it's been a week of major rulings at the supreme court, culminating with the most anticipated decision in more than a decade, health care reform. chief justice john roberts caught many observers off guard by siding with the four liberal justices to uphold president obama's signature accomplishment. cnn's kate balduan begins our coverage. kate, this was a ruling that went against conventional wisdom. >> i would absolutely say so, candy. it was a bombshell ruling with the chief justice, as the swing vote joining the court's more liberal justices in the majority narrowly upholding the main provisions of the president's health care law. the justification for that is what surprised many court watchers. the court justice writing for the majority that the mandate was unconstitutional, under the commerce clause, really rejecting the argument that the obama administration and congress stood behind the most. instead, the majority said the law was upheld under congress's power to tax, a pretty unexpected legal route. roberts wrote this, in part, "the federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. the federal government does have the power," he says, "to impose a tax on those without health insurance." laying out the difference between the two arguments. though the liberal justices didn't agree with his overall reasoning on the basic question of should the mandate stay or should it go, they joined, forming a surprising coalition. but that means that the conservative justices were in the dissent, and it was an unusually harsh dissent. on the majority's legal reasoning, they wrote, "to save the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it." they go on to say, "imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry." a pretty scathing criticism aimed, as you can tell, directly at the chief justice himself, candy. >> and kate, there were several other rulings this week that made huge news. >> it was a very big week. the court offered a split decision on arizona's illegal immigration law, striking down three of the four provisions at issue, while unanimously upholding, at least for now, the most controversial one, the requirement that police check people's immigration status, while enforcing other laws, if the officers have reasonable suspicions they are in the country illegally. they also ruled in favor about a man who lied about earning the medal of honor. he wasn't have ever in the military. and was prosecuted under the federal law called the stolen valor act. this man argued his lie was actually protected speech, protected under the first amendment, free speech. well, the justices showed very little sympathy for this man, even calling him pathetic. in the 6-3 ruling, though, they agreed with his legal argument. and another one we're all watching, the supreme court reaffirmed their landmark citizens united ruling, which two years ago helped open the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending by corporations. the court this time was asked to hear a montana case on whether states can limit independent spending. but the 5-4 majority refused to hearing arguments on the issue, instead ruling that citizens united, that ruling trumps state law. that's another one with big implications going forward, candy. >> and it's really useful to know that you can be pathetic and still win in the supreme court. >> well said. >> thanks, kate. our kate balduan, we appreciate it. the health care ruling has sparked a supreme court mystery. the text is peppered with signs that chief justice roberts may have switched his vote at the last minute. we want to talk about that more with tom goldstein, publisher and co-founder of scotusblog.com. so there are a lot of signs, one of them being in the dissent, the conservatives didn't address john roberts' reasoning until the end of their dissent, and that's taken as a mystery. do you go with it? >> this is all a possibility. when you have a really long opinion that goes on for so many pages, you can always find he leaves in there. i think it's unlikely. we can tell who was assigned opinions throughout the course of the term that chief justice roberts always had the principle majority in the health care case. we know that he was always. and it seems unlikely at the last minute he was going to change his mind, given that they known this case was coming to them for years. i think there's some indication that the votes may have changed around some, things may have moved some, but i doubt this was a last-second switch in time. >> and some people think there were hints in his questioning that he might have gone this, okay, you could call it a tax route. >> that's right. his questioning, during the oral argument, did raise this question of, well, it might be unconstitutional, under the commerce power. this idea that conservatives were so concerned about, overreaching as an attempt to regulate interstate commerce. but maybe the fallback position of the obama administration, that kate just described, might be enough to save the law, and that's how it ended up. >> you have to listen to them very carefully, right? >> yes. >> let me ask you a question about the chief justice. i read in some of the commentary afterwards, that this was an opinion that seemed to be the chief justice in his role as chief justice, that he was very aware that the court is seen as an increasingly politicized. and that this was his sort of, okay, american people, you can trust this court to follow the law decision. take us inside his mind, if you can. >> the chief justice only speaks through the opinions. there's a lot of speculating going on, a lot of psychology. but i think you can start with the premise that he believed this was the right outcome. but the premise follows from a philosophy that says, with big economic legislation that can affect hundreds of millions of people, the supreme court ought to be the last resort rather than the first resort. that this is principally congress' job. if he can find a way to uphold legislation, that's the supreme court's job. and i think in him writing it, that's the case he has to make, would he just join someone else's opinion or would he be the author? he was showing the country, that it's not a partisan institution. that the conservative appointed by a republican president, chief justice of the united states, can be the pivotal vote to save the signature accomplishment of a democratic president. even if that's not necessarily the intended result, it is certainly the result. >> so the law was there, that helped him back up his decision as a justice. but the opportunity was there for him to act as a chief justice? >> that's exactly right. and many people have said, and i agree, that this is really going to be remembered as a pivotal point in the roberts court. the supreme court over the decades is known by the chief justice. and it's going to be incredibly hard to criticize, either him or the court as a whole, over the next ten years, for being too conservative. because people can always point to this decision. >> next term, major cases on affirmative action, we may get some voting rights cases, perhaps even some same-sex marriage. does anything that justice roberts, chief justice roberts said tell you about how he's going to view these next cases? >> i don't think so. remember that before yesterday, this had never been a single case that we had 5-4 with john roberts joining the four more liberal members of the court against four conservatives. there had in his first year been one 5-3 decision, but this was extremely unusual and it doesn't suggest a trend in any way. i don't think this fundamentally changing his philosophy about how the law ought to be interpreted as a conservative. instead, it was this limited role. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. whether you agree or disagree with the supreme court, the ruling on health care reform is a huge deal for the country that affects most every american. cnn's tom foreman joins us to drill down on what the decision means for you and your family. >> for many, many people, since it was signed back in 2010, a lot of folks haven't seen a big result. sure, if you have kids who are college aged, they were able to stay on your insurance, one of the earlier science of this, but as we're progressing, you're going to be able to see a lot more. we have the court ruling that just came down now, which in some ways opening the floodgates. next year in 2013, you're going to see a cap on flexible spending accounts. those are the things you do through work, where you set aside money before taxes and spend it throughout the year, there'll be a limit on that next year. also next year, some higher income earners will be hit by the taxes that are associated with some of this. there are taxes and there are fees hidden throughout this, aside from the part that the court said amounts to a tax, now, which will make a big difference here. if we move ahead, 2014, that's a big year. we're all going to see changes then. that's when you must buy insurance. if you're a family, the penalty for not doing that will be about $285 or 1% of your income, whichever is larger. there will be insurance exchanges established in the states. some people have said this is sort of like expedia.com, a thing where you go online and try to find a way to buy insurance in your state. there will be no disqualification for existing conditions at that time and there will be expanded medicaid for the very poorpoor. so 2014 will be a very big year. but by 2016, the penalties ramp up, by that time, the penalty will be $2,085 or 2.5% of your income. and by 2018, that's when the tax on those cadillac insurance plans come in. but i will say this, candy, in all of these equations as we march through the years, the big question is how does the math work out? democrats keep saying it will pay for itself, it will all be worthwhile, and we'll see it in the savings. republicans say, not so much. the bottom line is this is a $1 trillion program over ten years and there are a lot of questions about how the math is really going to play out and who's going to wind up being hit by some of these things and who will benefit from some other ones. candy? >> so we expect you back there with that board in 2018 to tell us the answer. >> for years and years, we'll be adding this up to see what the sum is. >> let me ask you something. looking at this from a political point of view, it does appear, as republicans are said increasingly, that the real heavy sort of stick part of this whole bill doesn't really happen until 2016, which if the president should win re-election, will be his last year in office, and then the cadillac plan doesn't even happen until 2018. so is it true that we got the good stuff first and then moving to the bad stuff down the line? >> you do in a sense. i was discussing yesterday with some folks, i wonder how much more we're going to see this kind of policy making from both parties. because, listen, nobody likes better the idea, you know, of saying, let's get the goods now and let's shove the bills off on another congress and another president. but that may very well be what happens. and when we get to this year or the next year, because bear in mind, there are families who right now think they don't have a cadillac plan. but by 2018, you might. and if you're paying a tax on it then, you might say, gosh, this was such a great idea a while ago, now, maybe not so much. >> and we should also point out what congress does, it can also undo. so 2018 is a long time away. >> yes, it is. >> thanks so much, tom, appreciate it. democrats and republicans are scrambling now to put their spin on the supreme court's bombshell decision. will obama care be an even bigger campaign issue now? and some people say chicago has become more dangerous than the war zone in afghanistan. teenagers are doing a lot of the shooting and the dying. and, outrage after the 9/11 memorial was littered with trash by junior high students. and so college was a dream when i was a kid. i didn't know how i was gonna to do it, but i knew i was gonna get that opportunity one day, and that's what happened with university of phoenix. nothing can stop me now. i feel like the sky's the limit with what i can do and what i can accomplish. my name is naphtali bryant and i am a phoenix. visit phoenix.edu to find the program that's right for you. enroll now. in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. ♪ a little bird told me about a band... ♪ an old man shared some fish stories... ♪ oooh, my turn. ♪ she was in paris, but we talked for hours... everyone else buzzed about the band. there's a wireless mind inside all of us. so, where to next? ♪ the supreme court decision upholding health care reform is energizing both the obama and romney campaigns and underscoring the starkest contrast between the candidates. both of them talked about the decision hours after it came down. >> that's why even though 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 health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. in fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current republican nominee for president. still, i know the debate over this law has been divisive. i respect the very real concerns that millions of americans have shared. >> this is a time of choice for the american people. our mission is clear. if we want to get rid of obama care, we're going to have to replace president obama. my mission is to make sure we do exactly that. that we return to the american people the privilege they've always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate. where we don't pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt. where we don't have a setting where jobs are lost. if we want good jobs and a bright economic future for our ourselves and for our kids, we must replace obama care. >> let's get more now with cnn contributor, ryan lizza, washington correspondent for "the new yorker." so just some truth squadding, first of all, the white house thought this would be a popular law, with what the president says. and despite what mitt romney says, it's not like he could walk it off and says, i repeal this law. doesn't work that way. what's behind that rhetoric? >> i think the scenario by which he can repeal this, he has to win the senate. remember, the senate's controlled by democrats. the republicans need to retain the house, and obviously has to win the presidency. if he wins the presidency, a better possibility that the republicans did well in congress. but then, he has to -- he's got his republican's best friend, the filibuster, to deal with in the senate. and repealing obama care would be almost as difficult as passing obama care, right? >> 60 votes. >> 60 votes. so then you move to this very complicated procedure called reconciliation. there is a device where you can get things through the senate with a simple majority, 50 votes. and within hours of the supreme court decision, lots of republicans are now gaming out, can we, if romney is president and we take over the senate, can we repeal obama care through reconciliation. >> just defund it? just not give it any money? >> that's another option, you can defund it, but you leave all kinds of pieces. as obama was trying to pass the law, the white house had this debate. do we do it with overcoming a filibuster with 60 votes or do it with reconciliation? they decided, at least at first, to do it with 60 votes, because they decided that doing it through reconciliation would create what they called the swiss cheese law. you couldn't do everything you wanted. so that's -- it's not as easy for romney to get rid of this thing as he stated in those remarks yesterday. >> and then comes the hard part, replace. >> and that's where the obama team now is coming back with him and saying, if you're going to get rid of this, let's put some pressure on romney and say, what are you going to replace it with? and so far the romney camp has been shy about giving details on that. >> one of the things that interested me with the notes we saw on the supreme court was justice ginsberg noting that congress' basis for this health care law was mitt romney's health care law. it just seemed like a political -- >> yeah, you know, it remind med, both scalia and ginsberg in decisions this week took little shots, or at least references to what's going on in the campaigns. which i don't think there's anything wrong with that. these guys are political actors, and they watch what's going on. scalia in his arizona dissent, i believe, mentioned president obama's recent decision on not deporting certain classes of illegal aliens, and ginsberg talked about how the idea for obama care originated in massachusetts. on the one hand, it's factually true. and on the other hand for us, she's being a little political there. >> a little bit of, we get it, folks, we're not really behind an ivory tower here. >> exactly. >> health care has not been a winning issue for the president. he hasn't talked about it on the campaign trail. is it more of a winning issue now? i sort of look at it and it's like he's gotten the "good housekeeping" seal of approval and maybe people take a second look km >> i always think part of the reason the polls are so poorly -- the polls are so down on health care, one, there are a lot of liberals in those polls who wanted his health care law to go further, so they express disapproval. but even if you take that into consideration, it's never done well in the polls with and the obama team, this campaign, they haven't really talked about it. he's not running on his health care record, his biggest achievement and they're not running on it. the other thing, a lot of people don't know what it does. the opinion polling on health care is highly sensitive to the data that people have. so perhaps, we'll see, that now that the supreme court, which still garners a great deal of respect in america, has upheld it, we'll see if that affects its -- >> a new light on it for some people. ryan lizza of "the new yorker," thank you. >> thanks, candy. president obama's attorney general held in contempt of congress. ahead, what's next for eric holder after an unprecedented slap from the republican-led house? plus, america's so-called second city is now among its most violent. up next, the latest on chicago's skyrocketing murder rate. many of the victims are teenagers. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ transforming sounds ] [ male announcer ] transformers. the ride. ride it at universal studios hollywood. ♪ in a world where ♪ there is so much to see ♪ there's still no other place ♪ that i would rather, rather ♪ rather, rather be ♪ [ male announcer ] dip into sabra hummus and discover a little taste of the world. enjoy sabra dips. adventure awaits. america's so-called second city is now among its most violent. just this year, the murder rate has skyrocketed more than 30% in chicago. the latest rash of killings, just days ago, and many of the victims are teenagers. cnn's ted rowlands spoke to two 16-year-old gang members about their world, where death is a way of life. >> reporter: devante's family wants you to take a good look at something you may need to brace yourself for. devante's body