msnbc | June 28, 2012
>> so, let's also talk, chris matthews , about what this means for the republicans and the suggestion has been that if this happened and i certainly didn't talk to any republicans in congress over the last month or so who thought that this would be the way the ruling would come down, but there certainly was a lot of thought that if this was upheld, as it has been, that ? the republicans would use it as a rallying cry, that this would be, for them, an opportunity to really energize their base. does this help or hurt the republicans?
>> had the supreme court ruled that the president's landmark accomplishment was unconstitutional, the american right, perhaps not officially through the romney campaign you can the american right you the super pac money , the koch brothers, people like that, would have said we now have a ruling on this president's legit mass i is he -- legitimacy. it can be more severe than you can imagine. they don't have that sword right now. what they will do is rally against the politics or the policy of the health care bill they still believe is u.n. popular but nowhere have the weapon they would have had to wield. and i'm focusing now you watching this amazing decision where judge robert, the thief justice, held with the liberals. this is, i believe, trying to get into the heart of judge roberts right now, a moral decision. he found that route, the tax route that justified this because he wanted to justify this act. did he not want to be the chief justice that struck down health care , because it's the only health care plan in this country available right now. there is no alternative republican plan, nothing waiting out there the next 10, 20 years. this was t this was it for health care ? 230r9 0 milli30-something million. he and his wife, i think they said this is a case that matters morally. you are the chief justice. it is going to have your name on it one way or the other, not anthony kennedy 's, your name is going to go in the history books on this better off morally being where the country wanted to go in terms of the senate, a super majority of 60 senators, a majority in the house, the president's signature, the mandate of the public behind it. for you to strike it down would put you in the same position of say a roger tanny back in the civil war , upholding the fugitive slave law . this is not the right way you want to play your role in history, by being the one who strikes -- so i think it is a big moral decision by judge roberts, i think he found the tax opportunity to say the penalty was a tax and there for example it was constitutional, rear than focusing on interstate commerce clause , yes could have said this was unconstitutional. i think it was a moral call by him. of course, i think is the right one.