senior judicial analyst he is here with some answers server and I thought -- was imitating me when she -- now arrived at.
-- like it's it's the Jewish Italian -- -- -- -- users are.
Our first of all this is something -- -- I've talked about I talked to -- Monday about the attorney general from the state of Florida yesterday.
Whether or not.
The same mandate that forces us to buy into a Social Security pension plan which is a product of a -- people sell retirement plans all the time.
Whether that was the same.
As forcing people to buy an insurance product -- -- kind of her answer she didn't seem prepared for play decide.
Well people participate in Social Security not voluntarily.
If I had a choice I would.
I have had a tax.
The people who are employed participate in Social Security we all have a taken out of -- mandate again it is a mandate it's not a voluntary purchase.
But this is different because this is not an act.
And then there are also saying this is not a tax and viewer call that.
What forgive me I love may have blog about I don't.
See the difference and here's what your friend justice Sam Alito said yesterday he said the new health care law forces young.
Helping people quote to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else.
That's a definition of Social Security that it is now well when the when Social Security was challenged in 1935 the supreme court for seven for goblins challenge was filed in thirty -- -- decisions at 37 the Supreme Court.
Said it was a tax.
And because -- was attacks congress could spend it anyway it wanted as long as it was generally enhance the general welfare so if congress wants they had a surtax.
I'm suggesting this is the Supreme Court ruling I'm not defending it.
I'm summarizing if congress wants they had a surtax to your income tax.
And dedicate that additional tax to paying you when you no longer work congress can do that under the constitution.
We view that differently today.
I think you're right today we view that as the purchase of a package.
Because we could go out your viewers can go out and purchase.
-- pension package almost anywhere even even and is building.
That was not the case when Social Security.
Came about.
So the court look the government threw everything they -- the court first the government said it was voluntary vision and have to work the courts and that's ridiculous that the court said on the government said it's a savings plan would take in the money for you enhancing it.
And giving it back to you when you retire.
And the court said that's ridiculous and the government said its attacks in the course -- well.
You can't challenge the amount of attacks in court -- -- only challenge the amount of attacks at about.
It's OK let's get to the actual health care law and if some type of change is deemed to be made by the Supreme Court.
What is the survivability.
Of the rest of it ended what form and you could call -- I guess.
The sever ability that if they find that that part of that the law the insurance requirements should be excised and cut off.
Does the rest of it survive.
I'll do my best justices -- imitation a -- You -- to tell me that we have to go through 2700 pages of documents and we have to decide which line survives that what's why doesn't.
That's basically the argument that he made today even Justice Kennedy went along with this argument.
Two attorney general for really leading us to believe.
If the questions are sincere representation of the values of the justices asking those questions.
That they believe that in the individual mandate will be invalidated and therefore.
The rest of the statute willful.
Because it would -- an impossible task for judges to decide each which stays and which doesn't it's almost an economic determination David.
Which would be beyond the the ability of judges to determine congress would need experts to tell it.
Which survives the removal of the individual mandate and what -- It's all right the the other part that they were talking about today was requiring states to expand their Medicaid apparently a lot of people.
Are not gonna be covered by their employers -- -- say we can't afford it.
Then that those people will be insured by the states.
Exchanges even -- a lot of states haven't done any good start in exchange 26 states say that's that's unconstitutional because it's the Fed's requiring the states to raise.
Taxes this this part is not as clear from the oral argument as to what the outcome will be because many conservative justices believe.
That if the stakes are foolish enough to take federal dollars they have to accept the strings that come with the federal dollars.
Normally the feds will pay for a 100% of something paving roads in return for the strain.
Lowering speed limits here the feds are paying 90% and the -- to the states.
You raise the other 10% and then you spend all 190 we give you in the ten you raise the way we tell you to do it so it's a little different here question.
Can the congress ordered the states to raise taxes.
State taxes and then tell the states had to spend the money.
That's what the Supreme Court had to decide it's not clear which way they're going to go one of two seconds best guess to suspend all of the of the individual mandate falls the -- now.
Again I guess from my years of experience.
And that will -- that will -- the rest of the statute of.
You gotta say -- like that thought -- -- expect.
-- judge thank you so much so it's all enough and I think it's all or nothing -- just from -- out for those of you don't know the judge has a huge social media following hundreds of your fans visited the after bell after the bell FaceBook page to -- just in anticipation intersect at so thank you heard me that we are.
