mark: with all due respect to the english only crowd you should've heard jeb bush today input in puerto rico. ♪ on the show tonight, the supreme court bench, but first the protests. baltimore's curfew goes back into affect at 10 p.m. tonight the maryland national guard is still being deployed and conditions are so bad that tomorrow's orioles-white sox game will be played at camden yards with no fans present. president obama spoke about the

nation's other recent racially charged incidents. the president had strong words about violent protesters and for law enforcement. president obama: when individuals get crowbars and start prying open doors to loot they are not protesters. they are not making a statement. they are stealing. it is important for organizations like the fraternal order of police and other police unions and organizations to acknowledge that this is not good for police. i cannot federalize every police force in the country and force them to retrain. what i can do is to start working with them collaboratively so that they can begin this process of change themselves. mark: john, given the continuing run of police related violence in america, is today's response

from the president enough? john: in a word, i think the answer is no. i don't know if barack obama in any way can wave a magic wand and solve this problem. it is deeply enshrined in america. in big cities, small cities, any place where there are white police forces and communities of color. i have to say it is such a huge problem, the problem of criminal justice reform dealing with mass incarceration of african-americans. all of that stuff that feeds into the atmosphere that is greater the problems in ferguson baltimore and new york -- it is a huge problem whole country has to take on. i don't think president obama has done nearly enough in office. mark: he was not particularly passionate today but he did give a very long answer. a six-point answer. he has a new attorney general he can deploy. i believe this is a classic case of where washington cannot solve

the problem. they can help, but mayors and governors have to get on this. in baltimore, you got a well-meaning, prominent african-american mayor and i think she has done a horrible job in dealing with this. not just in the recent events but when her city was dealing with legislation that would put body cameras on cops, she did not do enough to get it passed. i think the president can do more, but i think the most important thing is the mayors and governors. john: i agree 100%. the primary responsibility for law enforcement is of the state level but there is a federal justice system. the system right now -- the disparities between crack cocaine and regular cocaine sinceentences and mass incarceration that creates racial tensions. this is something the federal government can take the lead even if it cannot solve the problem. mark: i cannot help but think

bill clinton would go 45 minutes down the road to baltimore if he were president. john: i agree. those of us not lucky enough to be in the supreme court today were busy looking for scotus blogs. the conventional wisdom was it was more or less a foregone conclusion that there were at least five and maybe even six votes in favor of enshrining same-sex marriage as the law of the land. now that you have reviewed what went down in the court today, do you think it is still the case that it is a foregone conclusion? mark: reading tea leaves is kind of silly. it is either going to be 5-4 or 6-3. if you go either way. i still think if you look at the history of what justice kennedy has done in these issues, i think it will have five votes at least. i think there is a possibility they get justice roberts. john: people misunderstand the purpose of the oral arguments. the justices are asking questions. justice roberts asked questions

that seemed soto suggest that it could be in the political level. he also raised the point that it is not sexual discrimination. he is trying to persuade people. these are not just expressions of opinion. they are asking questions of better strategic. you can see some things, certain things from what they are asking. you got justice scalia, you can read him pretty easily. the guys in the middle are much harder to note. mark: the fact of the justices double will vote against further expansion of rights for gay lesbians to get married, the fact that all of them are conservative is representative of the divide in america. too much in the media coverage today and of the arguments today is rooting for the court to overturn this. there are millions of americans on that side, too. i think the simplest thing to look at is justice kennedy's stance on these issues.

he is not afraid to say public opinion and civil rights and taking things out of the realm of politics is perfectly fine. i think it is 5-4. i think it could be 6-3 in favor of expansion. john: i agree with you. justice kennedy would have a hard time intellectually squaring his past decisions if you were to deviate now. mark: jeb bush corralled in florida some of his biggest donors. the program included so well received and well reviewed remarks from his mexican born wife. today, he left the continental u.s. to puerto rico. he was flaunting his hispanic credibility. jeb bush: i got to come down here and campaign. i met the entire --

[applause] i became a -- for three months, i may have changed become a resident of puerto rico. trust me, know the power of the immigrant experience because i live in each and every day. i know the immigrant experience because i married a beautiful girl from mexico. my children are bicultural and bilingual. mark: he also spoke english and spanish. he is often cap as having a problem because of his position in immigration. if you take his speaking of spanish, his wife's potential as a surrogate, my question to you is could jeb bush could make his appeal to latino voters and that net plus? john: i think he can. i will bet you are outside the conservative wisdom as well. if republicans want to win the white house they look at the

electoral map and they say if we do not solve our problems with hispanics, we cannot win a majority and the white house. jeb bush, marco rubio some others are the best chances they have of breaking that. it is very important for them to get over 40% hispanics. jeb bush has a good chance of doing that. maybe the best chance among republicans. the electability argument helps them. mark: i think he will have a powerful electability argument to make. i think the immigration thing is so overwhelmingly negative that while he can cut into it by showing he has appea,l, i don't think he can do it. speaking spanish, talking about immigration, showing he has appeal in puerto rico -- i don't think that will be enough for the nomination as much as rationally it should be. john: you and i are on the opposite sides.

i think if this is a long nomination fight, if this goes on, it is not determined by iowa, new hampshire and south carolina and we get to big states in places like california where there are a lot of hispanic voters. i think it will help him not just in terms of electability but also in terms of raw vote count. mark: they will not vote much in the republican primary. coming up, our man in baltimore dave updates us on the situation. all this sound and fury on tape from inside the supreme court arguments today, right after this. ♪

mark: we are joined from baltimore from her colleague dave dave weigel. thank you for joining us. first question for you is tell us what have you seen since you

have been on the ground in baltimore that strikes you? dave: i saw a majority of people in baltimore wanting to bps be peaceful and really distraught. i saw a minority of people looting. i saw it was fairly brazen a couple of times last evening. people taking the opportunity to loot cvs. a few cars set on fire. if you refer to this as a city on fire you are talking about a couple of discrete blocks, not the entire city. the follow-up today, a lot of regret and the attempt to move forward. john: from the people you have spoken to where do people place the blame? were they holding responsible -- who are they holding responsible? dave: for the situation they blame the police entirely. they say the police system here

has been paying out enormous settlements because of abuses has been getting away with murder. they share some of the blame with the mayor, a little bit with the governor. i saw a lot of people that used to support the mayor of the city saying she waited too long to set up safeguards to prevent riding. she should have scrambled faster. the curfew that's was the start tonight was supposed to start a day earlier. the city was out of fire trucks at 3 a.m. john: you mentioned the curfew. i'm curious about the mood. do you think the curfew will hold? will people be defiant about it? dave: there is optimism. i spent some time at the cvs that was burned yesterday, the one we all saw. people were volunteering cleaning it up.

i talked to people that were joining the cleanup effort. singing "amazing grace," james brown songs. a small brawl broke out. this article aboutit started with about two people. the majority of the city really wants to move on. other cities have gone through this unrest. this has been democratic by the 1960's and been governed by black mayors. there is more of a sense of ownership that you see in other places. a huge a sentiment of the city that wants to move on. religious leaders are organizing rallies to make that happen. mark: you have a democratic african-american mayor stephanie rawlings-blake who said something a couple of days ago that caused a lot of controversy. a republican governor. often in these situations, you

can have tension between a mayor and a government. how is the working relationship between those two people? dave: it has been bitter in public. they are both not politicians who people expect to hold those jobs just a year ago. the governor was elected in an upset with low democratic turnout. the mayor took over after a scandal. there is not a lot of faith in the public by either of these people and the being tested in a way that they had not been expected to. there was skepticism last night that the national guard being sent here because people did not see it. mark: would you say the governor is writing to rising to the occasion? dave: that is really depending on the curfew tonight. based on last night, the sentiment was that everybody should have moved sooner. he did not get a lot of credit

for getting the national guard ready in such short notice or scrambling beforehand. i think he gets credit and maybe some of the bitterness gets away from the mayor if tonight is quiet. we will see if the curfew works. mark: dave weigel, stay safe in baltimore. thanks. after the break what chief justice john roberts and his cohorts in the court said about same-sex marriage in the supreme court today. we have it all on tape, right after this. ♪

mark: landmark cases of vistaprint court are like vin scully calling a double-header. we will play some of the best buys from inside the supreme court oral arguments on gay marriage today. let's start with what was said by justice anthony kennedy who many consider to be the crucial swing vote in this particular

case and this issue. justice kennedy: when you think about these cases, you think about words and cases. the word they keep coming back to me is millennia plus time. first of all, there is not been really time for the federal system to engage in this debate. the separate states. on a larger scale, it has been -- about the same time between brown and loving, lawrence and this case. about 10 years. there is time for the scholars and the commentators and the bar and the public to engage. 10 years, i don't even know how to count the decimals. millennia -- this definition has been with us for millennia. it is very difficult for the court. we know better. john: greg justice kennedy is

somebody who people on the pro-gay marriage side have counted on as a safe boat in this vote. there he was expressing skepticism about changing the definition of marriage. do you think justice kennedy is still a safe boatvote for gay marriage? greg: i think he is highly likely vote for same-sex marriage based on what he has done in the past. he has written in the three big gay rights decisions in the last 20 years. he was on the court over the last several months. it would be a real shift for him to go back and say no, i changed my mind i willd. mark: let's move on to socrates also known as the chief justice john roberts. he had some questions which is often the case for both sides.

chief justice roberts: the argument on the other side is the are seeking to redefine the institution. every definition that i looked up prior to about one dozen years ago defines marriage as a unity between a man and a woman, as husband and wife. if you succeed, that core definition will not be operable. >> i'm not sure it is necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. chief justice roberts: the difference is based upon their different sex. why is that not a straightforward question of sexual discrimination? mark: we heard the chief justice questioning both sides somewhat skeptically. if you look at his history, his temperament and his desire to be for the court to be less politicized. what is it to say that he votes for more liberal laws?

greg: unlike justice kennedy, chief justice roberts devoted the vast majority of his question towards being skeptical of same-sex marriage. i don't think he is a likely vote. that said, he does care about the institution very deeply. if he is in the majority it gives them a chance to write the opinion, perhaps keep it narrow. you heard in the last question about gender discrimination which was a very interesting point. he is not totally out of play for the same-sex marriage advocates. he is going to be a much tougher get for them. mark: those of the only two guys that are up in the air, but there are opportunities for other judges to talk. we want to hear some sound from the two that will vote in favor of liberalized same-sex marriage. first, justice ginsburg and then justice sotomayor. justice ginsburg: all the

benefits that marriage affords will still be available. you are not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. they would have the very same incentives to marry all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now. justice sotomayor: how many people walk away from their children with the benefits of marriage? it is not the institution alone does it and without it that father is going to stay in the marriage. he has made a choice. i would say i should be gender-neutral. some mooththers do the same thing but i am not sure how i get to the point that justice breyer is making. how does withholding marriage from one group same-sex couples, increase the value to the other group? mark: you hear a lot of these

arguments. some of them are about technical matters. this is obviously deeply personal and emotional. were the justices more emotional today in their talks or was it a normal set of arguments? greg: in all honesty, they were less emotional than i have expected. it was an argument that you would have thought would've been very high energy. there were some emotional moments. you sort of heard a monotonous tone and some of those questions. there was not the fire maybe because from their standpoint, they see which way this is going. it strongly suggest this will be a 5-4 decision or 6-3 favoring same-sex marriage, but it did not have the passion that i have seen like in health care. john: let's listen to someone representative of the other side

. justice alito. justice alito: it was well accepted within certain bounds but do they have same-sex marriage in ancient greece? >> i don't think they had anything comparable to what we had. justice alito: they had marriage, didn't think? they had same-sex relations? >> yes. justice alito: people like plato wrote approvingly of that -- same-sex relationships? >> i believe so. justice alito: they are limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex was not prejudiced to gay people, was it? john: justice alito, justice scalia, justice thomas -- we know how they will vote. do you have a sense of they are resigned to the notion they are about to lose? greg: there was that sense, i would say so.

one other point as i reheard those comments, one thing you cannotiddid not hear was moral disapproval of. justice alito was talking that it was going on since ancient greece. that was a different tone to the argument. john: greg, thank you for being with us. next, presidential announcement news. we will be right back. ♪

john: super fun weekend at bernie's this weekend. senator bernie sanders will announce that he is running for president and will run as a democrat. next couple of weeks, the kickoff in vermont. john: we have a trifecta of programming notes. tomorrow, brian grazer joins us. on thursday, time for the minister of silly walks, john cleese. and then a conversation with

larry flynt. mark: until then saynoonara. ♪

pimm: hello, i am pimm fox. this is what i am taking stock of -- it was an earning snafu for twitter. the company results were made earlier than scheduled and the performance was disappointing. the stock fell sharply at the end of the trading session losing 18%. twitter posted first-quarter revenue that fell short of earnings and cut its sales forecast, but the number of monthly active members climbed 18% at 302 million. brad stone spoke with the cofounder who reacted. >> nobody likes to see a s tock fall like that, but honestly, i