>> production assistance for "inside washington" was. either by albritton communications and "politico." captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> this is a great day for americans. >> this day on "inside washington", the supreme court blesses supreme court marriage. >> what we now have is a wholly intent that goes against the law of nature and the law of god. >> but comes down against the voting rights act. >> it is a different south, a different alabama. >> what the supreme court did

was put a dagger in the heart of the voting rights act. >> the senate takes an historic stand on immigration reform. >> when the moment comes to cast a vote, i will be casting it in memory of my mother. >> the president steps up on climate change. >> we need to act. >> this is crazy. >> the eyes of the nation are on a texas state filibuster on abortion.[applause] ♪ as we head toward the independence day celebration, we witnessed a remarkable week in the supreme court. by a 5-4 vote, the justices overturned a key provision of the voting rights act and handed a victory to the proponents of where to marriage. begin. let's start with gay marriage. >> the united states supreme court held there was no purpose for depriving gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry

the person they love. >> marriage. that is something god created. that is something god will define. the supreme court, though they may think so, have not yet arisen to the level of god. >> or as former arkansas governor and residential candidate mike huckabee put it, jesus wept.we have five players on the basketball court. do we have to move around -- along. nina, did the ruling surprising. -- did the ruling surprise you? >> not really. it had been somewhat obvious during the oral argument. when this law was enacted in 1996, by overwhelming majorities, and signed by president clinton, most people did not actually think about what it meant, then it would mean such serious consequences for legally married people because there were no legally married people there. this was a we did not want there to be legally married people

law. >> this is the example of the ,isdom of peter finlay done the supreme court follows election returns. there has been a seachange in american opinion opinion and the court reflects the. >> devin? >> this is following the polls. i do not think it is more than that or less than that. i think it is the right thing for that reason. day -- they did it in effect, but i do not think they did it thoroughly. the way they did it was to say the people who file did not have standing and domer was unconstitutional because they recognize the states rights. >> charles? >> there appears to be ambiguity as to whether it is essentially state rights or would you would allow each state to decide for itself, or there is another rationality mixed in where there

is constitutional protection against discrimination against gays, which would imply it is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional to deny the marriage of same-sex couples. i am absolutely sure the second rationale is the reason that underlies this decision, and on the very next case they will go all the way. they will do roe as it did on abortion, and then abolish the laws in the states that outlaw gay marriage. x.25 state constitutions ban same-sex marriage institutions. so, the beat goes on. >> the beat goes on.i want to say something about justice kennedy. it is not quite fair to say the court is following the election returns and the polls. there is certainly some element to that.

but, he has written every single major gay rights decision in the last 15 years or so, and every one of them has moved the dial and changed what the law was. beginning with the decision he wrote in 2003, which struck down making -- making intimate relations between same-sex couples a crime. that reversed what -- out right reversed what the court has been saying. >> they are doing it in slow and measured steps. they remember roe v wade, where they wiped out state law and they do not want to make that mistake again. >> to what do you attribute this, a change of heart by the american people, or great public relations?mark? >> both. the argument for equality in marriage as opposed to any perceived preference has worked as a public argument, but i do not think there is any question there has been an enormously

effective media campaign. i would point out that i think the court was saying get this issue away from me, and i think the political fallout is we saw in mrs. michele bachmann and mr. louie gohmert, you will see it energized the base of the republican party on an issue that is not popular, in which the party will have to respond to. in this sense, it is a blow to the republicans, to the degree that they, all of a sudden, especially in the house, embrace this issue, which they have already done in both this year. i think it is a problem for them. >> you see that in the house so distinctly. when this case is before the court, i had a difficult time finding leadership members of the house that would talk to me on the record into a tape recorder about their support for doma, but once it was struck down, you saw the rank-and-file base people come down.

>> the catholic bishops are unhappy about this. michele bachmann. people like that. you get into the debate about the separation of church and state. >> this is the convergence of views from the church and state. the issue will fall to the republicans. conservatives will say they have to do something about this. the issue will come up over and over again and congress will have to take positions. >> what can they do at this point, charles? >> i do not think the people are representative of conservative is not unusual on this show. a little more extreme and outrageous. i think in general concern is let people decide in the states. we will not impose a ban. let it evolve. had abortion evolved, we would be in a different space.

that is the mainstream position. you will not have a big push to overturn the supreme court decision, but it is the process. that is important to -- important. let it be state and -- state-by- state, and that it be democratic, the people speaking. >> just the rule on church and state, if a clergy person agrees with me, he or she is speaking for the conscience of the nation. if they oppose, they are risking their tax status and ought to shut up.>> let's take a look at the court's ruling on voting rights. >> i'm deeply disappointed with the court's decision in this manner. it sets back voting rights. it has the potential to negatively affect millions of americans across the country. >> we should not be judged by the mississippi of 50 or 60 years ago. >> attorney general holder.

alanlican congressman nunnelee. chief justice roberts is history did not end in 1955, the year congress passed the voting rights act. your response. >> that is his view of america. america has used decisions to continue accept his nomination-- find acts of discrimination in the so-called seachange states like alabama. the records show that our continued acts of discrimination that the justice department has blocked because they were able to use section four or five to go in there and block

discriminatory steps taken by the state. they talk about as if something wonderful has happened in the last 20 years. the reason something wonderful has happened is because of the voting rights act. this is comparable to 1877, when they pulled the troops out of the south. >> reconstruction? >> reconstruction -- when you take away the ability to go in there and stop the discriminatory act, as the justice department has and the courts have, you invite them to go back to what they have already been trying to do. these changes didn't take place because after 1965 the south said we will not do this anymore they have continually tried. >> ruth bader ginsburg, those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. charles? >> it is a classic statement of reactionary liberalism. the voting rights act succeeded. it changed america.

it's day is over. not that the idea of preventing discrimination is over, but what justice roberts wrote in a decision four years ago in looking at the renewal he said i will renew it, but it is based on statistics that are half of a century old and completely changed. if you bring me new statistics that show this -- the states need to be singled out, it will be renewed. congress that not respond. in five of the six states, black turnout is higher than white. this is not america of 1965. the law itself in concept is correct, but if you want to talk about the areas of discrimination, it is not only in the south. you will do it everywhere, or specify with a new statistics the discrimination is happening in -- happening. >> we did not get a black president because of south

carolina, alabama, mississippi. they stay true. do not cite a black president as a sign the country is changing. parts of the country remain the >>y they were. in no election were african- americans denied the right to vote. >> do you know why?the justice department was in there. 1982 and 2006, there were objections to over 700 changes the states trying to make that they found to be discriminatory. this is not ancient history, sir. >> is this a private fight? >> yes, but there is an entry fee. >> the proof of what it means was the texas attorney general who announced that as soon as the court decision came down that the texas motor law, will voter law, which requires an id

and accepts as identification a concealed weapons permit the denies a student identification card, will now go into affect. the discriminatory and rational districting -- congressional redistricting plan will now be the law of the land. >> human nature is constantly confounding the law. these voter id things are intended to suppress voters. they have the opposite effect. blacks heard people were trying to keep them from voting, and it turned out voter participation was higher. >> how does the majority think we can avoid repeating the mistakes of a racist past? >> they are overruling the act of a congress that was unanimous, but they would tell you that is not their job. we forget how racially

gerrymandered an awful lot of this country is. locally, whether you're talking about a school board, and even nationally. it can make it ethical or close to impossible for minorities to get adequate representation. >> charles, the court also made a ruling on affirmative action. the texas case. >> that was a punt. it was a short punt.it did not actually go all the way down field. it will be back. the court decided in a week where they would essentially legalize gay marriage they made enough news, so they would not overturn affirmative action. i think this is a continuation of everything that has happened. the courts do not want to rule on this. they give ambiguous decisions that are inscrutable. we chug along, make compromise, and pretend it is diversity, not

reparations, and overall it works, and that is where the court wants to be. it can be radical in other areas. i do not think it will be radical here.>> nina? >> i do think there is an elitist element. universities are the core of the upper crust of our society. they provide all the talent for everything from computers to big business. you saw in this case most of the fortune top 200 corporations filed briefs pleading with the court to keep affirmative action in place because the world is a diverse place and they need a diverse workforce that is used to dealing with diverse people. >> colby? >> what the court has reserved is the ability of the institution to take into account the various factors to put

together the kind of student body that you want to have. it is not a racial issue in the sense of saying race trumps everything else, but you can take race into account when you put together a student body.>> let me act up a little bit. what do you say to john lewis this is the ruling is a dagger into the heart of the 1965 act? >> i think john lewis is performing his historic role a being a signal of a movement whose time was great and now has past. and -- >> whose time has passed? >> the civil rights movement, as he led it, and i think the court is slowly, gingerly, trying to area -- post-

racism is not a ph t let's hear. >> as a non-lawyer, i found myself confused because liberals praised the fact that the court ignored doma, the defense of marriage act passed by the congress overwhelmingly, and then objected to the fact that the court ignored the voting rights act, which had been passed by congress overwhelmingly. and conservatives are on the other side, cheering the voting rights act decision and opposing the doma decision. i do think on the question of affirmative action, i hope we will start to take into consideration class, because that is really the distinction. >> you feel this on campus. oldal preference is the affirmative action. the new affirmative action is for deprived kids, and that includes african-americans and hispanics. that is where the energy is going.

>> i am not going to confine john lewis to the past. i will not say he is a relic. the element of discrimination in voting is there. it did not stop in 1965. it is there in case after case and now they did this been passed by congress overwhelmingly. . >> immigration reform -- the senate takes the leap. >> up early, some have not gotten the message. the house will not take "whatever the senate passes. >> the senate went for it anyway. will the house, with a bill of their own? >> there is a pattern established -- the agriculture bill, the budget, i mean, the house is a sickly paralyzed and john boehner finds himself with a caucus that has told him you cannot take up this bill and we will go under their requirement that you have to have the majority of the caucus. >> the majority of the majority.

>> there are a few senators that took political risk. i am not a great friend of lindsay graham, but he is up for reelection and he all but onited a primary challenge this controversial immigration bill. marco rubio rolled the dice as well. chuck schumer, not the guy you want in your carpool, but somebody who, i have to say, fulfilled the role that ted kennedy had of being the honest broker on both sides, a crucial role. >> i totally agree. i was cheered by the image of the gang of eight. it was a sign of vitality in an institution that feels dead. >> it is lovely, but if it dies, it dies. >> i have a question for mark. suppose the house picked up a stripped-down bill, it went to

--gress and the house congress -- conference, and the house cave, would it die, or would it have to get voted on? >> it has to come back. it has to be taken on the floor and voted upon. that is the strength and force of a conference. >> immigration, charles, is it going to pass? >> well, the house will pass something. myant to say, mark, under reading of the constitution, each body is allowed to develop its legislation. i did not see the requirement that each has to accept the other starting point. everyone is speaking about how it was going to pass, and how it was with the comedy and the brotherhood and sisterhood on the stage. it is a bad bill. the hope i have is the house will pass something and it will

be a compromise you get a strengthening of the border revisions. .f that -- provisions if that happens, it might pass both houses. it is the enforcement that looks right now to be a sham. if it is, it should not pass your >> -- past. >> colby? good deal, bad bill? trying to graham is save the republican party. he does not see a future with emigrant exchanging. you have to do something -- with demographics changing. you have to do something. >> the president made a major speech on climate change. there is a piece in "rolling stone" suggesting miami will be underwater in a few years. will anyone take climate change seriously in this government? , wenless the chinese do

could shut down the economy, put would in our cars, and it will not make a difference. that is why it is insane. the chinese and the indians are coal. a plant fired by all we are doing and dismantling industry and exporting it to asia. >> mark, on coal. >> what is that, frank? coal. [laughter] the president will try to do everything he can buy executive action. he will not get anything by congress. 32 degree temperatures might acknowledge there is a problem. >> you have to keep working on the technology, new technology. >> he will have trouble with the fossil fuel industry the which is act up by the republicans as

well, but epa will be front and center. >> why would you do it if it will not have any effect on the climate? >> 32 degree temperatures might acknowledge there is a problem. just because we cannot do everything does not mean we do not do anything. >> this does nothing and destroys our economy in the present. >> hopefully there will be enhanced technology. >> technology, i would do all the research and development you want. i would pour a lot of money into that, but shut down our coal industry and undermine the fuel industry -- >> you would not necessarily shut down the coal industry, but it would make the plants to spend money and upgrade. >> if you are planning to visit south beach, go soon. a look at the texas abortion debate. >> there were attempts to shove every rule aside to cram this through, and the voices of the people in the capital galleries tonight could not be silenced.

>> texas, the eyes of the nation were upon you as wendy davis,, craft, spent several hours on , spentt -- and democrat several on her feet to filibuster. the bill failed. the governor says they are bringing it back and she hijacked the process. the country seems to be moving in one direction on gay marriage, but on abortion, it seems to be going the direction rick perry would favor. >> the national journal poll, a respected organization, asked the question, dave approved legislation that would ban all abortion after 20 weeks of treatment see and 51% of -- abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and 51% of white women support that. it is not a decisive margin. so, the country, i still think

is pro-choice and antiabortion. >> the main thing she was filibustering about, i am sure she is opposed to the 20 weeks, but this bill outlines requirements that you have a -- that there be a hospital within 30 miles. that would shut down almost all the abortion clinics. >> that is the idea. >> the idea is not just 20 weeks. it is the availability of abortion for anyone that wants it within four weeks, six weeks, it eight weeks, whatever. >> charles westerman >> -- charles? >> she said the voice of the gallery spoke, and the gallery drowned out all other voices. under our constitutional system, the voice of the people is expressed in the legislature by

in people who represent congress and in the statehouses. the voice of that ipresentation was drowned out a mob in the gallery. >> you are against the filibuster? >> i am in favor. i am against a mob shutting down proceedings. >> that will have to be the last word because the voice of the clock has spoken. thank you. see you next week. ♪

>> bill moyers: this week on "moyers & company" -- "a place at the table." >> kristi jacobson: when we were making this film we traveled all over the country and again and again met people who were working and trying to make ends meet but were not able to put food on the table. >> mariana chilton: there's no opportunity for people who are low income to really engage in our democracy. and i think that they're actively shut out as well. >> bill moyers: and -- >> greg kaufman: there are a lot of corporations that are, you know, want to be involved in the fight against hunger. and the best thing they can do is get onboard for fair wages. >> announcer: funding is provided by -- carnegie corporation of new york, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. the korg