before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com. will the supreme court justices stick their necks out or bury their heads in the sand? it's march 27th, and this is "now." i'm joy reed in for alex wagner. joining mess ga deputy editor michael haney. mother jones washington bureau chief and msnbc analyst david corn.

today the supreme court is hearing day 2 of arguments on one of the most important civil rights issue of our time, marriage equality. yesterday the nine justices indicated they wanted to avoid issues a sweeping ruling in either direction on california's prop 8 case. at one point chief justice john roberts asked ted olson why supporters needed the label of "marriage." >> so it's just about the label in this case? >> the label is -- >> same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label. >> the label means something. it's like to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. they are certain labels that are very, very critical. >> in the case of today's argument on doma, the marriage labeling could not be more crucial. section 3 of the 1996 23er8 law defining marriage as strictly between a man and a wo prohibit legally wed same-sex couples

from receiving many of the same federal benefits as straight married couples. ediwindsor, her case is before the court. she had to pay $363,000 in federal estate tax when is her spouse the aeismt spire died in 2009. she would have been exempt from those taxes if the law recognized her as the next of kin. bill clinton signed doma under pressure from republicans in 1996. "new york times" report that mr. clinton was unwilling to risk his reelection by vetoes it. earlier this morning, he acknowledged the blemish, saying that doma was a relic from an earlier era while its time has passed. today's d opt ma arguments certain same-sex couples who are already married. they argue that doma is unconstitutional because it's discriminatory and legally

married should be entitled to all of the same rights enjoyed by straight married couples. joining us is jeffrey rosin, and legal affairs editor at "the new republic." in a wonderful reversal of fortune, thomas roberts from the previous hour, is also joining us. hi to both of us. >> hi, joy. >> jeffrey, yesterday it seemed like the injureses were looking for ways to sort of stand back from making a big sweeping decision, right? the prop 8 case had to do with whether there is a right, an inherent federal civil right to earning ma. the doma case they were arguing today seemed more limited, giving the justices a chance to step out in favor of gay rights, because they were dealing with specifically the federal issue. have i kind of described that possibly? >> it does describe it well, but i've just come from the arguments. frankly it was remarkable to see

how of the justices were discussing whether the court had the power to hear the case in the first place. chief justice roberts said why doesn't the president have the power of his convictions? and because he's not defending it, justice roberts suggested maybe the court doesn't have judds. justice kennedy said the president's position gives me intellectual whiplash. i don't understand why he's taking this position, either. it was surprising how many liberal justices suggested there was no live case or controversy indicating that the court could, in this case, as in the prop 8 case, kick this back to the lower courts, which would leave the ruling below in place. on the other hand, that was an hour, the first hour of oral arguments was does the court have the power to decide this case. during the second part of the argument there was vet agreed skepticism about whether this was a rational law. there was this dramatic moment in a courtroom, i think the most dramatic in the morgue when

justice kagan read out the report that said congress intends to express moral disapproval of homosexuality. the audience gasped, and the lawyer said we don't have to believe everything that congress said, we don't have to take it at face value. and justice kennedy, he cares a lot about federalism. when he said, i'm very troubled by the fact there are 1100 federal laws and benefits from that gay couples can't get and this is intruding on the core of the state police power, when he says something like that, you know he's really on your side. so the bottom line is that if the court does decide to hear the case on the merits, which is not at all clear after the morning's arguments, it does seem maybe. jeffrey, just for a moment, taking in the fact that the justices actually suggested the

president should not enforce a lawyer still on the books, i don't think i've ever heard that said before. that's kind of breathtaking, but i think you're getting to the point. the issue is whether or not a couple legally married in a state should be allowed to get federal benefits. the federal law is the decider there. i'm not sure i understand, what was the argument for why this is not something that the federal government should have any standing over. i don't understand. are they say the state should decide what the federal government gives as rights to people? >> the question is ordinarily the president will defend the constitutionality of federal laws, but in this case president obama has refused to defend the constitutionality, because he doesn't think it's constitutionality. at the same time he's not going to enforce it, so that means a bipartisan group in the house has decided they have the right to defend the constitutionality, and the first hour, which was very technical, is why do they have this power? does this mean any time the house thinks that particular law is constitutional, they can

defend it? it's a technical question of standing, but the question of whether the representatives in the house, who weren't formally authorized are allow to do do so is one that troubled not only the conservative justices, but the liberal justices as well. >> i want to go to thomas on this. justice roberts, he offered this question about marriage simply being a label and a distinction. of course, we know it is not simply a label. under federal law, marriage is the gateway to receiving a panoply of federal benefits that same-sex couples simply aren't entitled to, even if legally married in the state. the lbgt community, there was a time it was thought it would be a bad idea to raise these questions, even if public opinionb gan to go in the direction, that these nine justices could simply look at a technical issue and decide to set aside all the progress that was made.

is the thinks that these justices have taken us a step back? >> i don't know if it's taken us a step back. i would think there's a lot of activists that have worked to see when it comes to marriage equality, now, taking away the stigmaization, this is a justice day at the supreme court to decide where that falls. as we look at this, it is all about standing. i had written down the four related issues. first, did congress ever have standing to defend a law like doma? they never have before. can one house of congress defend doma without the other? third, even if one house could, did a committee have the power to intervene, and fourth does the administration of the president's agreement to deprive the supreme court of the judds.

again, remember, the obama administration informed eric holder not to enforce doma, but it seems like a game of chicken with the president says i want the supreme court to do this, and the supreme court saying why isn't the president enforcing this or trying to do something on his own accord. it's an odd, trying two-step right now. about you we'll know full well by 2:00 when we have the full audio. >> jeffrey, i wanted to give you a chance to speak to thomas' points. >> i think he summarized the dilemma very accurately, and john roberts said, can you name a single case in history where congress has had the power -- or one house of congress has had the power to defend an act ofeniof that the president has not defended? we all knew that conservative justices might be skeptical, but the fact that liberal justices also were concerned about the fact you don't want congress

without official authorization to be able claim to speak for the entire u.s. government. there was another amazing moment when the lawyer for the obama administration said that i, the president, represent the interests of all three branches of government. which got the court's back up a bit. really it turns out it was such an unusual decision for the president first to defend the law and not to defend it. john roberts was really hung up on the fact that if you think it's unconstitutional, why don't you stop right now and start paying these benefits? if the court does decide it has no jurisdiction, and the second circuit is upheld, president obama will face a very serious choice and he might have to say, because i think this law is unconstitutional, i will give the $300,000 in death benefits that ms. windsor would have been entitled to, and i will decide on my own i will not enforce the act. >> that's such a great point. as we look at nine different places and the district being places where marriage equality

exists now and others places potentially delaware, rhode island, illinois, all these other states taking up the fight, how these married couples that resigned in this states are treated completely different, it gets to the whole we're unequal, we're trited as others, and put into a different category. that's something that needs to be addressed on the federal levelivities absolutely. >> i want to bring the panel in. i think it's stuns where we're having either the supreme court or in their minds congress debating whether or not people's moral objection to another person -- the person, their existence, should be litigatable, either in court or in congress. putting that aside, is it possible that the supreme court could succeed in pushing this back, either to congress or even to president obama. >> in what sense? >> in the sense that it's president obama should be the one to have to decide not to enforce doma? it's he that should make that

decision? >> sure, anything is possible. i don't think the court ultimately -- and this is the thing i would urge us to pull back, we're all focused on what's happening with the court but ultimately i don't think this is the future of same-sex marriage. >> you've written that its inevitable that the court's ruling doesn't matter. >> the trend line only goes in one direction. it's most striking when you look at the people in the 20 to 30 year range, as they become the voters, these only headed in one direction. i'm just surprised at the amount of discomfort that the court seems to feel, because given how much progress has been made, given this is what, 17 years after doma? i was trying to do the arithmetic, there's been a change in the society, and i'm not hearing that change in the court's question thus far. >> to pick up on frank's point, the big picture is that it looks like the court is not going to stop it. whatever they want to do, whatever their discomfort, they're not going to stay,

states, go ahead and start banning. if they take the narrow route in either case, it lets the ruling stand, that prop 8 is struck down, california, and if they don't decide doma, which in some ways is an easier case for them, because then they say, president, we're gig you the chance to go ahead and do what you want to do, and with maybe half a blessing, but without our opposition. so they're not going to -- it's hard at this point to imagine either ruling getting in the way of this progress that you're talking -- they may not advance the ball -- >> we're not seeing any evidence they'll take a step backwards. we got so excited about these hearings. >> make they don't stand in the way, but i'm sorry, there is still a stamp of disapproval that is placed on these marriages if the highest court in the land says that we are not going to step in in what seems to be a pretty straightforward

case, where people are married, they're legally married in a states, but simply not entitled to federal benefits. >> no one who was in the courtroom should be shot that the defense of marriage act was a blatantly -- it was a function of animus to use condition did i's word. they shouldn't be surprised that's always what it was, but there are some legitimate constitutional questions here. let's say we get a president rand paul and one day he decides he doesn't like an act of congress. that is a legitimate question. it sounds like ruth bader ginsburg felt that roe v. wade went too far too fast. it sounds like they're worried if they go too far to fast they may set back the cause of marriage equality. >> thomas, is that a concern, that if the justices were to making a sweeping ruling, where they said that marriage is a fundamental several right, that

no state can bar it, is there a concern that there could be a backlash, that the court made this decision rather than the congress doing it? >> well, i think if they look at where the trend lines are going with how the public feels. we've got the ken mehlman work, 135 republicans that have now come out in support for marriage equality. you would think, joy, it would be better if, like what we saw in november, the four states that had marriage equality, ballots that people voted for overwhelmingly, if that would be the case for the rest of the country, that would be fantastic, but why should we put minority rights up for a majority vote? why should that be done? 2013 when it's just a simple situation of people wanting to marry the person that they want to love, and this is basically back to, like, 1967, in loving

versus virginia when the justices' unanimous decision decided that america could be color blind, so why can't america by sexuality blind when it comes to freedom of choice, and then be recognized by the federal government? if the federal government didn't give out the over 1,000 benefits to married couples, and this was just a religious institution that marriage was recognized only by churches, this would be a completely different story, but it's because it's the fact that it's an american right that's then rewarded, how can you exclude a certain segment of the population? >> thomas, you hit on exactly the point. we're going to talk about it more in this hour. in the loving case, you had 16 states that barred interracial marriage and a society that biand large disapproved of, against the yesterday of people who are black and white marrying each other. we turn to the courts in these situations, because popular will

is not supposed to decide people's fundamental rights. thank you, thomas. >> i like being on the other end. this is fun. this is good. >> i'm used you to asking me. this was very discombobulating, but thank you for doing it. >> me as well. it was good. well, after the break, the supreme court is supposed to be insulated from politics, except there are plenty of current examples to the contrary. we will peer behind the bench and talk influence and impact when ezra klein joins the conversation next. [ male announcer ] how do you make america's favorite recipes? just begin with america's favorite soups. bring out chicken broccoli alfredo. or best-ever meatloaf. go to campbellskitchen.com for recipes, plus a valuable coupon. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do.

the supreme court has just finished hearing arguments related to the defense of marriage act. nbc's justice correspondent pete williams was there. he joins us now. what was your takeaway? >> reporter: i think it's a very different day. again with the caveat, it's always risky to predict, it does seem that there are at least five votes on the supreme court to strike down the defense of marriage act. they were saying it diminishing the -- in the states justice against burg said couples in those states could well ask in a crisis if they don't get benefits. what kind of marriage is this?

she said the rules are so pervasive that without the benefits you end up with what she called a skim milk marriage, so they're saying this has a real effect. one is whether the federal government has a right to say what marriage is, that that's traditional something that the states have defined, and secondly he seems to also be bothered that even if the government does have the power to do it, it can't do it here, because it's unconstitutional discrimination. he says it's not narrowly focused, that it doesn't deal just with questions traditionally associated with marriage like, whether you get survivor benefits or estate taxes, but because it's so broad, it applies to 1100 separate programs. he says also it applies not just to the states that in essence doma was to protect, but also

applied in the states that have decided. couples in those states don't get the federal benefits, either. so finally the court did talk about what the federal government said the solicitor general arguing for the justice department quite strongly said this law should be rejected, because it was passed based on moral disapproval. he quoted from the house report with some negative language about same-sex couples. for sure there is members of the court that believe that doma should be upset, but it does seem there were votes to strike it down. that's assuming they kept for the question about whether it should be struck down. they have to go through a door to get there. the door is, do the parties -- did the parties have the right to come here in the first place? one little thing about that. this is an odd case. normally you don't get to appeal

to the supreme court if you won. the federal government did win in the court of appeals, so there's a question about that, but assuming they do get to the merits of the case, and it seems likely they will, then i think there are at least five votes to strike doma down. >> mike at, the five votes probably the ones you would expect, and pete saying that it looks like you do have a majority on the court, and it's the plurality who believes this is sdrim in a discriminatory on its face. >> i was going to say before the break, in some ways we want the hollywood ending, we wanted them to come out the first hour, and to me the great thing is the system is doing, they're doing what the court should do, slow down the process and look, you have an entire country looking at the supreme court now and learns how this thing happens. what questions should be asked, so that if they do back away, and it's still to be determined

if they will, you at least know why and it will force the government to come back with a stronger case. any rule they make will make it so once and for all we're going to decide it. it's a big wave that moved across america. this is one of the fastest-changing trends we have seen in decades. in the midst of all this, when they're not moving fast or being on the leading edge, they're trying to come to terms with this. i think roberts, who is probably sensitive to how his court will be looked at ten years from now, 15 years from now, he probably will still be chief justice, and has to take that into account. i'm thurl sheer going to wake to make sure the framework is there. >> yet you have anthony scalia

thinking for the part of the court that does want to move -- >> from the 1950s, but hi literally almost said this. scalia in describing this, he called it a new world from eric holder can decide a law unconstitutional, but not yet so unconstitutional that the executive branch won't enforce it the you did have some talk on the court of people saying this is like cell phones and newfangled things like the internet, this brave new world is all scary, they do sound like they're seeing the new world for the first time. >> i think one thing that's important, is not whether the supreme court decides to punt is that we have an opportunity to hear how little of is case how much their case is based on full hatred, frankly. i mean, once people hear what

opponents of gay marriage have to say for themselves in on national stage, there's no denies this is just about discrimination. >> the arguments seems very much tradition for tradition's sake. and we won't know for months what happens, but whatever happens, the public is getting extraordinary education right now. i don't think at the beginning of this week or the end of last week most americans knew about the benefits denied. they didn't know about situations like eid did i windsor's, and i think nothing but good can come out. >> tradition, the social science about what happens with children, all those arguments have been heard before in 1967. very much reflective of the loving case. after the break we'll talk about it more. we will go inside the brains of these justices, next on "now." a. it's a primer, concealer and foundation in one for all day flawless skin. new outlast stay fabulous from easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl.

only hertz gives you a carfirmation. hey, this is challenger. i'll be waiting for you in stall 5. it confirms your reservation and the location your car is in, the moment you land. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz. (announcer) at scottrade, our clto make their money do more.re (ann) to help me plan my next move, i take scottrade's free, in-branch seminars... plus, their live webinars. i use daily market commentary to improve my strategy. and my local scottrade office guides my learning every step of the way. because they know i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade... ranked "highest in customer loyalty for brokerage and investment companies."

the day building a play set begins with a surprise twinge of back pain... and a choice. take up to 4 advil in a day or 2 aleve for all day relief. [ male announcer ] that's handy. ♪ these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. [ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie has all the deliciousness you desire. the brownie of your dreams is now deliciously real. in the two landmark marriage equality cases, the decision

could hinge as many have before, on the vote of swing justice anthony kennedy. while kennedy he's ruled in favor of gale and lesbian rights on two key cases. in 1996, quenelle did i ruled to protect gay americans from discrimination, writing that they're for -- it is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. then in 2003, he ruled against anti-sodomy laws among same-sex manners, citing dignity as free persons. the other fascinating player to watch will be justice clarence thomas. the 1967 case and my personal obsession action loving versus virginia, struck down the ban on interracial marriage with chief justice earl warn writing that the freedom to marry, essentially to the orderly pursued of happiness by free men. marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man fundamental

to our very existence and survival. that ruling respecting the basic civil right allowed this couple to love and legally married one another 45 years ago. but supreme court respected clarence thomas' right to marry the person he loved, regardless of race. he now offered that same right to other couple regardless of their sexual orient ace? jeffrey rosin is back with us. is did clarence talk? >> as it happens, he did. >> what? >> not in the argument itself, but he delivered one of the opinions, first opinion, a rather technical heard his voice, he summarized for about five minutes, but after that -- >> it's like groundhog day, in that he says something for every once in a while and then goes

back down in the hole. it's a huge irony for me hi let rally could not be married in virginia under the loving case. is there any inkling in his past musings, past decisions that he's sensitive to the civil rights aspects of this case? >> reporter: well, you know, there is some, in the case that struck down sodomy laws in 2003, justice thomas did dissent, but he said i think this is an uncommonly silly law. if i was a legislator, i would vote against -- and in this case, too, there are many libertarians, include the kato institute, so it's possible, i certainly wouldn't bet on it, but thomas may as a policy matter may have questions about denies lodge -- and then perhaps his vote is up for grabs, but i don't think that anyone is

really counting on it both for jurisdictional reasons and generally he doesn't think the court should be creating new rightsivities i want to correct one quick thing. they were married 25 years ago, not 45. we were talking about this whole idea of defining marriage and defining it along the lines of being about child rearing. there are people who cannot bear children and they are heterosexual. >> there's an original form of marriage, and he likes to go back into history, but i think you had people making an argument marriages are only valid -- they were making the argument before a chief justice who has adopted children with his wife. does he believe his marriage is not valid? do other people who have marriages who are infertile or gay is it are their marriages invalid? not in practice. >> and are we throwing out the previous definitions by the

court which have always been consistently, free association. we have more on this. thank jeffrey rosin of "the new republic" for staying with us so long. >> thank you, it was a pleasure. coming up, rabble-rousing freshman senator ted cruise isn't -- we will discuss his filibuster threat. just ahead. [ buzzer ] hot dog? i'm buying. i'll use my capital one venture card with double miles you can actually use to fly any airline anytime. ♪ what are you doing? i'm saving one for later. my body keeps it warm. it's like a little hot dog steamer in there. go ahead, touch my chest. no. ♪ what's in your wallet? you got any mustard in there? ♪

♪ 'cause germs don't stick on me ♪ [ female announcer ] band-aid brand has quiltvent technology with air channels to let boo boos breathe. [ giggles ] [ female announcer ] quiltvent technology, only from band-aid brand. use with neosporin first aid antibiotic.

no they don't. hey son. have fun tonight. ♪ ♪ back against the wall ♪ ain't nothin to me ♪ ain't nothin to me [ crowd murmurs ] hey! ♪ [ howls ] ♪ stand with rand? the sequel is it rand paul threatens another filibuster. the only difference this time is he wants to stall gun safety legislation. he has a couple amigos on board, and there may be no actual standing involved. we'll discuss, next. zap technology.

arrival. with hertz gold plus rewards, you skip the counters, the lines, and the paperwork. zap. it's our fastest and easiest way to get you into your car. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz. vo: to the elegant trim es in each and every piece, bold will make your reality a dream.

[ both laughing ] but our plants were starving. [ man ] we love to eat. we just didn't know that our plants did, too. then we started using miracle-gro liquafeed every two weeks. now our plants get the food they need while we water. dinner's ready. come and get it. no one goes hungry in this house. so they're bigger, healthier, and more beautiful. guaranteed. with miracle-gro anyone can have a green thumb. and a second helping. [ both laughing ] when you feed your plants... everyone grows with miracle-gro.

it's been three whole weeks since freshman kentucky senator rand paul delivered his dramatic 13-hour filibuster. by the looks of it he's not running out of steam. yesterday along with ted cruz and mike lee, hand-delivered a letter to harry reid's office threatening to filibuster future legislation. we will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions. it's unclear whether we'll get a walking, talking 3w4r5de-busting filibuster like last time, but democrats are priming for a difficult fight. harry reid called the move by the senators outrageous, but he doesn't stop there. he also posted a video of senator ted cruz in january.

>> with you things we could do is improved the quality of the federal database. right now a lot of states, local jurisdictions are not reporting -- barriers to ownership, so the federal database is not nearly as good as it should be. that would be a common-sense improvement. >> he was thinking, that was on tape? the office immediately reacted insisting cruz has not flip nopd. the press secretary told politico yesterday -- and how out of touch they are with the american people. yes, because if there's anyone more extreme and out of touch with the american people, it's not rand paul and ted cruz, it's senate democrats. right. i have to go right to frank, because you have written that the tail is wagging the dog here on the republican party. >> yes. >> and look at that tail. >> i'm a big tail. >> i'm a little worried, he got

so many mileage out of that, i think senators cruz and lee probably have filibuster envy right now, and i'm worried about the -- senator cruz, since he came to the hill seem to have a zest for one thing and one thing alone. and i think right now he's a dangerous character on the hill. >> i think both he and senator paul are competing for the title of the tea party-est senator of all. mike lee is a distant third there, so any time one of these makes a move, the other will be right by their side or try to leapfrog off of it. this about ilthat they're talking about, we have to remember is a compromise bill that is watered done. it doesn't contain magazine limits or assault weapons babb bakley background checks and gun trafficking, and already 60% of the guns are back ground

checked. are they saying they would get rid of those background checks? it's crazy. >> this exposes like two soft underbellies of politics, one is all senators have envy of any senator getting attention especially on tv, but also on the republican party, the formerly stand-up senators are having to follow ted cruz. even ted cruz has to become more extreme in order to fit in. >> but you have to remember, they don't have to do that. they choose to do that. i think that's why part of people throw of their hands -- >> someone could stand up and say i'm not going to do this. >> not if you're going to run for 12016, the republican primary. >> i just want to make a correction, you don't have to do it. >> this is a primary question, but university background checks poll extremely well. i just saw a poll 88% of americans support universal background checks. so, yes, absolutely it's a

republican primary, but what about the national. >> reporter: brand. it's now at 47% today, down from a high of 57%, at least in that poll. ruth marcus commented on this, sort of the softening on the issue in the public and where it can go in congress. she said in "the washington post" -- there comes a point where advocates have to stop letting the perfect by the enemy of the good. the clal includes is different. background checks with recordkeeping won't get 60 votes necessary to pass the senate or stand any -- without recordkeeping will. are we at the point where democrats and people who favor gun control will have to settle for the adequate, because even the public is backing away from. >> thrive done that already. they're warted it down a lot, and this is a classic political science issue of an intensity gap. the people who care about the second amendment via nra care

about this on their top ten items of concerns, it's 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. the other people who are outraged by newtown have other concerns, too, and it kind of dissipates. >> and also because senate democrats aren't willing to spend a lot of capital on this. harry reid sort of backed down on strong filibuster reform. now here's what happens. >> there's an education gap as well. i think this is where bloomberg steps in. the people who are for gun rights, they're always -- and then there's these people softening their stance. there is that debate he wants. get out there, what's at stake here? that's the education problem. >> if there's a filibuster, who is the audience for that? and who does it help? the intensity as we've discussed action is already with the side that wants no new gun legislation. >> it's a showy thing for the media. and i think it's also for a certain republican base voter in certain states. you said you have to be like this to future into the republican party.

i disagree. i don't think ted cruz is the republican party. i don't think rand paul is the republican party, but they're the ones who generate excitement. the republican party's problem right now is nobody with a more seasoned moderate voice generates as much excitement and the elders are worried in primaries. so, you have the senior senator from texas following ted cruz around rather than the opposite. >> and mitch mcconnell. >> have you seen the pew poll that came out if you look at the republican party, never before has the conservative base been more dominant. i think this is actually the republican party. they're older, they're white, they're southern, and their core has expanded, even though their outlines have diminished. that's just the way the party is. >> the are. >> a war within the party. >> the extremists are there, but not enough to win a national election.

>> were system matterly letting, you have a mary landrieu problem, it isn't clear that conservative democrats are willing to step on you. >> the control doesn't break down neathly. that's what we're seeing with the lost philosophy. there are plenty of senate democrats who have not been good. >> let's do a consensus of the table. do we get gun control legislation of any kind in this mess, where you don't have a strong democratic voice and where republicans are willing to filibuster? >> i don't think you do. >> you don't think you get anything? i want i think we'll get something so pathetic it will be meaningless i want i say 40% of a half measure. >> this is depressing. >> very watered down. >> and we haven't talked about the house. >> the house is crazy town. we can't talk about it without me feeling extremely sad, so we're not going to talk about it. >> what are the hopes of the house? >> i think we'll get lactaid gun

control. after the break, when we come back, we'll have much more of the stuff we're talking about on "now." ♪ looking for a litter with natural ingredients that helps neutralize odors. discover tidy cats pure nature. uniquely formulated with cedar, pine, and corn. we create easy to use, powerful trading tools for all. look at these streaming charts! they're totally customizable and they let you visualize what might happen next. that's genius! strategies, chains, positions.

we put 'em all on one screen! could we make placing a trade any easier? mmmm...could we? open an account today and get a free 13-month e ibd™ subscription when you call 1-888-280-0157 now. optionsxpress by charles schwab. it will if it's new outlast stay fabulous foundation. it's a primer, concealer and foundation in one for all day flawless skin. new outlast stay fabulous from easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl.

welcome back. we have to issue a correction for something that aired last hour, so thomas roberts rejoins us from washington. thomas? >> hey, joy, thank. we wanted to make a quick correction in my hour on the network we reported that "the washington post" linked the new head of the secret service to the cia's interrogation program post-9/11. that article we mentioned actually referred to an unnamed cia agent who is not julia pearson. we should not have connected mrs. pearson to the cia. we sincerely apologize that, and joy, i appreciate you letting me come back on and make that clarification. >> you can come on anytime. dawn roberts said we can't te tell -- all right. do we have final thoughts on the

panel? if you want to comment on the -- i don't know if you heard it, but justice thomas roberts said you can't tell a child someone has to be a friend, because it changes what -- >> i'm most fascinated you had ginsburg talking about caulk milk, scalia talking about broccoli, so obviously they're very hungry justices. >> but they're eating healthy. >> i think we expected a bombshell from scalia. 0 for 2. that guy is really softening. >> i think i could go the rest of my life without hearing scalia making jokes about strom thurman. >> that's never a good look. that's all for now. i want to thank you to all of our guests, michael whose book "after visiting friends" is a "new york times" best-seller, and of course the rest of the panel, frank, david and irin.

i'll see you back here tomorrow when i'm joined by jonathan capehart megan mccarton, and you can catch alex tonight at 8:00 p.m., for a little "now at night" she'll be joined by suze orman, chad griffin, and me and others. i'll be joining her, too. andrea mitchell reports is next. after a frigid start, especially the southern half the country, the march sun is going to work. typical average temperatures should be in the 70s and 80s, but at least we're getting into the 50s and 60s today. northern half of the country, still a slow recovery, and doing a lot of snow melting. temperatures in the 40s and 50s. i'm telling you right now, the girl back at home

would absolutely not have taken a zip line in the jungle. (screams) i'm really glad that girl stayed at home. vo: expedia helps 30 million travelers a month find what they're looking for. one traveler at a time. expedia. find yours. (announcer) at scottrade, our cexactly how they want.t with scottrade's online banking, i get one view of my bank and brokerage accounts with one login... to easily move my money when i need to. plus, when i call my local scottrade office, i can talk to someone who knows how i trade. because i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade. awarded five-stars from smartmoney magazine.

i've been using crest pro-health for a week. my dentist said it was gonna help transform my mouth. [ male announcer ] go pro. for a clean that's up to four times better, try these crest pro-health products together. [ sara ] i've been using crest pro-health. so far...it feels different. [ male announcer ] crest pro-health protects not just some, but all these areas dentists check most. my mouth feels healthier. it feels cleaner. i think my dentist is gonna see the difference. [ male announcer ] go pro with crest pro-health. i don't think i'll ever go back to another product. see. [ male announcer ] go pro with crest pro-health. i can't believe your mom let you take her car out.ck! this is awesome! whoooo!

you're crazy. go faster! go faster! go faster! go faster! no! stop...stop... (mom) i raised my son to be careful... hi, sweetie. hi, mom. (mom) but just to be safe... i got a subaru. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. right now domma's day in court. we'll have the full report from inside today's supreme court hearing. >> today i'm an out lesbian who just sued the united states of america. >> we are confident that today and near and near times in the future, equal justice under law

will be a reality for gay people as for straight people in the united states. public apology, former cia director david petraeus returns to the spotlight for the first time since he career-ending scandal. so please allow me to begin my remarks this evening by reiterating how deeply i regret and apologize for it the circumstances that led to my resignation from the kriismt o and caused such pain for my family, friends and supporters. plus hiring our heroes, the national push to find jobs for half a million military veterans. and need a chaperone? governor chris christie promises to keep prince harry in check when he pays a visit to the jersey shore in may. >> i'm going to be