let me finish tonight with this. i was at a big city hospital recently, and the issue of gun control, gun safety came up. the doctors said if i wanted to know the impact of guns, he could show me, take me down and show me. gunshot wounds can be truly horrible. the reality justifies the discussion today about the need to try and do something about the proliferation of assault rifles, huge ammo magazines, and the loopholes in the requirement that there be background checks.

people have told us of the horrible sight of those young kids up in newtown, connecticut. i personally don't want to be a part of a movement to keep those semiautomatics flying into the hands of all sorts of people today, the hoarders, the survivalists, the criminal and downright nutty. why? because the next mass shooter could well emerge out of this pack. check the shooters of john f. kennedy and gerry ford, who got shot at twice. look at the hen who shot bobby kennedy and malcolm x and george wallace. they all had political motives and had guns, got them easily and put them easily to use. if you're not against this movement, you're wit. write your congressman and say what you think and what you feel. do it tonight before you go to bed. the address of congress, for all the congressmen, is congress, u.s. congress, washington, d.c., 20515. that's washington, d.c., 20515. it will get there. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "the ed show" with ed schultz starts right now.

>> on the verge of changing voting rights forever? this is "the ed show." let's get to work. >> rosa parks would have turned 100 years old this month. we do well by placing a statue. >> the rosa parks statue is unveiled in the capitol as conservatives try to destroy her legacy in the supreme court. tonight congressman elijah cummings on justice antonin scalia's jaw-dropping charge about voting and racial entitlements. constitutional expert jonathan turley on today's epic hearing and what it means for the future of the voting rights act. plus, congressman keith ellison of minnesota punches a schoolyard bully in the mouth. >> you are the worst excuse for a journalist i've ever seen. >> there is major movement on guns in the house, the senate, and in an illinois special election.

and in a country where equal rights for gays are more popular than ever, are nfl teams trying to play the gay away? >> teams want to know whether or not manti te'o is gay. >> super bowl champion and equal rights advocate brendan ayanbadejo weighs in tonight. >> thanks for being with us. bed of rights in america is under attack, and the attack is coming from the highest court in the land. the 1965 voting rights act is being challenged by those who say you know what? it just no longer serves a purpose. got to get rid of it. in reality, they want to go back to the bad old days, the days of jim crowe laws. well, the supreme court heard oral arguments today in a case brought by shelby county in alabama. during the hearing, a key provision of the voting rights act came under attack. it's section 5. section 5 gives federal authority over voting rights in states with histories of racial discrimination.

it has been reauthorized by the congress, my friends, on four different occasions. we've been down this road. recently section 5 was invoked to block discriminatory voter id laws in texas and in south carolina. although conservative supreme court justice antonin scalia dismissed the protects of the voting rights act as a perpetetuation of racial entitlement. it shocked a lot of americans today. scalia continued whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. meaning congress has no clue what they're doing, we'll take care of it here at the court. this man is a supreme court justice. to him the constitutional right to vote is a racial entitlement, question mark? it sounds like scalia is on the same side as the attorneys representing shelby county, alabama. lead attorney bert rhine believes everything is okay now.

this is an old disease, and that disease is cured. the problem is solved. his co-attorney agreed. >> we've made great strides over the years. we have minority participation at record levels. we have minority candidates selected by 90% white populations. >> so we should just forget about the long lines in minority voting districts. we should ignore the voter id laws in states with influential voting minority blocks. we don't need to worry one bit about minority voters being purged from the roles. we haven't seen that for a long time, right? these lawyer says racial discrimination, it's all over, all done with. it's a new day dawning in america. it was gone a long time ago. they should tell this to the men and women who marched on selma, alabama back in 1965. these peaceful demonstrators were trampled and beaten while they made a statement about equal voting rights for all

americans. the man seen here was beaten on the head with a billy club. his skull was fractured and he sustained three fractures. congressman lewis fought to end the days of poll taxes and literacy tests at the voting booth. today he is fighting to make sure those protections stand. >> we've come too far. we made too much progress to go back. the literacy test may be gone. how many bubbles in a bar of soap, how many beans in a jar may be gone. the people are using other means of technique. so we still need section 5. and that's why we're here today, standing up for voting rights of all americans. so we must never give up. >> john lewis and every person in america who believes in equal voting rights must continue the fight. you have to wonder, what is the

play here. what is the big picture. what is the big goal. i tell you what, folks. the ultimate goal for republicans is to get the federal government out of the way when it comes to voting rights in this country. you see, they want to control locally. they want local control over elections so they can come up with a new set of registration laws and control the vote. they might even come up with some kind of a panel that would determine whether you filled out the application correctly or not, and we'll get back to you, and you may have to wait a while before you're actually registered to vote. never know what they could come up with on the local level. the rights of some citizens in this country are under attack. and when that happens, we are all under attack. the republican plan, take it back to the local level, get the feds out of the way, we'll run our own backyard. and do you trust what you saw in the last election cycle in florida and ohio? the supreme court seems to be on their side. at least if you pay attention to the comments.

get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think. tonight's question, now regardless of how the supreme court rules, does discrimination still exist when it comes to voting rights? text "a" for yes. text "b" for no to 67622. you can always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com. we'll bring you results later on in the show. joining me tonight, congressman elijah cummings of maryland. congressman, great to have you with us this evening. i appreciate your time on this. >> it's good to be with you, ed. >> nothing is more important in america than the right and the power to vote. how disturbed, or are you disturbed by the comments made by justice scalia today? >> i'm extremely disturbed, ed, but not surprised. i think when i listen to justice scalia, he seems to have forgotten the very constitutional that he is supposed uphold. and that constitution gives the citizens of this country the right to vote. it's not some type of entitlement. it's a right to vote. and we have a right to vote and we have a right to have our

votes counted. and clearly, when he talks that entitlement stuff, that is far, far off to the right. and clearly, what he is trying to do is trying to figure out a way to do away with section 5 of the voting rights act. but i can tell you, ed, i don't think that's going to happen. but when you listen to the questions and the discussions that happened today in the supreme court, i can tell you as a lawyer, it does concern me where the court is going, particularly when we have justice roberts questioning whether the congress should be making these decisions. so basically, what they were saying was, well, you know, the congress, although we are elected by the people, perhaps we should not be the ones to make the decisions on the reauthorizations of the voting rights act, and perhaps nine justices who have not been elected to anything. >> yeah. >> should have that right. and it just concerns me that.

>> is a very profound point. they would rather have an appointed body make the decisions on voting rights instead of an elected body? >> isn't that amazing? i find that utterly amazing. i mean, their ideology, right on their sleeve, right out in the open. i mean i think it is terribly misguided to think there is no longer any discrimination over voting rights in this country. just look at the last election. >> ed, yeah, let me tell you something, ed. as you know in the oversight and government reform committee, i'm a ranking member. we've done quite a bit of investigating with regard to true to vote and some of these organizations that have tried to prevent people from voting. of course what you just talked about, the efforts to do -- to have stricter voter id laws and then doing away with early voting and things of that nature. >> isn't that what it's about, congressman? they want to get the feds out of the way. >> that's exactly right. >> they want to have their own set of voting registration laws.

they want to make it as tough as it possibly can on any individual that they really don't want to see vote when it comes to registration. what else could it be? >> that's exactly right, ed. and the fact, ed, is this. they know that america simply is not buying their philosophy. and is what they do, they say to themselves, let's make sure that people are not able to vote. and to be frank with you, i think it's one of the most unpatriotic things i've ever heard of. here we are going around the world, giving our blood, sweat, and treasure to defend democracies, to make sure people are able to vote, sending monitors, ed, into other countries. and in our country, in this country, we've got people standing in line five, six, or seven hours. matter of fact, our committee held a forum in virginia, in congressman connolly's district where we had people telling us, testifying that they stood in line for five and six hours trying to vote.

>> and they don't want to remedy that it seems like. it is amazing what is unfolding in the supreme court. quickly, how do you think they'll rule? do you think they'll strike it down, section 5? >> i don't, i don't think so. i don't think so. i think it's too important. keep in mind, ed, we just reauthorized it in 2006. it was 98-0 in the senate, and 390-38 in the house. you can't just do away with that. >> scalia says it's the name of the bill. whom would vote against that, the voting rights act? that's how simplified it's gotten with them. congressman, great to have you with us tonight. i really appreciate your time. thank you. now let's turn to karen finney, msnbc political analyst and former communications director of the dnc. and also with us dr. james peterson, a professor of english at lehigh university. karen, you first. today was just a bad sign for the future of voting rights in america in the voting act? >> it was very disturbing. certainly what we heard from the court a fundamental lack of understanding from the practical reality of what is happening in

this country. remember, part of the reason we had to have these laws about preclearance is the tactics that were used from beating people as we saw to these kinds of insidious poll taxes and tests. and now we know we have plenty of evidence and data from the past election and previous elections that again the tactics have shifted. and it's not about voter registration. i think that's a really important point here. it's about the opportunity to exercise your right to vote and what it is you have to go through. sure, more african-americans turned out than ever before, but many of them had to wait eight and nine hours to be able to vote. that is -- they're not even considering that in part of their arguments. >> dr. peterson, another person who fought for voting rights was rosa parks. she also marched in alabama. today as the supreme court was hearing oral arguments, a rosa parks statue was unveiled at the capitol rotunda. >> it's been often remarked that

rosa parks' activism didn't begin on that bus. long before she made headlines, she had stood up for freedom, stood up for equality, fighting for voting rights. >> dr. peterson, what do you make of the irony of these two things happening today? >> it is an unfortunate sort of disrespect towards rosa parks' legacy. karen is right. congressman cummings is right. we're coming out of an election where we're seeing all kinds of different schemes and plans to delay the vote, to remove early voting, to ramp up voter id. there are always going to be different ways of doing this. and here is the real question, ed. if all these cities, states, and municipalities are doing what they're supposed to be doing around the voting process, why do they need this oversight removed? why does this oversight have to be removed? unless you're trying to come up with additional schemes or you anticipate undocumented folk coming into the polls or coming to the polls on one side of the aisle. unless you're anticipating some kind of surge in democratic

voting, i have no idea why this is even being challenged at this point. >> judged on the way they acted in the last election, it would make for a very active department of justice. they would have to be looking everywhere because there would be no federal protection. >> we need to expand it. right. we should be expanding it. that's right. >> as a black man, how do you feel about what unfolded today? >> well, i think, you know, i have a lot of respect for congressman cummings and the entire civil rights movement. i understand that i'm standing on the shoulders of giants in my career and in my life. so i want to be a part of the battle to make sure we protect those things that they fought so hard for. but, again, why all this attention? where is shelby county coming from? what is the sort of directionality of this record? this oversight is negligible. it doesn't mean anything. >> karen, i don't hear any republican elected officials saying anything about the supreme court and the kind of rhetoric thrown out today by antonin scalia.

>> the silence is deafening. when you think of the tradition of the civil rights movement, i've done the reenactment of the edmund pettus bridge walk with congressman lewis. part of the history and the legacy was it wasn't just african-americans. there were white americans who participated in this process because they understood it was wrong. what was happening was wrong. and that shouldn't have a partisan label. should it not be that republican members of congress or any republican shouldn't feel comfortable saying we need to keep the voting rights act in place. frankly, ed, after what we saw in the last election, should it be expanded. >> exactly, exactly. >> absolutely. karen finney, great to have you with us. james peterson, the same. appreciate it so much being on "the ed show." remember to answer tonight's question there at the bottom of the screen. share your thoughts with us on twitter and at ed show and on facebook. we want to know what you think always. legal scholar jonathan turley is here tonight on what today's hearing might mean for

the future of voting rights in america. a lot more to talk about. stay with us.

coming up, the national rifle association suffers a huge defeat. "the ed show" congressional committee is here the break it all down for you tonight. one month before the nfl draft, a major college prospect is asked if he likes girls. what is the nfl doing when it comes to gay issues? a super bowl champ is here to respond. don't forget, you can listen to my radio show on sirius xm radio channel 127 monday through friday, noon to 3:00 p.m. share your thoughts with us on facebook and on twitter using #edshow. we're coming right back. [ female announcer ] feel like you're growing older... waiting to look younger? get younger looking skin fast. with new olay regenerist micro-sculpting cream.

with 2 new anti-aging ingredients. visible wrinkle reduction starts day 1. see younger looking skin before you finish one jar. new from olay. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.

and we are back. thanks for watching tonight. if the supreme court overturns part of the voting rights act, the impact would be absolutely enormous. we're talking about decades of legal protection for the voting rights of minorities in this country. what we have told you before this break was really just the tip of the iceberg. justice antonin scalia was so vocal in his opposition to the voting rights act today, justice elena kagan broke with protocol and addressed him by name. it was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a covered state who decided there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation. scalia responded, "or decided perhaps they better not vote against it." at another point justice scalia said "this is not the kind of question you leave to congress. even the name is wonderful, the voting rights act. whose going to vote against that?"

it bears repeating justice scalia also said this -- "whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political process." let's turn to a jonathan turley, professor at george washington university. good to have you with us tonight. >> hi, ed. >> section 5, if it is struck down by the supreme court, what does it mean to voting rights in this country? what does it mean to local and state governments? >> well, it's a fundamental blow, because section 5 is the really point of the spear for the entire act. it focuses on so-called covered states that have had the worst history, the worst legacy of the denial of votes. and that's what is so tragically ironic about justice scalia's comments when he talks about entitlement. the entitlement is the right to vote in the constitution. and that has been denied.

so this was -- he was talking about a provision that deals with the disenfranchisement of people, the denial of something they're entitled to. but if he does have with him four other justices, the section could be struck, but the act would survive. and what that means is that it would apply to all 50 states. but the most active component of the act, section 5 would be nullified. and you also have to keep in mind, ed, the importance of the comments today may also have significance for an opinion that we're all waiting for, which is the fisher case. and that deals with the ability to use race in college admissions. and many of the comments today really left folks worrying about the court making this an extraordinary term of a sea change when it comes to race laws. not just voting, but also possibly the use of race through admissions processes.

>> okay. back to section 5 for a moment. to be very clear here, as you are, i want our viewers to know that if section 5 is knocked down, this takes away any kind of federal oversight. and i think the point here that needs to be made and clarified, what latitude legally does that give state governments to start running elections? could they not come up with laws that would make it very cumbersome to disenfranchise people, disincentivize people to go out and even register? what about that? >> well, basically the reason we have section 5 is that these states were gaming the system. they would impose unconstitutional laws. >> sure. >> that would infringe voting. hen they were struck down. that would immediately pass another one. so the laws were all reactive. this made it proactive. it made the states come to the federal government to look at these types of plans. if you get rid of it, you return

to that past system where you can have the sort of monty card game going on where you're not too sure where the laws are going to end up on voting -- on the day of voting. and we have seen a lot of these encumbrances in just the last election across the country. >> are you troubled by scalia's comments about the congress making these decisions instead of the supreme court? that maybe they should be doing it? >> i was -- it was a breathtaking comment. it was also pretty ill-conceived. i mean not only is he getting the entitlement wrong as to whose entitlement should really be worried about here, i thought it was humorous. it has such a nice name whom. would vote against it. he didn't seem bothered by the patriot act that had a pretty nice name too, but he didn't question that one. but what is really amazing is he was articulating what we call a super legislature system where the judges sit as the super legislature. many conservatives use that as a way of describing judicial

activism. >> absolutely. he sounded like an activist judge today, no question about it. elections have consequences. jonathan turley, professor, good to have you with us tonight. thank you. congressman keith ellison, what did he do? well, he just flat-out hammered sean hannity. i'll show you what set off the minnesota nice congressman. republican talking points are destroyed by reality on capitol hill today. "the ed show" congressional committee and panel is here with the latest. stay with us.

welcome back to "the ed show." you know, a guy can only take so much lying. tonight i'm calling out my old buddy sean hannity for way he conducts business over at fox news. now, last night hannity claimed president obama is trying to scare americans over the fallout from the sequester. he put together i thought a very disrespectful video mocking the consequences of the looming spending cuts. here is a small portion of the two-minute clip. >> border patrol agents will see their hours reduced. fbi agents will be furloughed. federal prosecutors will have to close cases and potentially let criminals go. >> well, hannity's guest, minnesota congressman keith ellison, he didn't care too much for that video. ellison put away his minnesota nice attitude for a moment and gave hannity a piece of his mind. >> quite frankly, you are the worst excuse for a journalist i've ever seen.

>> i am the what? i can't hear you. >> the worst. you heard me. >> no. say it again. i didn't hear you. >> i mean, what you just displayed was not journalism. it was yellow journalism. the people watching your show should ignore all of the commentary you put in and all of the hype and music that you put on and should pay attention to what the president actually said. because what the president said was true. >> that's a hot one. what do you think? congressman ellison hit it out of the park? i think so. people should ignore hannity because the spending cuts are serious. if no deal is reached by friday, here is the deal. 10,000 teachers could lose their jobs. airport security could be cut by $323 million. 70,000 kids would be kicked off head start. fema's disaster relief budget would be cut by $375 million.

public housing would be cut by $1.9 billion. and overall, hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs would be at risk. the list goes on and on. hannity has no clue to mock these cuts with his video. and, again, he is just flat-out wrong. president obama isn't fearmongering over the sequester, he is looking out for american people. it's something sean hannity knows nothing about. now, with that, i'm just going to let congressman ellison wrap things up. >> quite frankly, you are the worst excuse for a journalist i've ever seen. their days of holding our country hostage are coming to an end. >> illinois voters fire a shot heard around the country there is major movement on gun safety and the big congressional panel weighs in next. a north dakota lawmaker objects to a missing children's law, and she is using jesus as her excuse. the bizarre story ahead.

and does the nfl have the right to ask about sexual orientation? >> do you have a girlfriend? are you married? do you like girls? >> super bowl champion brendan ayanbadejo of the baltimore ravens takes on the nfl's tolerance for gay players. that's ahead.

and we are back. it was an emotional day on capitol hill as the debate over an assault weapons ban came to a senate hearing. we heard from the father of 6-year-old jesse lewis, one of the 20 children gunned down at sandy hook elementary. neil heslin says he supports the second amendment, but says the time has come for an assault weapons ban. >> and jesse was the love of my life. he was the only family i have left. it's hard for me to be here today to talk about my deceased son.

but i have to. i'm his voice. i'm not here for the sympathy and a pat on the back. as many people stated in the town of newtown. i'm here to speak up for my son. >> meanwhile, milwaukee, wisconsin,'s police chief edward flynn called out senator lindsey graham for parroting nra talking points regarding background checks. senator graham, who says he owns an ar-15 also says existing laws should be enforced. but flynn pointed out that he and other law enforcement officers aren't interested in paper chases. they're focused on preventing people from getting guns illegally. >> just for the record, for my point of view, senator, the purpose of the background check -- >> how many cases have you made? >> it doesn't matter. it's a paper thing. i want to stop 76 -- i want to finish the answer. >> no -- >> i want to stop 76,000 people from buying guns illegally. that's what a background check does. if you think we're going to do paperwork prosecutions, you're

wrong. >> gun control advocates were given some hope last night. robin kelly, a candidate who proudly flaunted her "f" rating from the nra won the democratic primary in illinois's second congressional district, a seat left vacant by former congressman jesse jackson jr. kelly easily defeated her closest competitor, a pro-gun democrat. she got a $2 million boost from new york mayor michael bloomberg, whose ads turned this race into a referendum on existing gun laws. >> today you did more than cast a vote. you sent a message that was heard around our state and across the nation, a message that tells the nra that their days of holding our country hostage are coming to an end. >> let's turn to our congressional panel tonight. congressman jim moran of virginia joins us, along with congresswoman jan schakowsky of illinois and congressman john yarmuth. great to have all of you with us. congresswoman schakowsky, let's talk with you first.

bloomberg's group says this was a real defeat for the national rifle association and the candidate who won last night seems to agree. do you agree? how much of a change in the wind is this in the fight for gun control? >> oh, there is no question that it was a victory for those forces against gun violence. a personal victory, of course, for robin kelly, who for a very long time has been a defender of laws that protect against gun violence. she is not new to this fight. but i think that there is now a different calculation that candidates have to make, that there is a real player that is willing to take on the nra, and that's the mayors against gun violence. >> sure. >> and other activists. so as members reach for the -- to put their card into vote, they're going to have to be thinking that the nra isn't just

holding fort, but it is also that we're going to be there fighting against them. >> okay. congressman yarmuth, is this victory an illinois momentum for gun control, for instance, or is this chicago speaking out against gun violence? how will this play in kentucky, and will it be a factor? >> i'm not sure that the chicago election will make a difference in connecticut. but kentucky has already made a statement itself. we have polls recently 75% of kentuckians support background checks. 65% of kentuckians actually support gun registration with a state, not the federal government, but with the state. so the tide is turning. people understand it. and i think the most important thing is that gun owners actually want to be -- want to make sure that only responsible people own guns. so it's not just the general population, it's also responsible gunowners, the balance of the nra membership, who are not being represented by their leadership, who are making

the same statements. so i was thrilled to see chicago make that statement because, you know, if you go back in history, abner mikva was one of the cases in which the nra was actually able to create this mythology that they could swing elections. so it's kind of ironic and poetic justice that now chicago makes the changing statement. >> congressman moran we heard emotional testimony supporting assault weapons ban. will it move the needle at all? what do you think? >> i think it moves the need well the american public, and the way this democracy is supposed to work, it should move the need well members of congress. i was disappointed to see that the chair of our judiciary committee that the legislation would have to pass through, he is from virginia, said that he'll oppose background checks. he cited the inconvenience that it will cause gun purchasers. but hopefully the senate can get it in.

chuck schumer's bill hopefully will pass the senate and then come back to the house. but time is not on our side. it's on the nra's side. and that's why i appreciate your highlighting this issue. we can't give up on this issue, ed. and, you know, there is 30,000 deaths now from guns. and car deaths have now dropped below 30,000. there is considerably more firearm deaths in virginia than there are deaths by automobiles. but that's because we have seat belt laws. we have drunk driving penalties. we require driver's licenses. auto manufacturers have to build safer vehicles. that's the kind of thing that the american public should be demanding of gun manufacturers. and we have to keep this push going. and thank god for mayor bloomberg. >> well, that brings up a real question here. if races are funded, and this is a key issue, will it have an impact around the country? congresswoman schakowsky, do you believe there are other places in illinois that bloomberg money could make a difference?

>> there is absolutely no question about it. the fact that this issue is highlighted and the fact that there is actually money behind it that can be put into campaigns makes the scenario completely different than it used to be. >> all right. >> the nra was virtually alone. and if they decided to score a bill, everybody, or a majority would just say okay, i'm going with them. now i think it's very different. everybody is going to have to think twice. >> vice president joe biden also got emotional today speaking before state attorneys generals. >> the excuse that it's too politically risky to act is no longer acceptable. >> and john yarmuth, in kentucky is it politically risky? >> well, you know, i think in some parts of my state. we're a huge gun-owning state, a very big hunting state. i think it might be risky in some places. but i think what this election actually demonstrated is kind of

this, again, expose the mythology of the fact that if you take on the nra, you're automatically dead politically. i think that's the key revelation of this election, and that is that you can be for responsible gun safety legislation and not risk your political career. and i think everybody has kind of had their eyes opened to that fact, even in kentucky. >> jim, is the administration preparing to act will or without congress? what do you think? >> well, this is only so much the administration can do without the congress. but we were elected to lead. that's our job. and if we don't lead, then we really bear some culpability for the next massacre of innocents, ed. it's our responsibility now to work with the president to do the right thing. it's what the american public, the vast majority of the american public wants. it's our responsibility to act. >> quickly, i want all of your

reaction to what you saw in the senate hearing today when that police chief fired right back at senator lindsey graham. that's the kind of conversation, and that's the kind of responses that i think this debate has been lacking. jan, what do you think? >> absolutely the passion of this police chief against the kind of nitpicking of senator graham i think really set for the american people what this fight is about, and that law enforcement is so passionately on the side of preventing gun violence. >> they really have. >> makes a difference. >> john, your thoughts. >> yeah, i agree. i had three different programs in my district last week, all focused on gun safety proposals. and the vast majority of people who were there were very supportive, who were concerned. there is no fear for politicians to be on the side of gun safety regulations. >> well, his passion certainly paralleled yours, congressman moran. i thought that was you testifying there for a moment. >> you give me too much credit.

sounded like you, though, i have to say. >> great to have all you have with me tonight, congressman jim moran, congresswoman jan schakowsky, and congressman john yarmuth. great to have you on. a state republican rep compares a bill to jesus and mary? that next. progressive insurance. you know, from our 4,000 television commercials. yep, there i am with flo. hoo-hoo! watch it! [chuckles] anyhoo, 3 million people switched to me last year,

saving an average of $475. [sigh] it feels good to help people save... with great discounts like safe driver, multicar, and multipolicy. so call me today. you'll be glad you did. cannonbox! [splash!] and of course we love hearing from our fans on facebook and on twitter. many of you are talking about today's outrageous comments by supreme court justice antonin scalia, who called the voting rights act the perpetrator pet weighs of racial entitlement? that's certainly one for the archives. on facebook, sue says justice scalia has just proven by his comments why the voting rights act is still necessary. kelly reagan says scalia let his bigot slip out today. disgusting man. wilbert fleming writes there should be term limits for supreme court justices. when you're senile and in the pocket of the special interest

groups, it's time for you to go. you can go to our facebook right now, our page and join in on the conversation. don't forget to like "the ed show" if you're there. appreciate that. and also, we want to tell you about college athletes who are put to the test every spring by professional football teams at what is called a combine. i'll tell you which question has the country buzzing. baltimore ravens linebacker and all-star from the super bowl brendan -- he'll join me next.

well, here is one from the wild, wild west. legislators in the state of north dakota are looking for ways to protect children from abuse and neglect. bill 2125 aims to do just that. the bipartisan bill would require parents or care takers to report a child as missing or face a penalty. it seems pretty easy to get behind that, doesn't it?

caretakers would need to report a child missing within 24 hours if the child is under 13 years of age, or within 48 hours if the child is between the ages of 13 and 17. it would also require the death of a child to be reported within two hours. and that basically is it. that's the bill. the bill informally known as caylee's law was introduced in response to stories like caylee anthony. the bill had overwhelming support in the senate, and now heads to the house, but not everyone was a supporter. meet senator margaret sitte of bismarck, north dakota. >> i affectionately call this the "make mary and joseph felons" bill because jesus was missing for three days. >> that's right. senator sitte doesn't support this bill aim at protecting children because if mary and joseph happened to live in modern-day north dakota when

they accidentally left 12-year-old jesus at the temple for three davis celebrating the feast of the passover and they didn't report jesus missing, they would have been held accountable under the law. senator sitte needs to realize an awful lot has happened in the last 2,000 years. i suggest her fellow republicans kind of bring her up to date a little bit. i'm sure if mary and joseph lived in bismarck in the 21st century, the whole story might have been just a little bit different. tonight in our survey, i asked you regardless of how the supreme court rules, does discrimination still exist when it comes to voting rights? 99% of you say yes. 1% of you say no. coming up, super bowl champion brendan ayanbadejo will join us tonight on the new controversy swirling around the national football league combine. and in the big finish we were so blessed when we had triplets

if by blessed you mean freaked out about money well we suddenly noticed that everything was getting more expensive so we switched to the bargain detergent but i found myself using three times more than you're supposed to and the clothes still weren't as clean as with tide. so we're back to tide. they're cuter in clean clothes. thanks honey yeah you suck at folding [ laughs ] [ female announcer ] one cap of tide gives you more cleaning power than 6 caps of the bargain brand. [ woman ] that's my tide, what's yours?

and in the big finish tonight, this next story could cause some real problems for the national football league. a young draft prospect says he was asked about his sexual orientation during an interview at the combine. the story shed some light on how far gay rights have come for some americans and not others. california passed proposition 8 limiting marriage to a man and a woman five years ago. another example, this week 75

prominent republicans and 200 major corporations asked the government to overturn proposition 8. "don't ask, don't tell" has already been repealed, and the president has declared his support for same-sex marriage. here is another sign of change. these young men were legally married in the chapel at west point military academy just a few weeks ago. but these young americans may not share the same freedom. the athletes at the national football league combine, well, they can't come out. it's illegal to ask anyone about their sexual orientation during a job interview. so tight end nick kasa says he was caught offguard when a perspective employer asked if he likes girl. >> did you get any weirdly personal questions? >> yes. they asked -- they asked like do you have a girlfriend? are you married? do you like girls? those kind of things. and it was just kind of weird. >> kasa won't say who asked the question, but the nfl announced today that it will investigate. meanwhile, star linebacker manti te'o is being asked repeatedly

by reporters about his sexual orientation. and nbc sports commentator mark florio says the coaches are curious too. >> here is the elephant in the room for the teams, and it shouldn't matter, but we have to step aside from the rest of reality and walk into the industry, the unique industry that is the nfl. teams want to know whether or not manti te'o is gay. they just want to know. >> we'll see a lot of new talent come out of the draft this april, always, but none of them will be really able to come out at all. i'm joined tonight by brendan ayanbadejo, who is a super bowl champion linebacker for the baltimore ravens, a three-time pro bowler, and a pioneer of marriage equality and gay rights advocacy in the national football league. brendan, congratulations first of all. you've had an awesome year, and thanks for being on the program tonight. this is a pretty dicey subject for the national football league. this is new territory for teams dealing with this.

is sexual orientation the elephant in the room for the nfl? >> i mean, apparently it has been, but this the past it really hasn't been an issue. and now it's been on the forefront after what happened with the san francisco 49ers in the super bowl and what happened with me earlier in the season when a delegate from maryland called me out and asked me to be quiet and not talk about equal rights. so it seems like it's not only on the forefront of the nfl, but it's also on the forefront for politics and things that are going on within our country as well. >> do you think that a player's answer at the columbine could affect their chances of getting drafted or moving up or down or even out of the draft? >> yeah, you know, teams are really fickle there are all kinds of things they want to know. sometimes they'll take a chance and sometimes they won't take a chance. it all depends on how your interviews go and also how well you the at the combine. but a lot of teams want to talk to you, they want to get a feel for your personality, they want to see what you're like. and they really want to get that one-on-one facetime.