a 5-4 decision in the end, it was john roberts, the chief justice appointed by president bush who saved the health care law. senator obama voted against roberts confirmation in 2005. roberts went against his four conservative justices ruling that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance was a tax, not a penalty that falls under the congressional power to levy taxes. a harsh oped said the remarkable decision upholding the affordable care act is shot through with confusion. the mandate that's really a tax except when it isn't and the government whose powers are limit except when they aren't. one thing is clear, this was a one man show and that man was john roberts. our senior legal analyst jeff toobin joins us now. he was in the courtroom when the decision was announced. was it chaotic? >> it was the opposite of chaotic, soledad. i've been privileged to cover a lot of news events and i have never been in a room like that, there were not air molecules in that room everyone was poised and waiting. when john roberts announced the decision at 10:06, it was electric. he began by saying that the commerce clause, which we spent so much time talking about, did not give congress the right to support -- to pass the obama care law. and that as i looked at my colleagues in the press area, looked like it, seemed like the case was over and they were going to strike down the law. then he continued and said there is an alternative ground that the government puts forward that the congressional power to tax and as he was talking, it became clear, he was going to say that the law was -- would be upheld. i happen to be sitting a few steps away from senator orrin hatch. and i saw him brighten at the beginning of roberts remarks and saw his face fall as it became clear that roberts was going to uphold the law. he was stunned. i was stunned. and if anyone comes to you and says they predicted this result, i want to put them on a lie detector because i didn't. it was stunning, shocking and i'm still shaking my head. >> many conversations this morning about why. i read a little snippet. why? some people who say it is a legacy ruling, others who say it is a way for justice roberts to circumvent the -- to be a legislator essentially. what do you think it is? >> i think there are several possibilities, one is that he simply thought it was a tax, period, what you see is what you get. another possibility is he didn't want the court as an institution to be embroiled in the kind of partisan war fair democrats versus republicans that congress is on the other side of first street. the other possibility is he is also setting things up down the road for more conservative decisions, the version of the commerce clause that he laid out in the decision yesterday gives congress much lesllessleeway th previous versions have. it might be a long term play. all of those are possibilities, but i'm still puzzled over it. >> you and everyone else as well. i'll ask you to stick around as we introduce everyone to our guests. there are lots of aspects. stephanie cutter is going to join us, the obama deputy campaign manager and former aide to ted kennedy who was a champion of universal health care. a supporter of the health care law, his state voluntarily expanded the medicaid coverage in 1996, sanjay gupta is back, also a practicing neurosurgeon, worked in the white house during the clinton administration. abbi huntsman, will cain is an attorney and gave us a tour through the constitution and columnist of theblaze.com. stephanie, it's a victory, how are you feeling this morning? >> as the president said yesterday, this is a victory for the american people because there are tens of millions of americans already benefitting of this law through cost savings, rebate checks are going out to people across the country. senior citizens are getting discounts on the prescription drugs, parents are able to ensure kids with preexisting conditions can get care they need or put adult kids on the plans until they are 26. there are real benefits already under this law. >> lots of buts that come with that, we know that congress has already scheduled a repeal vote. >> this is not first time they scheduled a repeal vote. since it passed they've been scheduling repeal votes periodically and fairly often in congress. they keep failing. and i think that now that the supreme court ruled, the american people are going to want us to move on. there's a reason why congress has such a low approval rating, there's not a sense they are getting anything done for the country. i think now that this ruling is done, it's time to move on and focus on things like the economy in washington. jobs proposals sitting in the house of representatives that could mean a million jobs right now and they should focus on that. >> i think it's very incon electrovertable it's a win for the president in short term. the president in congress this is not a tax. we can play clip after clip saying this is not a tax. they made a promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. and yesterday we learned it was a tax. is that not problematic. >> what john roberts said, we have the power to impose this penalty on people through the taxation clause, it's a penalty. let's talk about who this impacts. most people have private insurance, i'm assuming everybody at this table has private insurance. >> you said it's a penalty. >> yesterday we learned it was a tax. >> let me finish. i'm assuming everybody at this table has private insurance. so this penalty does not apply to us. there are some people who are choosing not go get insurance because they can't afford. the health care law makes it affordable through the largest middle tax cut in history. after receiving this tax cut and putting the law in place, a very small amount of people, according to independent analysis, less than 1% of american people will still choose not to get health insurance. for those people, what we call free riders, what mitt romney has called free riders, we pay their health care costs so they need to take individual responsibility for they are health care. >> i understand also you like the law very well but i'm thoroughly confused now is your position it's a tax or is it a penalty? >> it's a penalty that if you choose not to get health care and you're imposing a hidden tax on all of us because we pay for your health care, u pay a penalty. >> let's talk a little bit about what happens next. stephanie says everyone know needs to move on and points to the very low numbers of approval for congress. how likely do you think that is? if you listen to anybody on the gop side, moving on is not how i would describe the ten or of the conversation. >> we have to move on. most states have been preparing for this moment, even if other states didn't like it. now the law is settled. so what people really care about, the rest of this is purely political. the vote in congress is total politics, it's not going anywhere. the senate won't do it, the president won't approve it. frankly i agree with stephanie, they ought to be focusing on things to get people back to work. for those responsible for putting it in place, let's keep going. i would love to see the white house and campaign focus on over the last couple of years, health care costs have been coming down and there are lots of benefits. for all of the folks who want to repeal it, let's make them say, that means they want to get rid of the condition on preexisting conditions and don't want young adults to be covered anymore on their parents policies. there's some real important provisions there that apparently they want to get rid of. >> let's talk about the expansion of medicaid, which is going to be -- was a very confusing element, one of those things that after people talked about the ruling, it became and there's this. what exactly goes on with that? >> the backdrop is a lot of people would be covered under medicaid, however much money your income was, they'll expand the amount of income and still qualify for medicaid. same thing was done in massachusetts in 2006. in the past they say, look, if you don't do this, you lose your medicaid funding and states did not like that. as you point out, soledad, sort of buried in the ruling yesterday was this stipulation that look, you no longer will lose -- you can opt out of this thing and not lose -- >> with no penalty, essentially. >> what happens pragmatically, there are people stuck now in the middle. tler no longer eligible for federal moneys but may not get state money either. i did some research on massachusetts to give you some scale, there's about 450,000 people who were added who got health care insurance and 158,000 of them actually did it through the exchange program and 61,000 did it through the expansion of medicaid. about 15% fell into that category in massachusetts to the extent that's a model. that's concerning. >> what goes into a governor's thinking about whether or not to opt in or opt out, especially now if there's no penalty for not opting in and big cost burden, why wouldn't everybody say let's not opt? >> there's a big cost burden either way, but we have to recognize, if we're not putting more people into medicaid, there are going to be accessing health care one way or the other. most likely if they don't have another kind of insurance or coverage, they'll be going to the most expensive place of all, which is the emergency room, which is also not a good outcome. that's one of the most frustrating things about this entire debate. people forget how bad it was before this law was passed. when i was campaigning for office in 2008, health care was the number one issue, before the president got his bill passed. people were concerned about access and small businesses were concerned about cost. we had real issues. nobody liked the status quo before either. >> that's true and polling supports that. i'll give you the last question, stephanie. when richard, who i made a bet with for a dollar -- >> you lost. >> i lost big time. >> he e-mailed me immediately, you owe me a dollar. so i will agree with jeff toobin, i was stunned. he said and i think that others would say this, that the messaging was very bad around this for the obama white house, the selling of the plan. when you look at the polling, a large number are against -- not an overwhelming number, are against the overhaul and when you break it down into the individual elements, they are overwhelmingly for it which to me says the messaging has not been great. you now have another opportunity to rye to redo the messages. >> i don't think you redo the messages. a couple of points on the polling, first of all, it's largely split according to party line. to the extent it's not, there's a good portion of the american people who disapprove of the law because they wanted it to go further than it did. and if you ask the question, you may not like the law but you want it repealed. overwhelming majority say no consistently. that's been the way since the law passed. i appreciate richard's comments on how the messaging went wrong, but $200 million in negative ads were running against this law. we saw the impact of that in the run-up to the 2010 elections. >> what do you do differently now? >> most americans are starting to experience this law, whether you can put your college graduate kid on your health insurance so your kid can get his foot on the ground and start thinking about his career, or if your kid was hey preexisting condition, you don't have to live in fear of your insurance, there's are real things impacting people's lives, most americans want this debate past them, the law to be implemented and have it improved as needed. we're going to continue implementing this law, efficiently and effectively and over time the american people are going to see the benefits and i think move past this political debate. that's what it boils down to. >> i was with you until the move past the political debate then i lost you. nice to have you in person, we appreciate that. coming up, virginia's republican governor bob mcdonnell will join us, his state was one of 26 states that sued the government. let's get to christine romans for the top stories. good morning. >> good morning, soledad. president obama will head to colorado to survey the damage from the wildfires and thank fire crews there, this as the out of control waldo canyon fire turns deadly. a charred body was discovered in a home outside of colorado springs. a second person is missing. police have arrested two suspected looters who targeted one home evacuated in the fire. to find out how you can help those affected by the fire, go to cnn.com/impact. blistering heat is on the way to the midwest and east coast. temperatures may top 100 degrees in many major cities today, including in st. louis where the national weather service it will be 108 degrees in st. louis. hundreds of records already broken and the heat wave may last well into next week. george zimmerman expected back in court today. he's hoping to convince a judge to grant him a new bond after his first bail was revoked. he admitted to misrepresenting his finances at his first bond hearing. his attorneys say he's not a flight risk and posing no danger to the community. attorney general eric holder on the wrong side of history this morning. he's the first sitting cabinet member to be cited for contempt of congress. the house voting to hold the attorney general in contempt for failing to turn over documents related to the fast and furious gun running operation. a sting that's linked to the death of a u.s. border agent. more than 100 democrats boycotted the vote and holder called it unnecessary and unwarranted. >> today's vote may make for good political theelter in the minds of some. it is a grace disservice to the american people, they expect and deserve far more. >> coming up at 7:50 eastern, we'll talk with pennsylvania congressman jason altmire, a democrat who voted for the contempt charge. still ahead on "starting point," we'll talk to the man who argued against the health care law in front of the high court. as i predicted, this is one i got right, along with everybody, that's true. anthony davis, there he is, goes number one in the nba draft. as expected. but the most heart warming moment actually came in the second round with the 33rd pick. we'll show you what happened there. you're watching "starting point." we're back in just a moment. homicide of young people in america has an impact on all of us. how can we save these young people's lives? as a police chief, i have an opportunity to affect what happens in a major city. if you want to make a difference, you have to have the right education. university of phoenix opened the door. my name is james craig, i am committed to making a difference, and i am a phoenix. visit phoenix.edu to find the program that's right for you. enroll now. welcome back to quts starts "starting point." stocks are surging responding to a brand-new effort to tame europe's krcrisis. they have agreed to a bailout fund without wraking up any debt. convicted sex offender jerry sandusky could end up collecting his full pension from penn state. that's nearly $59,000 a year. the state's pension forfeit tour laws cover 32 separate crimes but felony child molestation is not on the list. the new orleans hornets selecting kentucky big man anthony davis but the most unexpected moment came in round two, chants of usa for bernard james, selected 33rd overall. he's 27 years old, ancient by draft standards, that's because he has already served three tours of duty in the air force in iraq and afghanistan. gives you goose bumps doesn't it. >> that's what you missed when you went to bed. >> and went to my team. >> always that hope at the end of the tunnel -- mixing metaphors, light at the end of the tunnel. it's friday. let's talk more about the supreme court this morning. the decision to uphold virtually all of president obama's health care law will is far-reaching legal implications. the ruling on the individual mandate could affect future law that's will be passed by congress. the court says it is valid as a tax with the intention of limiting government's authority. and the ruling also says states can't be penalized for refusing join in the expansion. a former clerk for justice clarence thomas joins us this morning, nice to see you and thanks for being with us. i appreciate it. >> good morning. >> when you heard that the law was upheld and you had argued against the law on behalf of the national federation of independent businesses, what was your reaction? >> well, i was surprised and disappointed, of course, at the result. at the same time, we were gratified that the court made some new law very significantly limiting federal power in two different respects with the commerce clause holding and medicaid. >> about the chief justice who has a reputation of course as a constitutional conservative and yet he was a swing vote, today there have been some -- some of the op-eds have been sometimes vicious, sometimes trying to understand what happened. "wall street journal" said if the chief justice swayed to pressure, politico says it appears the act of the chief justice willing to cast aside judicial modesty in favor of playing to an audience, the "washington post" why did he do this? he carries two identities. institutionally he's a chief justice sees him self as you neekally entrusted with the court's legitimacy and reputation and stat tour. what do you think is the rationale behind his decision? >> i don't want to speculate about his motives. i will say -- >> everyone else is. >> well, look, he upheld the statute only by turning it into something very different from what congress enacted. what congress enacted was a legal requirement to buy health insurance. and he said that was unconstitutional and saved the statute by turning it into a tax on not having health insurance. and i think the dissent was very persuasive in arguing that regardless of whether or not congress could have passed a tax, they didn't pass a tax and indeed the president and the congress in selling this act to the american people were crystal clear that they were not intending to raise anybody's taxes. >> but literally verbatim in that answer you just gave, that is the rationale behind people who say it's -- he's acting like an activist, if you will. >> he is acting like an activist in the sense he is reading a statute and i think a very implausible way in order to try to save a statute he's created something that's very different from what congress enacted. congress and the president said this is not a tax. and now for him after they sold it as a mandate for him to say is a tax is pretty unconvincing. >> in fact, mr. katsas, you said this in your initial answer, you thought federal power might have been limited and referenced the opinion limiting the effects of the commerce clause, the portal through which so much law has been enacted. do you think congress won't be able to pass laws without the constitutionality of the commerce clause? >> it still remains broad but there was a holding by five justices yesterday that the commerce clause does not allow congress to force american citizens to buy unwanted goods and services, health care, broccoli, cars, whatever, that is a holding of the court. going forward congress will not be able to require people to enter into commerce and buy things. it may be greater latitude to tax people, but it won't have the ability to force people to buy goods and services. and that frankly was the major dispute in the case. >> gregory katsas, argued against health care in the supreme court. thanks for being with us, we appreciate it. still ahead, the health care decision lighting a fire under republicans, mitt romney saying we can repeal it by voting o