Does the health care ruling place SCOTUS back in the public’s favor?

>> let people know who are joining us. the supreme court has upheld the individual insurance requirement. ? that is the heart of president barack obama 's health care reform law. i want to also bring in jonathan turley , law professor at george washington university law school and ken jie yo sheen know, constitutional law professor at nyu law school . dissenting justices including had scalia, kennedy, thomas, aleet toe, your reaction, ken jie?

>> the one thing we haven't hit yet this is a huge victory for the legitimacy of the court. the thing most reminiscent of, chris, the 1992 casey decision in which a court that had been stacked with republicans supposed to get rid of the abortion right nonetheless upheld it you know, breaking down sort of partisan barriers. i think this is a really great day for the united states supreme court , so far as we have roberts writing the majority opinion .

>> jonathan turly, let's talk a little bit about that one of the things we learned, first of all, the approval ratings among the american people for the supreme court have dipped significantly over the last decade. i think they were around 44%, the last poll that was taken. and there was a lot of concern that much like the rest of the country, this was a court that was deeply divided, not just divided constitutionally but politically and that the american people had always held the supreme court in a much higher regard, believing they were, indeed, above that political fray. do you think that helps to repair some of that damage?

>> it is very interesting because when roberts went through his confirmation hearing, he was very clear around passionate about trying to get away from 5-4 decisions. that would not be the case here. but he was trying to say that he ? wanted to bridge that gap on the court itself and he just did that in immigration, just the other major case handed down this week. it was roberts that joined in splitting that baby, so to speak, and saying that the federal government has sweeping authority, preserving one provision. now again, he has appeared to bridge again this point on health care . i think conservatives are likely to be highly disappointed in him, supporting the more liberal justices, more importantly, as the report indicates, the majority feels that the commerce clause was not sufficient to support this mandate, what happened here is they have created this ability to get around it the for the tress of the commerce clause . if you take the tax road, you can go around it and achieve the same ends. that is not going to be what a lot of federalism wanted. they view this case as sort of the alamo for states rights , the court has been bleeding federalism for many decades and they wanted a very strong opinion. they play is gotten it on the commerce clause but the court may have also affirmed that you can avoid the commerce clause entirely by basing something on the tax power.