Mar. 26 - Constitutional experts Kevin Russell, a partner with Goldstein Russell, and Alan Morrison, professoer of law at George Washington Univetsity, face off on the Supreme Court hearing over Obamacare.
Two lawyers who listen Supreme Court arguments on president Obama's health care law. Joining me now on my left this Alan Morrison on my right is Kevin Russell judgment you'll -- it's -- to keep points you have 45 seconds to respond to others might. We'll start with you happen. And so this morning the issue at the court as well over two decades of the criminal court has jurisdiction. To decide this challenge to affordable healthcare that. Question turns on the meaning of the campaign jumped from accidental -- -- -- the people have to wait not to challenge attacks until they've been forced to pay. And in this case I've heard a lot of question. From the justices this morning suggesting that they don't think -- the place. That they don't think that -- supply so that it does apply. That the government has waived its application I'm not relying on I. And so I think it's likely from a portion of the argument I saw that the courts can go ahead. Allen your 45 seconds out I agree completely with Kevin that the court really does appear to wanna decide the question. Probably got as they have to figure out how they gonna do yet. One of their life lines was that he's not jurisdictional that is is not mandatory. And the solicitor general cop got up an argument and said absolutely not this is jurisdiction that we can't waive it but it doesn't apply and the court didn't seem to be. Enthralled without argument so we'll see what happens. You're trying to make it. The court also was asked to try to separate them tax penalty. From the requirement to buy insurance. And on that the court seemed quite in this unsympathetic to the private -- its either gonna decide. That this is a penalty and therefore it doesn't come within the meaning of the tax injunction act. Or that is not a penalty is a penalty and that is covered by the act but it's not gonna go that way. Kevin Harris. I think I didn't agree that the court is trying very hard to do. Two things one is not create a lot of law that apply outside of the -- on the difficult for the government to collect taxes. In the future and at the same time and wanting not to say anything. With respect of this issue that we'll prejudged. The constitutionality of the stuff that they were right about tomorrow what might happen if -- side. That these two provisions that separated or that this was really attacked. Our counseling get regular second point. Why do think that it's very likely that there's going to be consensus and of the day this is not attacks within the meaning of the taxable. What happens -- Which is limited usage policy can you must have must have plucked from most of the path they're gonna say I think of him this is not. They have to penalties. -- your response. I think that and it may well be right optimism what's the limiting principle is because although this is -- constitutional case. If me and stated this actually doesn't apply it applies to every other kind of case involving the statute. Since everyone in the United States is going to be subject to penalty potentially. That means a lot of lawsuits could potentially come down the road and some of the justices asked about that very problem so I think they've got it's clear what I would like to do it's not clear how they're gonna get there. And I'd point out that. We'll have to wait and see but I agree with Kevin. That they are very worried about saying anything today that could sound like a pre judgment on the question of the constitutionality. Of this as a tax which is coming. Tomorrow. I don't mind back in the court and so. Points if the government lawyer a hard time arguing. That this is not a happy so -- of course not content and when the government argued that it is however something that also in the government's tax. Gentlemen thank you very much you appreciate it -- -- this is writers.