Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

First Funerals Held for the "Emanuel 9"; Prison Guard Charged but Released After Posting Bond; Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies; Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 25, 2015 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[10:00:02] CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Lerner, as you know, is at the center of allegations that the tax agency targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny.

The next hour of CNN NEWSROOM starts now.

And good morning. I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me. We're waiting right now on two important decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices expected to deliver rulings on same-sex marriage and Obamacare either today, tomorrow, or Monday. We'll let you know as soon as they come in.

But we begin in Charleston, South Carolina, where one hour from now Mother Emanuel will later rest the first of her nine parishioners gunned down last week in that horrific attack. Funeral services for Ethel Lance will begin at 11:00 a.m. Eastern. She was a lifelong member of Emanuel AME and will be buried in their cemetery.

Also next hour, the first of two viewings for the reverend and state senator, Clementa Pinckney. The earlier viewing will be at his home church in Ridgeland, South Carolina, the later viewing at Mother Emanuel.

Alina Machado joins us live from Mother Emanuel in Charleston. Good morning.

ALINA MACHADO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. Two of the victims of this massacre will be having their funerals today. The first will be Ethel Lance, as you mentioned. She was 70 years old when she died. The other funeral services will be for Reverend Sharonda Coleman Singleton. That will take place today.

Now tonight here at Mother Emanuel, as you mentioned, there will be a viewing of Reverend Clementa Pinckney's body. Yesterday thousands of people showed up at the state capitol to pay their respects where he was lying in state.

Now we're also learning a little bit more about Reverend Pinckney's funeral. We know that large delegation, a bipartisan delegation will be traveling from Washington to Charleston tomorrow for the funeral, and we also have heard that the president has begun drafting his eulogy, the eulogy that he will be delivering during the service.

His speech will focus primarily on the tragedy that happened here and celebrating the nine lives that were lost, but the White House has not ruled out, Carol, the possibility that the president could speak about some of the controversial topics, some of the controversial issue that have come to the forefront since the tragedy that happened here, perhaps talking about the Confederate flag and maybe even gun control -- Carol.

COSTELLO: All right. Alina Machado reporting live from Charleston this morning. Thank you.

Turning now to the manhunt for the two killers on the run. A second prison employee is now charged in their escape, and he's already out of jail. The prison guard Gene Palmer posted bond overnight on charges that he helped the killers escaped maybe without even knowing it. According to prosecutors, Palmer gave the inmates a screwdriver and pliers to fix electrical breakers in the catwalk behind their cells. Those killers would later use that catwalk to escape.

Palmer is accused of providing the contraband and then trying to cover it up. An official familiar with the investigation says police found those tools at Palmer's home along with paintings he allegedly accepted from the men as payment. After the escape, Palmer allegedly burned or buried those paintings to destroy the evidence.

So let's get more on this, CNN's Boris Sanchez live in Owls Head, New York.

Good morning, Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. Palmer obviously posting bail this morning. He's accused of unintentionally helping these inmates. He's facing three felony counts, one of promoting prison contraband, two charges of tampering with evidence. He's also facing a misdemeanor charge of official misconduct. He could face a maximum of seven years behind bars. He's also due in court later today -- Carol.

COSTELLO: Joyce Mitchell's bond was $200,000. Why the huge discrepancy? Why was his bond only $25,000?

SANCHEZ: Yes, Carol. It likely has to do with intention. Palmer's lawyer claims that his client didn't know that there was a plan to escape. He says he didn't know that there were tools inside that frozen meats that he passed along to the inmates. Whereas Mitchell it's -- she's alleged to have put the tools in the meat, she's also alleged to have made plans to pick up the inmates once they finally got out of the prison.

COSTELLO: OK. So tell me more about these paintings that authorities said were in Palmer's house. He burned some of them and then buried some of them in his backyard?

SANCHEZ: Yes. Investigators say that after the guards or -- rather after the inmates escaped, Palmer tried to burn several of the paintings that were given to him by the inmates. He also tried to bury some in the woods near his home. Now investigators believe the prisoner gave him these paintings and in return Palmer provided them with contraband. That's why these are considered evidence, that's why he's being charged with tampering with evidence -- Carol.

COSTELLO: All right. Boris Sanchez reporting live for us this morning. Thanks so much.

We're also learning new details about the relationship Joyce Mitchell had with both escapees. An ex-inmate who served with David Sweat and Richard Matt in 2012 tells CNN there is no doubt in his mind that Mitchell and Sweat were involved. He claims Mitchell would bring art supplies and food to Sweat from the outside, but Mitchell's attorney denies the pair was having a relationship.

[10:05:17] Let's bring in former NYPD detective Sergeant Joseph Giacalone. He's now an adjunct professor at John J. College of Criminal Justice.

Thank you so much for being here.

JOSEPH GIACALONE, FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE SERGEANT: Thanks for having me.

COSTELLO: Is there any doubt in your mind that there was some sort of intimate relationship going on between Joyce Mitchell and one or both of these inmates?

GIACALONE: Yes, there had to be. I mean, they work in such a close environment. It's just a natural that you get, you know, so familiar with them, but this one might have taken it to the next level.

COSTELLO: I'm so -- I'm so, I don't know, intrigued is the right word, intrigued about these paintings. So this Gene Palmer, the other prison guard that's now charged in this, accepted morning more than one painting from these inmates and he had them hanging in his house and he burned some and buried some in his backyard. And what do you make of this?

GIACALONE: Well, I'm not much of an art connoisseur but, you know, taking anything from an inmate or a prisoner is always against the rules, it's at least official misconduct, could even rise to bribery because as a benefit, and you don't actually have to even accept it in law enforcement. If you just agree to take it, it's -- you're committing the crime. So he's got some serious issues ahead of him.

COSTELLO: Absolutely. You know, one of the more frightening aspects of this is now authorities believe that these two killers stole rifles from hunting cabins and they're now armed. How does this change the search?

GIACALONE: Well, this is a real possibility. I mean, all these hunting cabins, guns, but you know, we haven't talked about, you know, camouflage clothing either which could be helping them evade, you know, during the daytime, too. As a law enforcement officer, this is your number one fear. I mean, we saw it with the escape with Bucky Phillips many years ago where he took guns and he actually killed one trooper and wounded two others. So this is a real possibility and actually slows down the whole thing, too. COSTELLO: Do you think they're still in this area? It's been 20 days

now. They don't really have -- they're not survivalists. They really don't know what they're doing out in the woods.

GIACALONE: No, but I mean, like, you know, for instance, they found this one cabin. I think we're going to find more, you know, where they're breaking in, you know, eating peanut butter or water. I mean, if they haven't led on -- investigators haven't led on what they've actually found inside that cabin, too. They said there were several things. So, you know, they might have some other issues that we don't want to know about in the media because we don't want to let anybody else know.

COSTELLO: OK. So, you know, I've been -- I've been asking analysts about this for several days. The search itself seems like a wild goose chase. It's here, it's there, it's everywhere.

GIACALONE: It's like a whack-a-mole strategy now. It's like, you know, every time you get a phone call you're running from -- you know, hither, dither, and yon so to speak. This is -- you know, you have to run down these leads, though, because at the end of the day when they evaluate what happened, they're going to look back on all those calls and say, you know, which one had meat on and why didn't we do something with is so you have to do this. It's just, you know, the nature of the beast.

COSTELLO: All right. Joe Giacalone, thank you so much for being with me this morning. I appreciate it.

Still to come in the NEWSROOM, many didn't buy the Boston bomber's apology before he was sentenced to death. I'll talk to one victim whose view might surprise you, though.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: This is CNN breaking news. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world.

The United States Supreme Court just released one of the most anticipated, one of the most important decisions of this term. Whether nearly 6.5 million Americans will continue receiving federal subsidies to help buy health insurance.

Our correspondents and our experts, they're all going over the opinion right now. We want to make sure we understand exactly how these Supreme Court justices rule.

[10:10:01] Jake Tapper is standing by. He's up on Capitol Hill near the Supreme Court. He'll be joining us live, but as we await the result, let's go to CNN's John King over at the magic wall.

John, as we review this decision, set the scene for us. JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, let's look at the

key issues in the case as we wait to get the final ruling. "King Versus Burwell" is the name of the case. Used to be "King Versus Sebelius." Burwell now the secretary of Health and Human Services.

At issue is this. There are health insurance subsidies in place in Obamacare, the health care law, across the country for middle income Americans. 34 states use federal exchanges. Those states did not set up federal -- set up their own state exchanges so they used the federal exchanges. 6.4 million people could be affected here.

Here is the argument. The argument against these subsidies is the law says established by the state, therefore those arguing that the subsidies should be overturned in 34 states say the law does not allow them in those states, only the 16 states that set up their own federal exchanges should have these exchanges.

The government, the Obama administration, arguing against that, says that's not what Congress intended. Despite maybe the awkward wording of the law, Congress intended these subsidies to be available to all low and middle income Americans across the country.

As we watch this play out, Wolf, it's a big legal decision but we know what a big political issue this has been. Republicans like to cite these numbers. They say, look, a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare. That's not fair, though. If you look at this more closely, 37 percent say the law is too liberal. Those are opponents. Favor and not liberal enough. If you add up those two, you get 58 percent.

So it's unfair to say a majority of Americans oppose the law flatly because a good slice of that oppose it because they think it didn't go far enough.

This is what's interesting as we head into the 2016 political year and if the court decided the subsidies are illegal, what would Republicans do about it? If you look right here, 88 percent of Republicans oppose the law, 73 percent of Democrats favor the law.

So, Wolf, as we wait for the big legal decision, whatever the court decides could impact a very big political debate heading into 2016. At the presidential level and if you look at the states, if you look at the states where this comes into play, these are the states that do not have state exchanges. People in these states get their subsidies through the federal exchanges.

Let me just give you a couple of them, I'll give you five states, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin, where you have Republican Senate incumbents on the ballot in 2016. So if the court makes a big reversal, it would not just be a presidential issue, it would be an issue in the congressional and Senate races as well.

BLITZER: Yes. The ramifications of this decision by the United States Supreme Court, John, are enormous right now. We're going through what the justices have decided. But Gloria Borger is with us, our chief political analyst. The

economic ramifications, the legacy issues for the president of the United States, certainly the political ramifications going into a presidential election campaign season, they're enormous right now as well.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: As you know, absolutely, because while Republicans have opposed Obamacare and have opposed these health care subsidies, you know, they really don't have an alternative at this point. So you have six million to seven million people who receive these subsidies, who would be clearly affected by this, Wolf, and again, as John points out, this would be a huge political issue.

Twenty-two of the 24 Republican Senate seats up in the next term are in the states that don't have these subsidies, and so you would be taking something away from people that they already have, and if Republicans have nothing to replace it with and if they were to win, they would have a political problem on their hands. On the other hand, if this were -- if this -- the subsidies were upheld, this would be a huge victory for the Obama administration.

BLITZER: It would be a major victory for the Obama administration, Gloria.

BORGER: Yes.

BLITZER: Because this is if not the signature issue of the Obama presidency, it certainly is one of the most important issues that he has gotten forward.

I want to go to CNN's Jake Tapper, he's up near the Supreme Court right now.

Jake, we've been reviewing the decision of the Supreme Court. Go ahead and share with our viewers what you have learned.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR, "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER": Well -- I mean, Wolf, what we have here is a 6-3 decision in which the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Roberts, joined with the centrist Kennedy as well as the liberal members of the court, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. And it appears to be a major victory for the Obama administration in the Obamacare case.

So let's go to Pamela Brown who is at the Supreme Court.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, this was a broad ruling in favor of the Obama administration. Today the high court ruling that millions of Americans that are in states with federally- run exchanges can keep their tax credits that help them pay for their health insurance. The government has said that these subsidies are the linchpin to the law, and without them the law would be gutted. It would be severely destabilized.

And today, once again, Chief Justice Roberts stepping in and saving in a sense the Affordable Care Act ruling in favor of the government and saying that these millions of Americans can keep their subsidies.

[10:15:06] Again, a very broad ruling here. The court didn't even defer to the IRS interpretation. It said that it is clear in the law that tax credits are available to individuals and states that have a federal exchange. At issue here were four words in the law, established by the state. The challenger said that makes it clear that only those Americans and the states that have set up their own exchanges can get subsidies.

But again, today the high court disagreeing with that and saying that all Americans who need those subsidies to help them pay for their health insurance can keep them. Again, this was authored by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy along with the liberals on the court.

A big, big win for the Obama administration.

TAPPER: That's right, Pamela. And if you look at the text of the decision, it says, "Given that the text is ambiguous about these state-run exchanges, the court must look to the broader structure of the act. Here the statutory scheme compels the court to reject petitioner's interpretation," reject it.

Let's go to Jeffrey Toobin now with more on this.

Jeffrey, what's your take on this? This appears that -- it appears that both Kennedy and Roberts completely sided with the Obama administration's arguments.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: They did. I think one implication we know is that when you walk into the Barack Obama presidential library in a few years, the first thing you're going to see is the Affordable Care Act because this act is now here to stay unless Congress overturns it because it's not going to be the courts. The courts have now decided that this is a matter for the political branches.

The paradox about today's decision is that legally and it's not all that significant as a precedent, this is not a decision under the Constitution. This is simply an interpretation of the law itself, and it says the way the law has been interpreted so far is correct. So this isn't a decision like perhaps same-sex marriage which we may get tomorrow which will have broad implications for future decisions.

This is very narrow in a way tied only to the Affordable Care Act itself, but in terms of its implications for actual human beings starting with the 6.4 million people who are getting those subsidies, it's a very big decision indeed.

TAPPER: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, once again, the Supreme Court issuing a 6-3 ruling in favor of the Obama administration's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act.

Let me bring in Professor Jonathan Turley who we should disclose, you represent Speaker Boehner on a separate Obamacare case against the administration. Not this case, but that disclosed, how do you -- how are you interpreting this decision? It seems like a big win for the president.

JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: It is a big win. It's a big win politically, it's a big win legally. What's fascinating is that this case divided the two circuits that are next- door neighbors to the Supreme Court. The D.C. Circuit ruled opposite of today's opinion. The Fourth Circuit just across the river ruled in favor of the administration. And the administration prevailed.

What's curious is Roberts' legacy, as Jeffrey was talking about, in saving Obamacare once again. He did that with the individual mandate. It's very unpopular with conservatives. And once again he's adopting the same type of broad statutory interpretation. He's saying, I need to look at the statute as a whole not just those words, and I think that this conforms with the purpose of the statute rather than send it into a death spiral if I were to rule for the petitioners.

So it's very uncharacteristic for a member who is associated with the right to adopt that type of broad statutory approach, but he did it before when he saved Obamacare the last time.

TAPPER: Now that was a 5-4 decision so his vote was crucial. This is a 6-3 decision.

TURLEY: Yes.

TAPPER: So his vote was not crucial, although the fact he chose to write the opinion as the senior justice on the court not insignificant.

TURLEY: Right. And I think to give credit to the administration, they picked up Justice Kennedy as well. It's a 6-3 decision on a court that's usually very divided on these issues and then makes this a more magnified victory.

TAPPER: And we should point out, of course, the human factor that was at play here, 6.4 million Americans receiving tax subsidies who are on these state exchanges, these Obamacare exchanges, they were at risk of losing those subsidies.

TURLEY: Right. This really was an existential threat. Only 13 states have so-called state exchanges. The rest are federal exchanges. That took the Obama administration by surprise. I don't think they anticipated states would not create their own exchanges.

TAPPER: I think when it comes to the exchanges, a lot of things took the Obama administration by --

(LAUGHTER)

TURLEY: Yes.

TAPPER: By surprise, it's fair to say.

TURLEY: Yes. But this was absolutely necessary. They had to somehow subsidize people in those other states or the entire act would collapse and that's what they did. And the Supreme Court today said they could do that. And they'll continue to do it in the future. It stabilizes the act for the time being.

TAPPER: Jeffrey Toobin, let me bring you back in here. Are you surprised by the ruling today?

[10:20:04] TOOBIN: Not really. I mean, this was a long shot I thought from the very beginning. I mean, this is an interpretation of the law, of these four words, that not a single member of Congress said they thought was the correct interpretation. All through the very long and torturous debate over the Affordable Care Act, it was assumed by everyone that the subsidies would be available in the state exchanges and in the federal exchanges.

It was only years -- many months later when a group of conservative lawyers pored over the statute and found these four words that this case and this issue even arose. However, this court is usually so politicized, and there was one D.C. Circuit Court that ruled against the administration, so, you know, you couldn't be -- you couldn't be super confident, but it seemed to me from the very beginning that the administration's position was very strong here.

This was a highly technical, legalistic reading by the plaintiffs in the case, and, you know, there is part -- there is parts of John Roberts that you could sense in the oral argument who was saying to his fellow conservatives, look, if you want to overturn this law, go do it by winning some elections. Win the presidency. Win Congress. And then you overturn the law. Don't pass the buck to me.

Don't tell me to be the bad guy to take 6.5 million people off insurance. You want to do it, go win elections, and now coming into 2016 we'll see if Republicans can do just that.

TAPPER: I'm being told that Justice Antonin Scalia who dissented in this case, he was in the three of the 6-3 is reading his dissent from the bench and speaking of dissents, Jeffrey Toobin, Jonathan Turley here with me has a dissenting opinion from the one you just shared. I'd like to bring him in.

TURLEY: Well, I hate to disagree with my friend but I do disagree with the nature of this argument. First of all, the D.C. Circuit did rule in favor of the petitioners. I testified at the hearing in Congress on this very issue. And many of us felt this was a credible argument.

TAPPER: What -- that what was a credible argument?

TURLEY: That the credible argument that the language of the statute required states to create their exchanges in order to get subsidies, and that divided two major Court of Appeals Circuits. Now clearly the administration prevailed. The fact that Scalia is reading his dissent shows the depths of opposition here. Often the justices don't do that. They do that when they really want people to consider their views, particularly in dissent.

And this is going to continue to divide. Many people, very credible people, felt that when the statute said that it's an exchange established by the state, it meant that that was a carrot and stick approach. If you didn't do it, you didn't get the subsidies, and that included references by one of the architects of the law, Professor Gruber, who is very controversial and they found quotes from him basically saying the same thing.

TAPPER: Right.

TURLEY: It was a carrot and stick approach.

TAPPER: And of course, we can't ignore the politics of this as much as the U.S. Supreme Court likes to think of itself as above politics, Obamacare and how controversial it is, especially among Republican base voters is going to continue.

Wolf Blitzer, let's -- let me throw it back to you.

BLITZER: It's a huge, huge win for the Obama administration. The Affordable Care Act will remain in place unchanged. It will continue to go forward. There presumably will be lots of Republican efforts in the House and the Senate to try to derail it. The president has veto power, two-thirds majority, not possible to derail it.

So for all practical purposes, the United States Supreme Court today led by the Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony, Kennedy also going with the majority, deciding Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, will remain the law of the land, at least for the time being, and Republicans, critics of Obamacare will have to come to grips with this reality.

There will be no change at all for those 6.4 million Americans who receive federal subsidies. No change at all in those states that don't have the state exchanges, rely on the federal exchanges. Business as usual for all of them. A huge decision, a huge win for the president of the United States by the United States Supreme Court today. A big win yesterday by -- for the president on his trade authority legislation that he wants to create a new trade deal with Pacific Rim countries.

Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader, was very, very helpful to the president in trying to get this health care legislation through. He's joining us now on the phone.

You must be thrilled, Senator, by what the United States Supreme Court has decided today.

TOM DASCHLE (D), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: I am thrilled, Wolf. This is a huge victory. You've characterized it very well. I think really what it does is put this whole debate about whether the Affordable Care Act is going to be here to stay to rest. This is the final blow for opponents. There is no real possibility from here on out that either through the legal or the political process they are going to be able to repeal the Affordable Care Act going forward.

[10:25:07] So it's a huge victory not only for the legal interpretation but for what it means for the future of health care in the United States. BLITZER: Well, there is one possibility of it being derailed,

Senator. The next presidential election if a Republican president is elected and is determined to derail the Affordable Care Act and there are significant Republican majorities, as you well know, in the House or the Senate, they could do it then, right?

DASCHLE: Well, they could do it technically, Wolf, but I don't think -- I think by then we're going to have over 25 million people in the exchanges. More and more people are going to rely on the exchange mechanism to buy insurance. More and more people are going to have the opportunity to buy -- or to benefit from the Medicare expansions in states going forward as well.

So this will be so ingrained in the next couple of years into our health care system that I don't think even the hardest core opponents are going to be successful in repealing. There are too many lives at stake, too many people who have come to depend on this system for their care as they look at health affecting their lives.

BLITZER: You make a good point, Senator, because there were a bunch of Republicans, at least privately, who were worried if the Supreme Court would have gone the other way, this could have backfired. You have 6.4 million Americans who might lose their health insurance. You have millions of others whose rates might go up as a result of a decision against the Obama administration. That's something they didn't necessarily want to have to deal with going into a new round of elections.

DASCHLE: Well, it's pretty clear that Republicans had a very, very hard time coming up with an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. In fact they still have yet to do so. I think that says all you need to know about whether or not this is here to stay. There is no real alternative. This is it, and we've got to make it work. We've got to come together and make it work even better and I'm confident that we can do that now with the Supreme Court decision behind us.

BLITZER: All right, Senator Daschle, thanks very much.

All right. Dana Bash is up on Capitol Hill getting reaction.

Dana, what are you hearing?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the reaction is pouring in. I just got a statement from Senator Marco Rubio, presidential candidate. Marco Rubio saying, of course, he disagrees with the court ruling and believes that they've once again erred in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama and Congress. And as you can imagine he promises that if he does become president, he will work to repeal Obamacare.

And that is likely what we're going to hear from pretty much all of the presidential candidates, not to mention the Republican members of Congress here who have worked very hard legislatively to repeal Obamacare but have not been able to do that.

One thing I want to mention is that, you know, for a Congress that tends to kind of careen from crisis to crisis, this is actually something that Republicans were preparing for, and when I say this, I mean this decision. They were preparing for what would happen in the likelihood that the Supreme Court went the other way and that they said that the subsidies needed to be repealed. They had a plan in place for stopgap measure and, therefore, keeping these subsidies until the end of the year, changing things up for 2016 and so forth.

So there actually was a lot of meeting going on. There's actually legislative text that is written in case the court went the other way, but now that is going to be, you know, kind of in the dust bins of history. That's not going to actually be needed right now.

BLITZER: Yes, of course.

BASH: One other point I want to make, Wolf, real quick, is that as far as Republicans here on Capitol Hill are concerned, this isn't necessarily the end. There is still another Supreme Court case that has actually been sponsored by the House Republican majority to try to claim that the mandate is not constitutional so that is something that they're still holding out hope on. And our Deirdre Walsh, our House producer, reminds me that that is actually something that Republicans feel like they might even have a better legal standing on to try to dismantle this law.

BLITZER: Yes. But let's not forget, there are nine justices on the United States Supreme Court, four of them are in the liberal camp. They will almost certainly all vote in favor of the continuation of the Obamacare and now, not only Chief Justice Roberts but Justice Kennedy as well voting in favor of the continuation of the Obamacare.

BASH: Exactly.

BLITZER: So all of those potential challenges down the road could face high hurdles.

Dana, stand by, Michelle Kosinski, our White House correspondent, they must be uncorking the champagne bottles over there. It's a huge win for the president of the United States, Michelle.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right. We can only imagine, Wolf, especially given the buildup to this over the last couple of weeks. I mean, President Obama almost putting out this force publicly as if they were trying to lobby the Supreme Court. The White House denied that they were doing that, but interview after interview, there was even one in which one of the anchors that was interviewing President Obama thanked him for saving his life.

[10:30:02] I mean, there was so much put out there leading up to this decision, but right now we are hearing silence from the White House and the reason for that is because we strongly believe we will hear from President Obama himself today.