. ♪ ♪ john: we are joined now by greg store. some are casting this as a bad day for john roberts. you say this is a good day for the chief justice. why? greg: this was always going to be a tough case for john roberts. either he makes conservatives mad at him or he runs a risk the court undercuts obamacare in a decision heavily criticized for being partisan. john roberts cares deeply about the institutional legitimacy of this court. so he went with the decision that backed obamacare. the reason it is a good day for him -- first of all unlike three , years ago he is not alone. he has kennedy in the majority. secondly, this is a ruling he chose to write himself. he could have easily handed it off to ginsburg. i suspect it is a ruling he is very proud of. i suspect he is feeling good about himself today. john: thank you. our second guest tonight is the legendary bob woodward of the washington post. he is an author of a great book about the supreme court, "the brethren." thank you for joining us. bob: thank you. john: at the last line of the book, "the brethren," the center was in cont

it is a victory for john roberts because john roberts at his confirmation hearing said he's going to be an umpire. a lot of people on the left said, oh, that's just horse manure. there's no way in which that's what he's going to do. i think the chief really showed his colors today and three years ago. today of course joined by justice kennedy as well and the four democratically appointed justices in giving not just the president but the american people i think a sweeping victory. >> although we'll see what democrats have to say about him after the same-sex marriage ruling comes down. who knows what's going to happen there. wolf blitzer, back to you. >> thanks very much. jake, let's talk about what's going on. we're waiting, about 15 minutes the president of the united states will walk from the oval office down those stairs into the rose garden and make a statement. he is obviously thrilled, thrilled by this decision upholding obamacare, the affordable care act, not by a 5-3 decisio-- 5-4 decision, but 6-3 decision. let's talk about the ramifications of this for the president. gloria

and i think you saw the john roberts part of this today. it doesn't say to you that john roberts loves health care reform. what it says to you is they understood that congress' intent was not to throw the health care system into chaos, but rather to provide these subsidies and, you know there's a statement here that says that the combination of no tax credits and an infective coverage requirement could well push a state's individual insurance market into a death spiral. it is implausible that congress meant to do that. so they're just interpreting what congress meant, but that is what the president has been saying. that's what the president said. this is a huge legacy day for barack obama. >> this may well be the best week of his second term in the sense that back from the ashes he had lost that trade vote. then they have a big comeback with the help of republicans, we should take note with the help of republicans he gets his trade legacy piece of the agenda and now this, which the cement is about dry. yes, there's another legal challenge b

roberts. >> i think it's different in that john roberts' judicial philosophy has been random so we don't know where he stands anymore. he's been an inconsistent conservative and, therefore, his writings have been very confusing. >> got to go. ric and julie, thanks very much for an interesting debate. >> thank you. >> still to come your top tweet, univision's president compares donald trump to a mass murderer and the british teenager who put one over on the "new york times." >>> escapee david sweat shot and captured by officers bringing him in alive. it involved a massive manhunt with more than 100 officers tracking down richard matt and david sweat since they broke out of a prison on june 1st. here's what we know. the search was brought to a close in the town of constable, new york just two miles from the canadian border. tick-tock now. shortly after 3:00 a police officer spotted david sweat walking down the street. he

. ♪ john: we're joined by greg store. some are casting this as a bad day for john roberts. you say this is a good day for the chief justice. why? guest: this was always going to be a tough case. either he makes conservatives madore he runs a risk the court undercuts obamacare in a decision heavily criticized for being partisan. he cares about the institutional legitimacy of the court. he went with the decision that backed obama care. the reason it is a good day for him, unlike three years ago he is not alone. he has kennedy in the majority. this is a ruling he chose to write himself. he could have edited -- handed it off to ginsburg. it is a ruling he is proud of. he is feeling good about himself today. john: thank you. our second guess, bob woodward of the washington post. thank you for joining us. at the last line of the book, the brethren, the center was in control. for a lot of people on the left when john roberts became chief justice they thought the center was not going to be in control guest: he is smart about the politics of the court. people like to say there are n

so john roberts did not suddenly discover his inner liberal today. i think, perhaps, what today's decision illustrates is that this was maybe a pretty easy case. and, in fact, the theory that every single member of congress didn't understand the law that was passed, because not one member of congress supported the interpretation of the plaintiffs at the time this law was passed, suggests that, you know, maybe this law, maybe this case was really a reach on the part of the plaintiffs, not that john roberts is suddenly betraying the conservative cause, because he's, by and large, a very conservative justice. >> just quickly, john turley, should we be extrapolating forward to, oh, i don't know, the next big decision that's going to land, momentarily, gay marriage, on what we saw today, 6-3, or is every case different, don't jump ahead of the cart? >> that's really the question that a lot of people are asking. it's not just same-sex marriage. there's an epa case, an enormously important case that involves statutory interpretation. a lot of people will be

bill: john roberts wrote this. the act gives each state the opportunity to establish its own exchange but provides that the federal government will establish the exchange if the state does not. that line seems to go directly to the argument about established by the state. he interpreted that clause in a very broadway you would agree? >> yes yes. he you know in fairness to the chief justice i've been very harshly critical of him there is a school of thought amongst appellate judges that the court should bend over backwards to save a statute rather than to invalidate it because some very small portion of it is inconsistent with the rest. i understand that but that is not what he did. what he did today was to suggest that plain ordinary english words, as justice scalia pointed out, which are not ambiguous in their meaning, somehow, to the six of the justices in the majority, are ambiguous and therefore they can interpret them however they want. i don't think that is, fully intellectually honest. think they wanted to s

roberts. >> i think it's different in that john roberts' judicial philosophy has been random so we don't know where he stands anymore. he's been an inconsistent conservative and, therefore, his writings have been very confusing. >> got to go. ric and julie, thanks very much for an interesting debate. >> thank you. >> still to come your top tweet, univision's president compares donald trump to a mass murderer and the british teenager who put one over on the "new york times." benny's the oldest dog in the shelter. he needed help all day so i adopted him. when my back pain flared up, we both felt it. i tried tylenol but it was 6 pills a day. with aleve it's just two pills, all day. now i'm back! aleve. all day strong. >>> a couple of big time media fails. cnn has dropped international correspondent karl penhaul for using twitter to attack donald trump as a racist idiot and trashing trump's children. after trump made the comments about how mexico sends illegal immigrants with rapists and the he assumes some people and the president of univisionnous says he shouldn't have posted a picture of

chief justice john roberts sort of sounded the theme for the dissenters saying whatever your personal feelings about same-sex marriage are, is a decision that should be made by the people not by the court and the typically barbed comment today justice scalia said if he had

and john roberts was a bush appointee. so i think that, i think that the court is the supreme court because it divers these deciphers these things and takes out opinion. you can't always have a republican justice or are democrat justice by definition and they do a good job when sometimes we are a little annoyed when they don't go our way. >> great to talk to you both. so what happens now? everybody back to neutral corners until we figure identity what to fight about next? in a moment we will speak to jonathan rousch. it's just plairnlg and it's marriage and it's tonight's "inside story." >> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. the following words ring with a particular resonance today. if there's any social policy today that has a fair claim to be scaldingly inhumane it is ban on gay marriages as conservatives tirelessly and tirelessly and rightly pointed out, marrying whom they choose is extraordinary deprivation. case for gay marriage laid out just over 19 years ago by this man. jonathan rousch, then writing i

john roberts is live at central, south carolina. >> reporter: where are we going to put them all. lindsey graham's hopes rest on south carolina. the senator says if he wins in his home state he believes he could do well across the south and do well with the nomination. he fended off a number of challenges during the senatorial primary last year. won the general election by 14 points making national security the centerpiece of his campaign.

>> well i would have supported john roberts for supreme court. yes, i would have supported it. >> even though he's twice sided with the president on the law that you and your colleagues say is ruining the health care system in this country? >> i think it's a terrible law written behind closed doors. as nancy pelosi said you have to pass it before you find out what is in it. i think every democrat who voted for it didn't read it in the first place and the president continues to ignore the fact that many people around the country are hurt as a result of his law. he just says it's working well. we're only 1 in 11 people across the country believe it's working well. there's a disconnect between the way the president thinks the way the law is working and what people across the country are seeing and i hear it every weekend in wyoming from folks who have lost their insurance that they liked that worked for them. they had to buy more expensive insurance with higher co-pays, higher deductibles. for a lot of things being covered that they don't need want

chief justice john roberts wrote the opinion. the most conservative members, scalia thomas and alito dissented, scalia saying the law should now be called scotus care. the president took a victory lap in the rose garden earlier, first pointing out obama care's rocky path to implementation. >> as we've worked to implement the affordable care act, there have been successes and setbacks. the setbacks i remember clearly. >> he then declared the law is now woven into the fabric of america. >> after more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law, after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to say. this law is working exactly as it's supposed to. in many ways this law is working better than we expected it to. so this was a good day for america. let's get back to work. >> i love the pause and then you hear the birds tweeting. let's get back to work. >> the birds are all singing the praises of o

and obamacare is going to have john roberts name stamped on it. the conservative chief justice has basically kept on the books and will keep on the bookdzs for some time. >> and justice roberts wrote the decision. for the second time in three years, the united states supreme court upheld the affordable care act. the court rules the federal government can provide tax subsidies to help buy health insurance? n. states that decided not to run marketplaces for coverage. in the majority opinion, roberts writes, congress passed at fordable care act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. the 6-3 decision was more assertive than the a-45-4 laws. in the dissent, scalia blasted the court's interpretive jiggery-pokery, where he writes the law and should call it scotuscare. barack obama celebrated in the rose garden. all right. let's get to that sound bite in a little bit. first, guys your initial reaction to this story? >> wow. >> we had different reactions. >> mika obviously very excited about it. i will just say what republicans have said

-- 6-3 was the decision and anthony kennedy and john roberts joining the majority. it was kind of telegraph that this would go this way. the bloomberg terminal did say it was likely obama would win this case. i have seen sentiment and the around and going into this, a lot of people thought it was a 50-50 shot that it could go either way. when this case sort of made its way into the mainstream with a lot of ceos and executives, they thought, no, it will never have a chance. i am not worried about it, but in recent months, i saw that change, especially after the oral arguments. i think it was a surprise for a lot of people. there was no certainty as to how this would go. couldit the controller brought my terminal and take a look at the health care index on the s and p, we will be able to show you the amazing jump here. it is still under 1%, but take a lot that. i will: out and you can see what has happened in the last -- i will hold it out and you can see what happened. health care stocks were down into the decision came out.

roberts' first rescue of the affordable care act, how is what john roberts did, in that majority, in 2012, different than what we saw just this week? >> well, i would just say, and joan can answer too, my thought is that decision three years ago, was everybody going off in a different direction. this was quite clean. you had the majority. you had the dissent. secondly, this was 6-3. anthony kennedy was just veins sticking out in his neck opposed to the law last time. this time, on a totally different question granted, he was all along. the other thing is the majority opinion sort of accepts the whole premises of obamacare. they just say this is how it works and that's why we interpret the law this way, next question. >> you could even see it in how chief justice roberts delivered the opinion. three years ago, he went through a complicated rendition to uphold it. he had to stitch together various rationales, ying and yang. this time, he was very clear confident, as he read. and you really felt like, look, this was a statutory interpretation matter, wasn't really heavy lifting when it

the political john roberts for the second time in three years. chief justice has rewritten the affordable care act in order save it. beyond its implications for health care, the court's 6-3 ruling in king vs. burwell is a landmark that betrays the chief's vow to be an umpire and not a legislature. he stands revealed as a most political justice. the black letter language of obamacare limits insurance subsidies to an exchange established by the state but the democrats who wrote the bill in 2010 never imagined that 36 states would refuse to participate. so the white house through the i.r.s. wrote a regulation that also opened the subsidy spigot to exchanges established by the federal government. chief justice roberts has now become a co-conspirator tor in this executive lawmaking. that's the "wall street journal"'s lead editorial. and in the "hill" newspaper this morning is this article. senator hatch praises roberts as remarkable judge. but here's a little bit of senator hatch on the senate floor yesterday. >> the court has decided to rule against

charlie: even though he had done it earlier, were you surprised by john roberts? adam: we knew that the four liberal justices would vote in favor of the administration. two votes were in play, justice kennedy and the chief justice. the administration was hoping for one, must he particularly delighted to get two. the chief justice was this time leading a unified and lopsided majority, really speaking in ringing terms about the law, quite different from three years ago when his opinion was fractured. joined in whole by no other justice. with a grudging quality to it. we seem to have a shift from the chief justice. charlie: when you look at the issue itself, explain to us the states that did not have exchanges. it was argued the subsidies did not apply. adam: there was a phrase in the law that if you look at all by it self you might well think that only states that have established their own exchanges, these days typically democratic run states, party run red states, are entitled to exchanges. the phrase is that the exchange must be established by the state. the chie

writing for the majority chief justice john roberts said "while the meaning of the phrase an exchange established by the state may seem plain when viewed in isolation, such a reading turns out to be untenable. those credits are necessary to avoid the type of calamitous result that congress plainly meant to avoid." >> judge scalia wrote "this court rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere we should start calling the law scotus care." he says "discouraging truth that the supreme court of the united states favors some laws over others and is prepared to assist and uphold its favorites." the administration has been dogged by the so-called obama care arktd text m.i.t. economist michael gruber. >> if you don't set up an exchange that means your citizens don't get their tax credits. >> reporter: the administration repeatedly tried to distance itself from gruber despite his numerous appointments at the white house including at least one meeting with the president as the law was being drafted and remained confident it would be victorious. >> this law is working. and it's going

to many liberals chief justice john roberts wears a cape today. how did a man whom senator obama voted against end up saving obama care from crumbling yet again? also in politics -- >> look i give up a lot. i give up hundreds of millions of dollars in deals -- >> donald trump going all in on the presidency and saying it's costing him millions. but is he as serious as that scowl suggests? a sneak peek from my one-on-one interview. >>> good afternoon everyone. welcome to "the lead." i'm jake tapper. breaking news on the national league. the multimillion dollar manhunt in new york for escaped killers richard matt and david sweat is now on day 20. you're looking right now at live pictures from inside the courtroom where the arraignment of prison guard gene palmer who was arrested yesterday for aiding in the escape of the two fugitives will take place at any moment now. there's also some new information on how the prison was run. a former maintenance supervisor at the prison telling cnn the clinton correctional facility used inmates to do plumbing and

john roberts was pretty clear no more frivolous lawsuits. and no more fear that the administration might come in and change this rule because the irs was the source of the ruling in this ambiguous case. and i think he pretty much put to rest for good. >> ron, you were in the courtroom today. we don't have cameras in there unfortunately. but we had this very bitter vitrealic dissent read by anthony scolia, roberts more firm than people were thinking. what was the reaction like in that courtroom? paint the picture for us because we couldn't be there. >> well, first of all, it was a little surprising. most of us expected that the decision would come down tomorrow. the solicitor general who i spoke to just before the court proceeding, he thought that it was going to come down tomorrow. but i have to say that the chief justice actually articulated the opinion exactly the way john verrilli wrote in the brief. you have to look at the entire statute. not just at a few words. what was really interesting is when justice scolia started reading his diss

at the core of chief justice john roberts decision was a very, very conscious - he was very conscious of the consequences of this decision. is that really what tilted the scales in the favour of the affordable care act? >> i think what chief justice roberts said in this opinion was that this - he was obligated and felt the necessity to read the language of the statute in the context of the statue, which was to say to look at the words, the purpose of the statute, and the larger historical problem that the congress was trying to involve. he interpreted the language in light of all of that understanding. and that drove him to an interpretation that made the statute workable. >> in the scalia dissent, does he have a point - associate justice scalia when he says basically they have taken words that have obvious plain meaning and construed them to mean something else entirely. >> i think what you are seeing here is a contest between two competing views of how to understand statutory language. yes, justice scalia has a point that the plain language of the statute can be taken to mean what h

bush would say john roberts, that was the best decision of his presidency. now, there are some conservatives today who are really mad and don't believe that they are really mad about healthcare. but there are other decisions that roberts has made that people would say he is our guy. yes, there is widespread disappointment by some conservatives which is why while some republicans might say thank goodness we didn't have to deal with this actually we can move on now. i think it cuts another way conservatives are demoralized with this decision. they don't believe this will ever be repealed and they could be right. >> do you know who is psyched right now? gruber. he is the one who put this language in and went out and embarrassed the entire administration saying the public is stupid. we got a pass in the dark. could you imagine if this had gone the other way? feared for his life political standpoint, hillary clinton is having to get closer to barack obama on obamacare singular most unpopular law in a generation. >> right i think it was the president out yesterday

bush chief justice john roberts wrote the majority opinion for the court. leaving no doubts for his judicial -- the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. congress passed the affordable care act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. in plain terms, the decision means everyone who got health insurance through healthcare.gov will get to keep their plans. since most states operate through the federal exchange. removing the subsidies would have kicked 6.4 million people off their health care plans. the decision seals the fate on a law in which president obama has staked much on his presidency. the president was thrilled following the announcement. >> we finally declared that in america, health care is not a privilege for a few, but a right for all. >> after more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law. after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, the affordable care act is here to stay. >> this is not about

the chief justice of the supreme court, john roberts, said in his majority opinion, that he disagreed. he said the meaning of that phrase may not be as clear as it appears, when read out of context, and by using the words "much exchange," the act indicates that state and federal exchanges should be the same. let's not forget this was a huge victory for the president of the united states for his legacy. it's a huge victory for millions of americans who have health insurance right now, because of those subsidies. outside the court, cheers greeted the official announcement of the ruling and the 6-3 decision to uphold that part of the obamacare law. the part that deals with these federal subsidies for health care insurance. let's go to our justice correspondent, pamela brown. she's over at the u.s. supreme court. what's the reaction so far, pamela? >> reporter: well outside the supreme court, when that ruling was announced, there were a lot of cheers and celebrationing large crowds out here saying aca is here to stay holding those signing. the stakes were very high for this because this w

if you look at the last ten years with john roberts now ten years running the court, the plates. if you look at the last ten years with john roberts now ten years running the court, the if you look at the last ten years with john roberts now ten years running the court, the decisions that will stand out for conserve fives that will annoy him is that he twice bailed out obamacare but liberals hate the fact that he his chief justice gave us the decision. decisions that dealt a huge blow to the voting rights act. i think what we see about john roberts and these two decisions is dissenting on marriage, agreeing on obamacare, is he doesn't like to see the court as a political institution. he hates when we describe a conservative or liberal bloc of justices. i think he is concerned about the court's legacy and his own image. >> is it fair to say we know where three justices will be on the right, alito, thomas and scalia and we always know where four justices are on the left when it comes to kagan, breyer, sotomayor and ginsburg, and it's kennedy and roberts are the swings? is that what

chief justice john roberts wrote the majority opinion saying congress passed the affordable care act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them. >> the affordable care act is here to stay. >> the rule of law is all about black worlds on a white piece -- words on a white piece of paper. it's what the actual language says. >> the supreme court and various justices have said you can't look at four words out of context, that we have a responsibility to look at the law as a whole. >> i think john roberts again rewrote the law to give the president and the administration what it wanted. >> judge an toe anyone scalia agreed -- antonin scalia agreed with that last statement. several republican presidential contenders have vowed to repeal the law if elected. >>> taxpayers, be careful when you wish for. you might get it. maryland governor larry hogan has given the purple line light rail project his blessing but with conditions saying taxpayers would have to chip in more to allow the state to chip in less. however, he didn't give a number. >> under our more efficient and more cost ef

. >> with chief justice john roberts changing from the time that the oral arguments were heard to before the -- until the decision was reached. >> according to some reports, yes. i think that it's an understatement to say that he's criticizing the supreme court. we crit size the supreme court all the time he's adopting a rhetoric. he's not threatening to disobey court orders but he's adopting a rhetoric of defiance and disrespect toward the court's authority and the court as a co-equal branch of government. >> how so? >> you look at when he upbraided them at the state of the union with the justices sitting right there and he -- >> but unable to respond. >> unable to respond. and he completely mischaracter mischaracterized the decision. it doesn't leave no limit on foreign corporations. foreign, corporations cannot donate to political campaigns. justice alito was shown during the statement saying that's not true. he hasn't gone back to the state of the union, by the way. >> you don't expect him next year. >> but he's treating the court as a political adversary and instead of members of th

chief justice john roberts upheld it and thomas dissented. it means that the millions who rely on healthcare subs doze to pay for healthcare coverage still have them. >> this was a huge win for the obama administration, a decisive victory for the healthcare law. in the courtroom or in the press room, there was pandemonium that this decision had been made, and on the steps of the courthouse as well. supporters of the healthcare law had gathered outside of the court. and when the ruling came down, they let out a cheer and began to sell bay. [ chanting ] the 6-3 decision means government subsidies that help low and moderate income americans pay for health insurance will continue to be available nationwide. not just in the states that set up their own healthcare exchanges. the supporters were jubilant. >> make no mistake about this. today's decision has monument al significance. it means that the affordable care act is not just the law of the land. it will remain the law of the land. it means that the millions of people who have been receiving su

. >> host: why do you think professor koppelman john roberts ruled the way he did? >> guest: well, there's been an awful lot of speculation as to what roberts' motives were. one that -- and there's no way to know for sure. there is one possibility that i think hasn't been given enough attention that i give some attention to in the book, and that is that roberts was honestly trying to do his job the best he could. that he honestly accepted the arguments. i think that they're bad arguments, and i say why they're bad arguments why congress couldn't do the mandate under the commerce power but roberts has a long history of trying not to strike down statutes as unconstitutional. in lots of cases, he's been willing to construe that any am ambiguity in a statute -- for a long time, in many cases, he's been trying to construe any ambiguity in a statute to avoid holding the statute unconstitutional. and that's what he did in the health care case. the mandate was capable of being construed as a tax, it was withheld from people's tax refund, it was collected by the irs, it depe

gwen: i want to ask about john roberts and what the roberts court is turning into this session. no matter which way they go on obamacare, which could change your answer by this time next week, but in these two cases this week, does this tell us anything about the kind of court that he runs, that he operates? pete: on the one hand, a decision by the supreme court would normally be seen as liberal when it makes it easier to sue an employer but remember, this is -- you could view this decision as an interest of religious rights and we've seen that a couple of times and this is a very pro-freedom of religion court under john roberts and although the internet facebook case is technically about interpreting criminal law it's also a pro-free expression. gwen: this was not a constitutional decision. pete: neither one. gwen: the court also has a reputation of being pro business, right? but in this case, the retailer which won in a lower court was saying we're doing our best to figure this out and theyuled against them. religion trumps the business interests? pete: that's what the supreme

the decision by chief justice john roberts joined by another conservative anthony kennedy, and the court's four liberals. the court says the three parts of the law are interlocking. insurance companies cannot deny coverage for preexisting conditions and everybody must get coverage and take away the subsidies make it more affordable. take away the subsidies, the court said, and the system collapses. congress passed the aca so they could afford it. >> today's decision has monumental significance. it means the affordable care act is not just the law of the land, it will remain the law of the land. >> reporter: but in a blistering dissent for himself and justices alito and thomas, he says the decision shows the court favors some laws over the others noting the court saved obamacare twice this time and three years ago, scalia said we should start calling the low scotus care. though the dissent doesn't mention chief justice roberts personally it was a barbed attack on his ruling. >> the supreme court has somersaulted on traditional rules of statutory interpretation. >> reporter: there's nothing

it's not the case where they can go to john robert and say, he let us down. >> all right. let's talk about the politics of this. we have a presidential election around the corner and you and i covered the midterms in which we saw a lot of candidates run against compaore -- obamacare, and were successful. >> that's exactly what they wanted to do. there was nothing they could run for or against that would be an ideal in congress that would change this. now they can continue doing what has been successful for republicans in the past keep running against obamacare. as it stands and as it is it enguysen energizes a lot in their base. i think from the political standpoint, this is something that republicans are probably a bit relieved about, because they have something concrete to run against, and yes, it has been successful for them on the campaign trail. >> michael thank you. i want to bring in david ariosto. this really comes down to people, people being able to afford health insurance or not. the president said that the law is working. what do we know about whether that's tr

chief justice john roberts wrote the opinion for the majority. justice antonin scalia delivered a scathing dissent. our chief legal correspondent jan crawford has more on this. >> reporter: when the word reached the courthouse steps supporters were jubilant. >> fight fight fight fight. health care is a human right. >> reporter: but in the courtroom, the room was tense as chief justice john roberts summarized the ruling affording billions of dollars of subsidies for americans in every state to buy insurance. congress passed the affordable care act to improve health insurance markets said roberts for the court "now to destroy them." opponents argued congress wrote the law to make tax credits only available to people who buy health insurance through exchanges established by the state, but only 16 states actually created their own exchanges, so that would leave empty handed more than six million people in 34 states who buy insurance and get subsidies through the federal web site healthcare.gov. roberts acknowledged the law continues more than a few e

president obama while a senator voted against the nomination of chief justice john roberts. but the chief justice has returned that favor in a very, i guess a gracious way by twice affirming the affordable care ago. >> rose: also the court this week is going to probably this week or beginning of next week announce what it thinks about same sex marriage. will that be a historic decision as well? >> you know that is probably a once in a decade decision. that's the culmination of a civil rights struggle. most of the signs point to a decision in favor of same sex marriage in all 50 states. i think we'll get that decision probably more likely monday than friday. but one of those two days. and that will cap a term at the supreme court that has, across a whole range of issues, turned out to be surprisingly liberal. so you have a court dominated by five republican appointees generally conservative, but this term at least they have time after time delivered liberal decisions. >> rose: and why is that? >> it may be just the selection of cases. it may be a little bit the mood of the ti

chief justice john roberts, who saved obamacare once before back in 2012 did it again today, rejecting conservatives arguments that nose federal subsidies should not be provided to people who live in states that have refused to set up their own obamacare health insurance exchanges. but the chief justice declared that made no sense, given the purpose of the law.ss passed the affordable health care ability to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them, roberts wrote. roberts ruled that courts should follow what congress intended when they wrote the law. in a democracy, he wrote, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people our role is more confined. justice antonin scalia furious in his dissent. on the losing side again, and blasting his colleagues who keep saving this law. we should start calling this law scotus scotuscare he sneered. he added, the discouraging truth that the supreme court of the united states favors some laws other overs. at the white house, the president in the rose garden relieved. >> this is health care in america. what we're not going

john roberts joined by another conservative anthony kennedy and the court's four liberals. the court says the three parts of the law are inner locking. insurance companies cannot deny coverage for preexisting conditions and everybody must get coverage and take away the subsidies the court said and the subpoena collapse collapse. >> today's decision has monumental significance. it means the affordable care act is not just the law of the land it will remain the law of the land. >> but in a blistering descent for himself and justices ali the to and thomas he says the decision shows the court favors some laws over the others noting the court saved obamacare twice this time and three years ago, scalia said we should start calling the low scotus care. he didn't mention the abashed attack the on his rule sglgingruling. >> statutory interation. >> there is nothing to suggest obamacare is on thin ice or the court is eager to hear more challenges. no big ones are pending anyway. >> the supreme court said it's constitutional law and told us what it means and that the administration ha

it's chief justice john roberts upholding p obamacare. the issue the subsidies for low income americans to help them buy insurance. some get them through their states but a lot didn't want to join obamacare. they provide subsidies to 6 million americans. conservatives scoured the law and found a phrase in the corner of the law that h pro hip imts the federal government from paying subsidies. they said look the whole law should come down. in his opinion. john roberts, joined by four if liberals a 6-3 decision a big one said we are not going to play that kind of game. we will look at what congress intended as a whole. it's a the right thing to do to read this law in context. he said congress passed this law to improve health insurance mark ends not to destroy them and rejected the second challenge to the obamacare affordable care act health care law. >> terry moran. obviously a major victory for president obama. the supreme court defending what is his secure legislative achievement. thank you, again. we'll move to another breaking story now

the dissents were vehement, led by chief justice john roberts. but the majority, led by justice anthony kennedy, found its justification in the 14th amendment, written after the civil war to extend equal protection under law to freed slaves. this court decided equal protection and due process also include same-sex couples. here's our chief legal correspondent, jan crawford. >> reporter: it was a ruling decades in the making, a hard- fought victory for the right to marry, guaranteed in a landmark decision that emphasized equality for gays and lesbians and the full promise of liberty. writing for the court, justice anthony kennedy said: the court said laws that ban same-sex marriage impose stigma and injury, no different from the hurt that resulted from laws the court said laws that ban same-sex marriage impose stigma and injury, no different from the hurt that resulted from laws barring interracial unions. president obama, who had opposed same-sex marriage until just three years ago, hailed the decision as a victory for america. >> when all americ