Republican senators are unable to pass what they are working on now they should repeal and then replace at a later date. What are the main obstacles of an agreement and what are the consequences of the g. O. P. If they fail to pass a bill . Lets ask wall street journal columnist and Deputy Editor dan henning gear Editorial Board member and Columnist Bill mcgern. Joe, you cover this for us. What are the divisions inside the Republican Party that are preventing an agreement . Well, there are two camps. One its the conservatives. People like ted cruz, ron johnson who are kind of disappointed that it doesnt do enough on deregulation. I think they are amenable to a deal. The real problem are the moderates. They paul who are you talking about . Im talking about rob portman. Paul of ohio. Shellie of west virginia. Bill cassidy of louisiana. I mean, there is a whole list of them. Paul all right. Whats their beef. Their main problem is with medicaid. They think the cuts, this bill transitions to a block grant. They think the block grant is not generous enough. And then there is all kinds of cats and dogs. They dont want to cut taxes for the rich. Paul they dont want to repeal some of the obamacare taxes that they campaigned to repeal. Right. Paul so thats a problem. Their problem is when they said they wanted to repeal and replace obamacare they really didnt want to repeal all that much. So, the question is where is the vin diagram between these two camps. Mitch mcconnell can find it. Paul thats what mcconnell has been trying to negotiate. The bigger problem you are saying though, politically, is the moderates who want to do much less on medicaid reform. Arent some of these people the same people who said, you know, we cant oh, my god, the deficit is too large. We have to do something about healthcare entitlement unless. Right. They have run on repeal and replace across four elections for nearly a decade. They have all these guys have voted in 2015 to repeal obamacare. Now that it might actually happen, they are getting cold feet. Paul they are saying dont make me take a tough vote. Look, paul, its clear in retrospect to me that the most politically shrewd thing that barack obama and the architects of the Affordable Care act did was expand medicaid. Because there are states like west virginia, ohio, arizona. The states have always been desperate to fund their medicaid. Paul here is the key, dan, medicaid is traditionally funded on a 50 50. Exactly. Paul this was a 90 10 deal. 90 of the cash to get new people on. Republican governors like john kasich who took the money and now think are literally addicted to this medicaid money. And the problem is that if the medicaid reforms go, states who didnt take the money, say like florida, i think they are going to be obligated to buy in to the Medicaid Expansion and then its game over. Paul the expansion of the medicaid, it wasnt just more money at a 90 10 rate. It was also extended up to 138 of poverty. Right. Paul it came not just bill for the disabled and needy and poverty. It became essentially a slowly moving gradually upward middle class entitlement. Absolutely. Its a huge i mean, really its obamacade. When they talk about People Health coverage its mostly medicaid. One of the issues, medicaid is a great sort of crucible for this. And whats missing is the president on this. He has tweeted. I think he has done some good things. Had some senators in. But what this really calls out for is like an Oval Office Address where you address these myths. As this is happening. The democrats are putting out that the republicans are cutting medicaid rather than cutting the growth and so forth. And it would be very helpful for the president to give andreas what the republicans want to do, why they do and explain it thats supposed to be his strength. Paul all right. Theres this idea about, joe, that if republicans cant get a deal, somehow they should go reach out to schumer, the democratic leader and say lets come reason together and have a bipartisan support bipartisan deal. Possible . No. Well, in a limited sense, but the people calling for everybody to come together and kum ba yah circle, never say what that deal would look like. There is no substance there whatsoever. And thats because there is not a bipartisan compromise. What happens if this fails is that Mitch Mcconnell is forced to go to Chuck Schumer and say we have got to do something about the exchanges. Paul because they are failing. They are failing. You have high and rising premiums and insurers leaving and tens of thousands of people in counties with zero insurers. So you will get a bailout of the exchanges that will be mainly democrats with a few republicans who are trying to prevent a crisis. Paul it will be a ratification of obamacare essentially with more dough. None of the reform thats in this current bill. You will get bipartisan, but it will be as if Hillary Clinton got elected. It will be worse than the deal republicans probably would have cut if president clinton was in office right now. Paul all right. What about this tweet by donald trump saying if the Senate Republicans fail, then lets just go to plan b. Plan b being we are going to repeal it you all promised to do it. We will repeal it first and then we will go work on replace. Ben sasse, the nebraska senator, republican recommended the same thing to donald trump. Plausible . I dont see how that really works. I mean it, seems to me that if you repeal it, whatever that may mean, the exchanges the exchanges are up and running out there. More or less, right . I think that throws the burden on tom price and health and Human Services to start tinkering with the exchanges to keep them afloat until they get to replace. That itself is going to be a mess. Paul the danger is it ruins healthcare markets. Yeah. Look, the larger thing is the Republican Party is supposed to be offering sliewfertions to the american people. And the real goal of republican healthcare policy is not just to return it to the status quo before obamacare, which was not that good but typically prove it, that to me would be ad abdication. They would be responsible. Thats exactly what the democrats want to transfer ownership to the democrats to the republicans. Paul all right. Thank you, all. When we come back, a victory for President Trump and the constitutions separation of powers as the Supreme Court allows most of his travel ban to go into effect. To go intusaa gives me the peace of mind and the security just like the marines did. The process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like youre a part of the family. I love that i can pass the membership to my children. Were the williams family, and were usaa members for life. The toothpaste that helps new parodontax. Prevent bleeding gums. If you spit blood when you brush or floss you may have gum problems and could be on the journey to much worse. Help stop the journey of gum disease. Try new parodontax toothpaste. Paul parts of President Trumps controversial travel ban went into effect thursday night after the Supreme Court ruled this week that nearly all of the president s directives could go forward in a unanimous decision the justices also agreed to review a series of Lower Court Rulings blocking the implementation of the march executive order which temporarily bars entry to the u. S. By nationals of six muslim majority nations. Oral arguments in the case are set for the fall, setting up a Supreme Court showdown over president ial power. Attorney david rifkin served in the white house and in the Justice Department under president S Ronald Reagan and george bush. Welcome, david, good to see you. Good to be with you. Paul so i know you wrote for us. And you believe that this decision was a victory for president ial power as a legal matter and was the right decision. Never mind the policy but just as a legal matter. Why . Because of the lower courts District Courts and two courts of appeal the fourth and the ninth have fundamentally deviated from the established Supreme Court case law that distinguishes between the extent of judicial engagement in Domestic Affairs where the courts pay some deference to the executive but basically scrutinize particularly in situations where there is alleged violations of fundamental constitutional rights. Paul right. Executive actions and Foreign Affairs where the deference is upmost, reflecting recognition that the two political branches possess the totality of Foreign Affairs power. Judiciary not expertise nor the ability to really do very much there. So this basically pushes the pendulum back to where the law should be, let me emphasize, this is way beyond this executive order, paul. The framework most lower courts have adopt would fundamentally destroy the ability of the presidency to carry out foreign policy. Paul i want to get into that. This is really interesting opinion because it was unanimous in order to reinstate the policy at least until they can hear the merits in the autumn. How much do you read, in how much significance do you read into the fact that it was unanimous . Quite a bit. Not too be too harsh. What the courts of appeal have done is utterly an enter racial. They have paid scant regard to the Supreme Court case. In a way it was a challenge not only to the presidency because as you know paul, i believe there is a quote resistance portion of the federal judiciary which is bad enough. Plift sized judicial making. But it also implicit challenge to the Supreme Court. Remember article three is a hierarchal entity. The Supreme Court attune the lower courts are suppose to follow the music so to speak. Paul article applies to the Supreme Court. Right. Paul you saying there are plenty of Supreme Court precedents that says on matters of National Security courts must defer to the political branches in particular when those political branches the congress and the president are united behind a povment you are saying that the lower branches here the 40 and ninth circuit, the lower courts really just ran roughshod over this in part because they dont like this president. They dont like this president and they have done it in a way that was most disingenuous. As i said they paid no attention to the Supreme Court precedent. Its just not a matter of deference. Whats important here is this, this transcends immigration. The same logic could be applied to the decision to use drones, decision to impose economic sanctions, frankly decisions to use economic force. Once its bonafide reason why doing something, this is it. The judiciary takes it on board. There is no balancing type of analysis that you invariably see in Domestic Affairs. Paul i think the lower courts were so out of line the Supreme Court should have reinstated the whole injunction, barred rather the whole injunction should have allowed it to proceed, the travel ban. Yet, they did say that the travel ban, they did overrule the travel ban in certain narrow cases of individuals who have ties to american families, the families in america or institutions such as a college or university where you have been accepted for admission. And, yet, there was a dissent on that from three justices. What do you make of that disagreement . I frankly think, paul, its a slight disagreement. I think the chief justice has accepted this fairly narrow category of people who will come in. Again, this is not about policy equity, paul. This is about constitution at the highest level. Getting nine justices on board is perfectly fine except for the exception the Supreme Court exercised own equitable discretion. Whats important to underscore for the viewers if the lower courts were right nobody could be stopped under this executive order. The very fact that vast majority of people are going to be stopped now for a duration underscores how thoroughly they have taken this off the table. The legal theories. Again, what troubles me the most are not the policy consequences, frankly, of stopping this ban. But the legal consequences of eviscerating established case law says, again, on Foreign Affairs, political branches reign supreme. You dont want justices making second guesses they dont have the expertise or knowledge to do. So i want to ask you what to expect in the fall when the justices address this on the merits. You could go for a 90 decision. We know the chief justice likes those kinds of decisions. But would veto too many concessions to the get the liberals on board and would you prefer a 54 split that makes a really thunder russ ruling on behalf of president ial power . Again, the policy stakes here in my opinion are quite minor. I think speaking with a clear voice, some chastisement in a measured fashion and proper paradigm for judicial engagement in this area is absolutely essential. This was a reasonable compromise to get 9 on board for the stay. When we get to the merits, oral argument coming i think the first week of october, look, i hope were going to get 9 perfect decision. But probably not. So, 63, 54 would be wonderful. This would not be the time to pull punches. By the way, as you point out in your h editorial, snroi doubt that the left is going to put serious pressure on the chief justice the way they have done with obamacare, for example. Very important to keep up the countervailing pressure as well. Paul thank you david rifkin, when we come back the Supreme Court wraps up big victory for religious liberty. Why will take a closer look at this weeks rule and what it says about the courts newest justice. Paul the Supreme Court wrapped up its term this week with a big win for religious liberty in a closely watched case the justices ruled 72. Missouri acted improperly when it denied public funds to a Lutheran Church seeking assistance from a state Program Providing grants for playground improvements. Were back with Dan Henninger and bill magern and james torrent also join us. Bill, how big a victory was this for religious freedom. I think its a big victory. I said before in mid evil times they debated angels on pinheads. Today we debate whether a playground thats lutheran can qualify for funds. I will say i dont think these are the biggest religious liberty cases because its about funding or the previous cases, the Supreme Court that was 90 about running their own business. Where its really going to clash are the cases that they are going to take like the cake baker cases from colorado. Paul whether or not they can exercise conscience in relation to gay marriage. Lesbian rights. Thats where the real nasty clashes are going. Paul 72 elena kagan joined the majority. And stephen breyer. Societ society thaso hethat gorsuch didnt jy deciding the limited circumstances of this case. So the majority is leaving willinwiggle room for future ca. Paul what do you make of the cases between the liberals. This is a case in which its a question of how absolute do you want to be about the separation of church and state. The argument here was the state had a policy of giving grants to organizations and it was discriminating against religion as opposed to supporting religion for the sake of religion. Paul thats where some liberals might say okay, thats just not right. Right. Interestingly, the next day, the Supreme Court then sent orders back to the Supreme Courts of colorado and new mexico which had ruled against the public funding being used for religious purposes, Religious School programs. Paul schools . Schools. Paul private school vouchers. The Supreme Court told those two courts reconsider your opinion. Thats a big deal. Because there are these socalled blaine amendments all over the country that forbid using public money for Religious Schools. By the way when the courts said about 15 years ago that states could, not must but could extend voucher programs to parochial schools that was a 54 decision. Paul that was a 54 decision. These blaine amendments, bill go, back to the 1880s, i think. Right. Paul they were aimed at a period proximate result the protestant majorities in this country were trying to say no no money for all these upstart italian and irish immigrant schools. We dont want catholic schools. The way they did it the Public Schools were protestant schools and sectarianment catholics and we are stuck with this. Look this is where donald trump gets credit for neil gorsuch. If you read his opinions, they are very subtle and he also rejects kind of these distinctions. He talked about someone who says grace before a meal is, that a religious meal or religious man or so forth. This is far more important than, for example, the president s executive order on religious liberty which i dont think amounts to as much. Paul yeah. Lets talk, fellows, about gorsuch. Because we got our first glimpse of him as a justice this week or this term. And i dont think you can reach conclusions about any justice in a few weeks. Maybe in a couple of years. It takes a while to see how they do. But what do you think about his debut . Well, the thing that strikes me most about it is he is a wonderful writer. My job is finding