You're watching...
WSJ Opinion Page Deputy Editor Dan Henninger weighs in on the complexities of understanding the health-care law and how it impacts the economy.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Later this hour and right now listen not something that impacts everybody in this country.
The health care law and today the Justice Department won't answer a federal appeals court judge who ordered attorney general Eric Holder.
To give him a written response as to whether the Obama administration believes that the courts have the right.
To strike down a federal law that order coming after the president made this comment about the health care law debate that's before the Supreme Court.
Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court.
Will not take -- would be an unprecedented.
Extraordinary.
Step of overturning.
-- law that was passed.
By.
A strong majority.
-- democratically elected congress.
I think he said in some ways that which is obviously.
You know -- we are there is piece of legislation pretty important piece of legislation.
Before the court he talked about.
The way in which courts have typically supreme courts have typically looked at pieces of legislation -- he broke any.
They need any new ground in the -- in the comments that he made.
From the Wall Street Journal -- thinks maybe some new ground was broken any even compare the president well.
That was it Abbas Dan joins us right now.
Not obvious at all but I don't wanna go into your column this morning in the was -- -- comparison.
Well okay we'll start with the was at a vase that most famous line.
At least most relevant line here in it was -- vase was when they pull the curtain aside in the wizard says pay no attention to that man behind the -- right -- -- I think this was the moment when not Justice Scalia said what about the eighth amendment.
You know against cruel and unusual punishment you actually want us to read through all 2700 pages of this law.
And I think what the president has been trying to do is change the subject and kind of prevent anybody from actually looking at the law which I spent some time doing this past week.
Specifically the mandate.
And -- challenge you to bring five people in off the street.
Read a paragraph describing the penalty for the mandate and -- if you get those like people to -- agree on what it means and -- to even Begin to understand what it means it's in comparable.
Available Affordable Care Act doesn't even use the word mandate in the language in the 27 -- -- -- think personal responsibility.
Requirement.
That's what they called this kind of orwellian phrase that defines the mandate and your right to word mandate in this context doesn't appear in the law.
Now speaking of bringing people in off the street even if they didn't understand it or -- that they did understand it.
Not a lot of people like -- people don't generally like being told what to -- Upset -- that struck down does that mean in your view that the whole law has to go because none of this works without it even for what the president wants to do.
I think some of the insurance mandates we'll probably go with that but.
It in O'Connell it raises an issue that I think.
Probably virtually everyone who comes on your program and the business world can talk about him.
These laws are so huge and so difficult to understand and so hard to comply with.
That large companies have entire departments dedicated to trying to make sure they don't.
Tripped over one of -- whether it's the Affordable Care Act or Dodd-Frank in this sort of thing has a really suppressive effect on economic activity.
And the Affordable Care Act it's not simply another law it's like the greatest.
And the nation of this mindset that you can just somehow write these incredibly complex laws.
That huge swathes of the economy has to somehow comply with.
It raises the issue which you explore the column of why the president.
Acts the way he does and mid may be and speaks the way he does.
About these critical issues to the country good it is as you say unprecedented.
War the leader of this country to come out before Supreme Court decision said.
And essentially attack the -- in the way that he did.
Well speaking of the word unprecedented it was attorney general holder who's trying to argue now that the president -- was saying that he hoped the court would honor previous precedents.
He is simply restating the case the argument that solicitor general Donald really took into that court.
We're not doing anything unusual here it's just another.
-- -- use of the commerce clause he got his head handed to him because at least five justices and I think some of the liberals as well.
Want it to him to explain precisely why mandating individuals.
To purchase a product was not a significant extension of the commerce clause.
And -- was a weak case going in and they were so arrogant and the president has sought self confidence in the things that he does that they didn't.
Foresee that they were going to get into such deep water with the Supreme Court and that's where we are now are at ten and we thank you for being here -- right now as you guys than.
