From WNYC in New York, this is On the Media. I'm Bob Garfield.

And I'm Brooke Gladstone. This week, it began.

We will hear argument this morning in case number 11-398, Department of Health and Human Services versus Florida.

What followed could determine the fate of Obamacare, a once derisive term that the president's re-election website has now embraced, beginning with an I-like Obamacare campaign.

Meanwhile, it was the subject of six hours of oral arguments over three days in the Supreme Court, the most time devoted to a single law in 46 years. Two years ago, in an interview

with Fox's Greta Van Sustrin, Harvard Law Professor and former Solicitor General Charles

Freed said that if people didn't like the Obama health care legislation, repeal it or amend it,

but don't ask the courts to do the job for you because they won't.

Van Sustrin asked him if it was at all possible he could be wrong.

I suppose I could, but I'll tell you what, I'd be happy to come on this program and eat a hat,

which I bought in Australia last month, made of kangaroo skin.

Josh Gerstein, who covers the courts for Politico, says that in the last two years since the

passage of Obamacare, the constitutional argument against it went from a zany fringe idea

to a mainstream debate.

Josh, welcome to on the media.

Great to be here.

Here's Nancy Pelosi in 2009.

Where specifically does the

Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Are you serious? Why did it seem so unsurious? Congress has been regulating things related

to health insurance for decades. We've had Medicare

on the books a half a century or so now, and the insurance that most people get through their

...