CHUCK TODD: But didn’t this federal judge act like a legislator? And he decided, on his own, what the law is going to be? Isn’t this a form of judicial activism? He said, “Well, I’ve decided that Congress said this is a zero tax. I’ve decided it’s no longer a tax.” That’s the definition of a judge writing legislation, is it not?

BLUNT: That doesn’t mean, that doesn’t mean that legislators can act like judges, just because, just because judges sometimes act like legislators.

TODD: So you acknowledge, in this case —

BLUNT: No —

TODD: — the judge has probably overstepped his bounds here?

BLUNT: You know, I think the, the thing to remember about the judge’s ruling is it has no immediate impact. There — nothing changes yesterday. Nothing changes tomorrow. This’ll have to go through a circuit court process. Who knows if the circuit court would uphold it or not. That will either be quickly dismissed, which is one option, or a long period of time, in my view, before the circuit court deals with it. This will be another area where — this — health care will be used as a political issue way beyond the ramifications of one district judge making a ruling that has no immediate impact.

TODD: Well, let me tell you what the president said. The president said this was “great news for America." That was his point. Do you agree with him?

BLUNT: I think it’s basically just, for America, it means we’re going to continue to debate this. Health care clearly matters to people. Some of, you know, what we had with Obamacare, as you’ve already called it today, was a, a poorly thought-out plan, really poorly, poorly implemented to start with, that’s had lots of negative impact on lots of families, who have insurance they don’t need with deductibles they can’t afford. We need to be —

TODD: Let me pause you there. If all of that is true, why have you guys failed to be able to come up with an alternative? You’ve had eight years, as a party, to come up with some alternative —

BLUNT: Well —

TODD: — that can pass.

BLUNT: We’ve had lots of alternatives. We had lots of alternatives when Obamacare passed. You know, the adding, letting children, people up until age 26 stay on their parents' insurance was a bill I filed. As far as I know, it’s the only, only Republican proposal that was filed during that process as an independent bill. It was four pages. And it probably insured more people than any other single part of the Affordable Care Act did. There were lots of ideas out there. It’s just the other side didn’t want to listen to those ideas.

TODD: But in fairness, your party can’t unite on any idea, though. I mean isn’t that, if you had one —

BLUNT: Well —

TODD: — wouldn’t you have a — more leverage at the table?

BLUNT: I, I wouldn’t say we couldn’t unite on any idea. But this is a very difficult issue and a closely divided Senate. You know, 49 senators, including me, voted to do something last year that a, that a couple of Republican senators couldn’t agree with. Trying to get — this is why the committee process matters. You know, the one thing I think we would be able to unite on is Medicare-for-all would wind up meaning Medicare for none. If Democrats want to take that view to the American people, and seniors, particularly, people who are now covered by Medicare, understand the ramifications of that. There is no way that will happen. And there’s no way voters will let it happen

TODD: Was this lawsuit necessary?

BLUNT: You know, I’m, I’m not in the job of questioning what state attorney generals decide they want to do.