ruling. the passage here in which the judge says that the unchecked expansion of federal power suggested by the coverage provision would provide unbridled government powers but about the individual's right to choo to participate. doesn't this validate skeptics that despite intentions you can't require people to participate in a law like this? >> i think a couple of important things for perspective. first and foremost the administration argued on the other side of this case and disagrees with the ruling. i do think it is important to keep some perspective about the fact that there are now 20 or so cases making their way through federal courts. a -- the court -- this was the eastern district of virginia. 115 miles away, the western district court of virginia ruled