{"plot": [[0, 1], [2, 1], [4, 4], [6, 2], [8, 55], [10, 116], [12, 58], [14, 59], [16, 23], [18, 22], [20, 25], [22, 24], [24, 44], [26, 20], [28, 65], [30, 50], [32, 35], [34, 15], [36, 10], [38, 4], [40, 2], [42, 2], [44, 2], [46, 2], [48, 2], [50, 2], [52, 2], [54, 4], [56, 7], [58, 7], [60, 2], [62, 0], [64, 1], [66, 1], [68, 0], [70, 1], [72, 0], [74, 1], [76, 0], [78, 0], [80, 1], [82, 2], [84, 1], [86, 1]], "peak": [[10, 116], [28, 65]], "modified": "1970-01-01", "quote": ["that is different from what we have in previous cases. that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way"], "urls": ["http://latimes.com/news/la-pn-justices-signal-possible-trouble-ahead-for-health-insurance-mandate-20120327,0,2822701.story?track=rss", "http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/live-blog-obamas-health-care-plan-at-the-supreme-court/1", "http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/national_world&id=8596730&rss=rss-kfsn-article-8596730", "http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/external/cbsm/rss/SIG=11iiumket/*http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=BC7BE102-781A-11E1-8E2F-002128049AD6&siteid=yhoof2", "http://arkansasonline.com/news/2012/mar/27/justices-question-whether-insurance-mandate-consti/", "http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/27/toobin-train-wreck-for-the-obama-administration-today-on-individual-mandate/", "http://sltrib.com/sltrib/world/53801410-68/insurance-court-health-law.html.csp", "http://reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/usa-healthcare-court-idUSL2E8ERJI320120327", "http://ahier.blogspot.com/2012/03/supreme-court-arguments-on-individual.html", "http://news.salon.com/2012/03/27/craziness_prevails_in_obamacare_hearings/", "http://cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57405492/supreme-court-majority-skeptical-on-health-care-law/"], "frequencies": ["21", "116", "460", "7", "5", "18", "5", "19", "9", "11", "5"], "quotes": ["that changes the relationship of the individual to the federal government", "changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way", "change the relationship", "in a fundamental way", "that changes the relationship of the government to the individual in a fundamental way", "changes the relationship between the individual and the government in a very fundamental way", "that changes the relationship of the government to the individual in the very fundamental way", "in a very fundamental way", "is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way", "that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way", "that is different from what we have in previous cases. that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way"]}