whether to hold attorney general of the united states, eric holder, in contempt of congress. that vote expected this hour. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." it's the most anticipated supreme court decision in more than a decade. and one that impacts the lives of almost every american as well as the presidential campaign. in a 5 to 4 split, the supreme court upheld the affordable care act, a law so tightly bound to president obama that both critics and supporters call it -- and i'm calling it now what they are calling it, obama care. behind the historic ruling and meticulous legal reasoning that caught many observers offguard as well as the surprise split that saw the chief justice of the united states, john roberts, siding with the courts' four liberal justices. kate bolduan begins outside. >> reporter: absolutely, wolf. a bombshell ruling. the individual mandate, the centerpiece, but getting to that conclusion was a surprising revelation. the chief justice writing for first unconstitutional under the commerce clause and later writing it would be upheld under the taxes cause. congress' power to tax a very unexpected legal route and reasoning barely got any attention in oral arguments when they were hearing this case. now, here's a little bit of the chief justice writing in the majority opinion explaining the reasoning here, chief justice writes "the federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. the mandate would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command." . he's talking about the commerce clause but goes onto say, the federal government does have power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. it can be reasonably read as a tax flt i'll tell you, wolf, that reasoning seemed to be supported by the chief justice alone. but on the basic question of should the individual mandate stay or should it go, he was able to get the four more liberal justices to join in to form the majority. a very surprising coalition, wolf. >> very surprising indeed. the dissent was very harsh as well against the chief justices opinion. tell us about that. >> reporter: absolutely. a very harsh dissent being read from the bench by justice anthony kennedy. he was joined by the four more conservative justices on the bench. those four justices joined together arguing that not only the individual mandate should have been thrown out, but they thought the entire law should go as well. here's what the dissenting justices said really speaking about that taxing clause, the reason behind upholding the individual mandate and the reasoning that the chief justice wrote about, this is what the dissenting justices wrote. to say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. inverts the scheme and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry. pretty scathing criticism directly squarely at the chief justice, wolf. >> kate bolduan, thanks very much. let's dig a little bit deeper right now with our senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobin. his new book is coming out in september. also joining us, senior editor and legal correspondent for "slate." she and jeffrey were both inside the court when the decision was read. jeffrey, let me start with you. take us through those historic moments you were sitting and you were listening -- >> we were practically this close in the courtroom too. i have to tell you the five minutes between 5 of 10:00 and 10:00 were some of the longest five minutes i've ever been through and also some of the most silent. that room nobody was breathing. chief justice roberts said at 10:06 he would deliver the opinion of the court, it was one of these great moments where no one outside of those nine people and the people behind the curtain knew what he was going to say. what made it even more extraordinary is that the beginning of the opinion was so critical of the law. his first summary, his first probably ten minutes of what he was saying was about the commerce clause. and i remember saying to dalia, that's it, it's over. then he went into the taxing power. and you thought, wow, he's really going to hold it up. but you didn't know even as he was going that it was going to be upheld. it was just stunning. >> yeah. you must have been shocked when he said that but and changed the entire decision basically from what you thought it looked like it was going to be. >> it was an amazing moment, wolf, in the fact he was giving the challengers everything they wanted. between activity and inactivity, forcing them into commerce. what he gave was so extraordinary beyond what anyone had thought he would give and to yank it away and say, but, it's a tax. and that was really an amazing moment. everybody got whiplash because it just happened so fast. >> the taxing argument has been part of the government's brief all through this process. >> not part of the president's plit #political statement. >> no. that's why. there's been this contradiction in the government's position. its public/political position, it's not a tax, and its legal position. they always did raise it. it came up very little in the oral argument -- >> except from the solicitor general. he made this point. we have the audiotape. they released the audiotape. no videotape. i want to play this exchange he had with the chief justice on whether or not this mandate was constitutional. listen to this. >> they thought of it as a tax, they defended it on the tax power, why didn't they say it was a tax? >> they might have thought, your honor, calling it as a penalty as they did would make it more effective in accomplishing its objectives. it's collected by the irs on april 15th. >> that's the reason. they thought it might be more effective if they called it a penalty. >> that was very significant obviously with hindsight. dahlia, did you realize when listening to the oral arguments that the entire basis of saying it was constitutional the mandate would be based on the tax as opposed to the commerce clause, which they rejected as unconstitutional? >> i wasn't savvy enough to catch it. i didn't think that was an a-ha moment. but i would say there are some people immediately after saying, huh, they hooked roberts here. former acting said it talking votes memoed a short time after. i think he likes this tax argument. so there were sharper eyes than mine who thought they'd picked off maybe a fifth vote. but i have to tell you even though it's an idea circulating in the blog sphere, i don't think anyone thought the court was going -- >> solicitor general deserves credit for coming up with that. >> he deserves credit especially from me because i was so critical of his performance. look, i called it like i saw it, but i was wrong. he was right. and he's the winner here. and it's no surprise that the first phone call that barack obama made after he got the news was to donald to congratulate him. >> he deserves a lot of credit. at the time he was being slammed that he was ineffective, didn't make good arguments, but obviously made one very good argument and gave the chief justist of the united states that opening. how surprised were you, dahlia, that the decider was chief justice and not the decider anthony kennedy. >> we've all been walking around with the what would kennedy think moment for the past three months thinking this is all about kennedy. he's a traditional swing voter. it looked at argument as though he was in play. so i think everyone thought that the chief justice was going to offer the opinion, but you're quite right to say that people thought that the big, big decision was anthony kennedy. >> i'm sure you did and dahlia, you did as well, if justice kennedy had gone with the majority, then justice roberts may have gone along as well. but for justice kennedy to go with the minority and justice roberts to that i can what some would argue a profile-encouraged moment, that was pretty extraordinary. >> it was extraordinary. and, again, predictions are hard. and i sure blew this one. but what's so incredible is that kennedy wrote a dissent that could have been written by justice slee ya. it was not disagreeing with the majority and the individual mandate, he would have struck down the whole law. all 2,700 pages. >> when you heard the questions he was asking during the oral arguments, kennedy, you thought it was over. >> that's one area where we disagree. i thought he was very hostile in oral argument. and i did think roberts asked some questions of both sides that were somewhat more skeptical of both sides. but, look, i didn't predict this result. and i was as surprised as anyone. >> what does this say to you, dahlia? you've been watching this court for a long time. what does this say to you about the chief justice? >> it says when he got up there at his confirmation and he talked about minimalism and humility and putting the institution of the court first and a lot of us scoffed and said he's a movement conservative and he's here to act on the very, very strong right wing will of the party, i think we were a little bit mistaken. i think that this was an act of true statesmanship. people talking about john marshal and likening him to the great leaders of the court. i think he made a lot of people very mad today, but i think he fell on his sword for the integrity of the court. i think it says he puts the court first. >> i'm going to disagree with some of that. john roberts was and is a liberal man. it's still the chief justice of parents united, parents involved which may end civil rights affirmative action and that's something they're going to get next year. don't let's kid ourselves that john roberts has turned into the second coming of earl warren. he's not that conservative on that issue on this day. >> what a day it is. all right, guys, thanks so much. we're going to have more to discuss obviously in our next hour as well. meanwhile, president obama had a hint of a smile on his face as he approached the microphones after the ruling. we're going to hear his reaction. and his rival, mitt romney, energized by the decision. his reaction as well. plus, the impact on the race for the white house. and the historic house vote on whether to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress. it's happening very soon. [ creaking ] [ male announcer ] trophies and awards lift you up. but they can also hold you back. unless you ask, what's next? [ zapping ] [ clang ] this is the next level of performance. the next level of innovation. the next rx. the all-new f sport. this is the pursuit of perfection. the all-new f sport. focus lolo, focust sanya let's do this i am from baltimore south carolina... bloomington, california... austin, texas... we are all here to represent the country we love this is for everyone back home it's go time. across america, we're all committed to team usa. i have to know the weather patterns. i upgraded to the new sprint direct connect. so i can get three times the coverage. [ chirp ] [ manager 2 ] it's like working in a giant sandbox with all these huge toys. and with the fastest push-to-talk... i can keep track of them all. [ chirp ] [ chirp ] [ male announcer ] upgrade to the new "done." with access to the fastest push-to-talk and three times the coverage. now when you buy one kyocera duracore rugged phone, for $49.99, you'll get four free. visit a sprint store, or call 855-878-4biz. [ chirp ] we're awaiting a vote on the house floor. they're voting in fact right now on a democratic alternative to send this motion back to committee. a motion that would hold attorney general of the united states, eric holder, in contempt of congress. this democratic motion will be defeated by the majority republicans in the house. then the republican version to hold eric holder in contempt will come up for a formal vote. we expect that to pass given the lopsided republican majority in the house of representatives. there will be some democrats who will vote for this as well. we'll continue to monitor what's going on on the floor of the house of representatives. never before in the history of the united states has an attorney general of the united states been held in contempt of congress. we'll let you know what's going on on this historic vote. let's go to jack cafferty right now. he's got the cafferty file. jack. >> biggest day they've had in washington in quite some time, isn't it? >> yes, it is. >> all right. the supreme court reminded all of us in an instant this morning what a tremendous impact these nine people can have on the lives of hundreds of millions of americans. and what came as a surprise to many, as you've heard, is that chief justice john roberts, a george w. bush appointee, broke with the conservatives, sided with the court's liberal justice in favor of obama care and the individual mandate. in a way it was curiously refreshing whether you agree with the court's decision or not. that's because a lot of people have come to believe that politics has played an outsized role in the supreme court's decision in recent years. probably really got going back in 2000 with bush versus gore, when the supreme court effectively handed the presidency to george w. bush. then two years ago came the citizens united ruling allowing unlimited spending by corporations and unions on elections as long as it's independent of the campaigns. whatever the reasons, there has been a marked decline in the supreme court's approval rating with the american public. a recent poll found only 44% of americans approve of how the high court does its job. that's down from 80% in 1994. the "new york times" cbs poll shows an overwhelming 76% of those surveyed say the supreme court justices sometimes let their own personal or political views influence their decisions. only 13% think the court's decisions are based only on legal analysis. but the court's critical ruling today might move the needle once again when it comes to how we view the highest court in our land. and that's the question we're dealing with, how does today's health care ruling affect your opinion of the supreme court? go to cnn.com/caffertyfile. post a comment on my blog or go to our post on the "the situation room" facebook page. in school used to think, supreme court, what a boring branch of government. not today. >> you're absolutely right, jack. there are several supreme court justices who are well into their 70s right now. the next president of the united states, whether that's mitt romney or barack obama, probably will have at least one, maybe two openings. and that new supreme court justice, whoever it happens to be, probably will be late 40s, early 50s, could have a role to play for 30 years, maybe 40 years if they live -- this is a lifelong appointment as you know, jack. you're absolutely right. this is a high profile issue for millions and millions of americans as was evidence today. >> there you go. good point. >> thank you, jack. president obama was visibly pleased as he made a statement after the ruling came down. he called it "a victory for people all over this". >> good afternoon. earlier today the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act. the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. in doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle, that here in america in the wealthiest nation on earth, no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin. that's why i knew it wouldn't be politically popular and resisted the idea when i ran for this office. we ultimately included a provision in the affordable care act that people who can afford to buy insurance should take the responsibility to do so. in fact, this idea's enjoyed support from members of both parties including the current republican nominee for president. still, i know the debate over this law has been devicive. i respect the concerns millions of americans have shared. and i know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically. well, it should be pretty clear by now that i didn't do this because it was good politics. i did it because i believed it was good for country. i did it because i believed it was good for the american people. >> the president reacting in the east room of the white house. the ruling adds new fire to the already-heated presidential campaign. mitt romney is making it issue number one, at least right now. our national political correspondent, jim acosta's joining us with more reaction. what is the republican presidential candidate saying? >> reporter: well, wolf, until today health care reform had been on the back burner in the general election phase of this campaign. but in response to the supreme court's ruling, mitt romney said the american people now face a choice. and he's right. walking out to a podium that was bearing the sign "repeal and replace obama care." mitt romney said what the supreme court got wrong, he will make right. >> what the court did not do on its last day in session, i will do on my first day if elected president of the united states. and that is i will act to repeal obama care. >> reporter: using the term obama care 18 times. >> obama care, obama care. obama care. obama care. >> reporter: romney presented himself as the voters' last chance to strike down the president's health care law. >> this is now a time for the american people to make a choice. >> well, it should be pretty clear by now that i didn't do this because it was good politics. >> reporter: across town and minutes later the president acknowledged his signature legislative achievement remains unpopular, but then he threw some jabs of his own. explaining the law's most controversial element, individual mandate came from his republican opponent. >> in fact, this idea's enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current republican nominee for president. >> reporter: both sides seized on the justices words from the health care ruling. pointing to ginsburg that it came from massachusetts, ie romney. and chief justice roberts held the mandate was constitutional because its penalty is really a tax. >> this is a middle class tax increase. you know why we know it's a middle class tax increase? not because i'm saying it, because the supreme court has said it. it's the basis for them upholding it. >> reporter: something the president denied three years ago. >> still a tax. >> that's not true, george. for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. >> reporter: if he repeals the laws, president romney said he would keep some of its consumer protections. >> got to make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured and not lose their insurance. >> reporter: but house democratic leader nancy pelosi noted as the insurance companies have, the mandate pays for those protections. >> i don't know. >> reporter: now the romney campaign says it's raised more than $1 million since the supreme court ruling. oddly enough the decision is uniting the gop behind the man once dubbed by democrats and even a few republicans as the father of obama care. wolf. >> jim, thank you. let's dig deeper with gloria borger. how does this move the ball in the presidential race? >> i think what it does is draws some knneon lines. as jim pointed out, took mitt romney nanoseconds to give a press conference and say he's going to repeal and replace the president's health care reform bill. and it galvanizes those conservatives who have been so skeptical about mitt romney as the father of massachusetts's health care reform, they're now galvanized around him because he's the only horse they've got to fight the president. makes the congressional races that much more important. if you want to repeal it, you have to h