and to help all that hard work pay off, membership brings out millions of us on small business saturday and every day to make shopping small huge. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. a breakthrough in senate puts john boehner in the hot seat. we like to say members of congress who devote their consciences but if you want real immigration reform to pass congress this year, that's a cliche you might want to abandon. there are still a ton of obstacles between where we stand now and a signing ceremony at the white house but the path cleared in a big way this week, leafing one basic question looming above the rest. what do republicans in the house

secretly want? i'll explain that more in a minute. first, the big breakthrough in the senate this week. it came on thursday when two republicans, tennessee's bob corker and john hoeven announced they struck a deal dealing with border security. >> we must do more to secure the border in this legislation. that's exactly what we're offering here today. it is a very straightforward way to secure our border and to do so before allowing a pathway to legal permanent residency for those who came here illegally. >> let's be clear. what hoeven and corker are proposing, is in the words of one advocate, successful and wasteful. it would double the number of border agents to 40,000 at a cost of $3 billion. it would also add 700 miles of new fencing. it would mandate the department of homeland security follow

specific instructions from congress on exactly how to secure the border and require all of this happen before any of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country start on a path to citizenship. but it's still a big breakthrough. why? because it helped kill off a different border security amendment. a poison pill amendment offered by texas republican john cornyn, requiring dhs to serve an apprehension rate of 90% of all the illegal border crossings before a path to citizenship was triggered. in other words, under the plan if a future administration, say a future republican administration, decided it's not crazy about adding a few million new citizens, it would have been able to say, sorry, we're not meeting the apprehension threshold, no path to citizenship. and that would be that. that's why democrats called cornyn's proposal a poison pill and it was rejected in senate. that rejection was made possible in part because of the border

security plan that corker and hoeven came up with. that excessive, over the top, wasteful border security plan. it's important because it gives republican senators who actually want real reform, but who also feel pressure from their base to show they're tough on border security, it gives them a way to support the overall bill even without cornyn's poison pill amendment. that's what we're seeing. two more republican senators, nevada's dean hiller and mark kirk announced their support for reform thursday, and perhaps more, many more, could soon follow. >> if this amendment passes, which i hope it will, don't see how anybody could argue the reason they're not supporting this legislation is because we haven't addressed securing the border. we have addressed that. we've addressed that in spades in this legislation. >> again, there are still a lot of hurdles. the upshot of what happened in the senate this week is this. the dream of immigration reform supporters getting a bill through the senate with a bigbie

partisan majority, that dream is very much alive. that brings us back to john boehner's house of representatives because the whole idea of getting a bipartisan majority in senate is to isolate the republican house. to create so much pressure that boehner and republican leaders there decide to put the bill on the floor for a vote. if boehner does that, the bill would probably pass mainly on the strength of democratic votes. but that would also mean violating the so-called hastert rule, the idea republican speaker can't put anything on the floor unless majority of all republicans in the house support it. boehner this week seemed to promise republicans he would follow the hastert rule on immigration. >> i don't see any way of brigging immigration bill to the floor without having republican

support. >> we know most without vote without a path to citizenship. even those who don't think it's amnesty don't want to anger that base and lose in the primary next year. how many also think it's in the best interest of their party, it's in the vital interest of the future of their party to get the issue of immigration addressed and off the table? how many of them secretly want a real reform bill to come to the floor and to pass even if they'll speak out against it and vote against it on the floor? if most house republicans deep down inside want the senate bill to pass the house, even if they can't vote for it lernlly, would boehner really be violating the hastert rule if he put it up for a vote? this is a depressing commentary how washington works or doesn't work but the best hope for immigration reform. which is more alive than a week ago. want to bring in robert costa, democratic congressman hakeem

jeffries of new york, raul reyes, contributor to msnbc latina and an attorney. i want to talk about the house in a minute, and we have the perfect person to do it. christina, we talked about the hoeven and corker agreement. it looks like that's going to get rolled into a bigger amendment that pat leahy, democrat from vermont, is offering and that's going to get a vote this coming monday in the senate. this could tell us, is that big bipartisan vote going to be there? >> it looks like it's going to be there. it looks like the gang of eight looked like they got everybody on board for this. the number of people that are going to vote for final passage will be very similar to this. the higher that number, the more pressure on the house side. >> ko you have a sense what that number could be? 70 is what we've always been

using? >> actually, i was talking to somebody yesterday who said it could be as high as 80. i think that's unlikely. i think you'll see upper 60s at this point. a lot of republicans aren't normally going to come out and announce their support like senator keller and senator kirk, they'll just vote for it. the big question is the cost because that gives conservative republicans who are already against what they call amnesty a big window out. >> it goes from border security being the big demand on the right and now they could be talking about cost, $30 billion. robert, you kovrt republicans capitol hill all the time. what are you hearing? >> that's a great question. as much as the gang of eight has made a lot of answers in reaching out to conservatives in the senate and trying to woo those skeptical about border security, at the end of the day, even as they make advances and win votes, they still have

resistance that this bill in its entirety represents amnesty. because of that fact, because they reject path to legalization, even if comes over with 70 votes to the house, i still am skeptical as someone who covers house republicans they're going to feel pressure. that's been this narrative that's been building. the pressure is really not there. the pressure is really on john boehner, does he allow an open vote, tinker with the hastert? as much as there's momentum in the house, there's still a lot of resistance and john boehner has to make a key decision as this moves forward. >> the fight from the republicans in the senate very much alive, at least from some republicans. this was jeff sessions from alabama on the floor after this corker/hoeven deal was announced. >> they said they didn't believe in a fence. they said -- senators said it was stupid to have a fence. and now all of a sudden we got 700 miles of fence. they said senator cornyn, he was overreaching, he wanted 5,000

new border agents. now the bill gets in trouble. they come in with 20,000 border agents. i think there was a political response to a failing piece of legislation, a dramatic, desperate attempt to pass a dramatic amendment so they can say, it does everything you want and more. >> jeff sessions was six seven years ago the last time immigration came to the senate, came to capitol hill, jeff sessions was arguing as vociferously against it. raul, do you think things feel different right now than they did the last time immigration came up and failed? >> yes, i think the calculus this time around is different because this time we have certain groups supporting immigration reform that were not on board the last time, such as the evangelical movement, high-tech sector. they were not on as board then as they are now. and there is definitely pressure

to keep it going. jeff sessions is half correct in what he's saying here is that this compromise, it is totally driven by politics because if you look at it just in terms of the policy, it's not a good policy. we're practically militarizing the border. it's very safe already. we're putting a tremendous amount of money and resources there. a tremendous -- there's the potential for a great deal of government overreach to all the people who live along that area. those things, you know, the cost, the government overreach, the money we're spending, those are generally things that conservatives are against. yet that's necessary and purely driven by the necessity. >> hakeem, this was sort of the compromise. chuck schumer leading the charge and he said publicly he wants 70 votes, wants as many votes as possible. so he was -- and other democrats were eager or happy to go along with this deal, this border surge they're calling it, $30

billion border surge because the key thing it didn't do was tie that apprehension rate of illegal border crossings to the path to citizenship. as long as that, you know, cornyn language isn't in there, they're okay with even if it's wasteful, excessive, they're okay with putting in there in the name of getting more republican votes and palatable to the house. what do you make of that calculation? >> if this is going to happen during the 113th congress, it has to pass the senate with a very robust, bipartisan level of support which means have you to have every single democrat supporting it and a substantial number of republican senators. they laid out three concerns that could be an obstacle toward passage. first, border security. it appears as a result of this amendment, which is a very strong amendment in the context of is the reality of the border being pretty secure, and the debate has advanced significantly. if you look at 2005, for instance, on the border security issue, there were a few different benchmarks put forth

at that point. it was said we need 20,000 customs and border patrol agents. right now we have 21,400. this would give us 40,000. it was said if you were going to deal with the fence issue, it was most important to have about 652 miles in the first phase. we have 651 at this point. it was said back then that you needed about 105 video surveillance, radar, cameras, electronically along the border. we have over 250 at this point. so, the border security question in many ways is a moving tar get because we've already exceeded the objectives that were put into place the last time we confronted comprehensive immigration reform and now the goalpost is being moved even further but it is a political necessity in order to get a robust vote coming out of the united states senate. >> you can't get stimulus through congress anymore. hiring 20,000 new people. maybe that's stimulus. we'll continue this discussion

in a second. first, though, i want to have an update on edward snowden, the former nsa contractor taking credit for leaking information about the agency's secret surovy lance government. the government of hong kong announced he left the city and left on a flight to moscow and may travel to another destination although not confirmed yet by nbc news. snowden is wanted in the u.s. on three criminal counts. in a statement from wikileaks, they said snowden is seeking asylum in an unnamed country. we'll pick up our discussion on immigration after this. yes she is, yes she is. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. 100% vegetable juice, with three of your daily vegetable servings in every little bottle. with three of your daily vegetable servings did you i did. email? so what did you think of the house? well it's got a great kitchen, but did you see the school rating? oh, you're right. oh hey babe, i got to go. ok. come here sweetie, say bye to daddy. bye daddy! have a good day at school ok?

ok. ...but what about when my parents visit? i just don't think there's enough room. lets keep looking. ok. i just love this one, i mean look at it... and it's next to a park i love it i love it too. what do you think of our new house? i'm most excited about the pool. me too sweetie. here's our new house... daddy! you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. zillow

i want to get into the prospects of immigration reform in the house, if as we're saying in the first block there, the senate bill with this new border security language does get through the senate, then the question is, does it have a

chance in the house and what is the house going to do? the big issue there being will john boehner put this on the floor and allow a vote even if most republicans are going to vote against it. dana rohrabacher, a long-time conservative congressman from california, when he first ran in 1988, he was one of the few republicans who asked oliver north to come campaign for him, after iran contra. he was asked about that prospect of boehner putting the bill on the floor this week. this is what he said on a world net daily radio. >> if speaker boehner moves forward and permits this to come to a vote, even though the majority of republicans in the house, and that's if they do, oppose whatever it is that's coming to a vote, he should be removed as speaker. >> and then speaker boehner was asked about that comment or threat, whatever you to want call it and this is how he replied. >> representative rohrabacher

said if you bring immigration reform to the floor, you will lose your job. do you think that's accurate? >> maybe. >> i guess he handled that one pretty well. again, robert, you know the house, i'm trying to figure out sort of the psychology of boehner and the psychology of the house. how do you think they look at the senate bill right now? >> you have to look at the big picture. that wit from john boehner reflects where he is with his confidence. back in january '12 republicans defected and since then he's struggled to corral his conference with his initiatives. i think boehner's wait and see approach, let the rohrabachers, but you don't see boehner being publicly opposed to immigration

reform, he's just being cagey how he'll move forward. that's an important distinction because john boehner, kevin mccarthy, you don't hear them railing against this bill. they're being cautious knowing how fragile the house conference is, how they move ahead. >> we talk about will they just vote in the senate. the republicans officially are talking about having their own bill coming out of the house. you have goodlatte, he has a piecemeal approach. the key is anything the republicans propose is not going to have the path to citizenship in it. >> that's right. so, officially how congress makes a law is that maybe the house passes something, the senate passes something, they come together and work out their differences. it doesn't always work all that smoothly. how do you come to an agreement or some sort of compromise in what's known as a conference report when they're so

different. what i'm looking for is this group working on it for years. this deal that fell apart both in 2006 and 2007, a lot of people have really wanted to see something happen. they've got the advocacy community on their side. i've talked to a lot of different people over the last few days who are saying, this senate bill isn't perfect. they don't don't love all the border enforcement for the reason raul is talking about but they're willing to let it happen because they to want see something. if that bipartisan group can come to the table and compromise, you might see shifting. with all this talk about pressure and whether it's on boehner or on the rest of the house republican caucus who are in safe seats, they're not having to worry about the latino votes in their district, you know what else alleviates pressure is time. nothing says john boehner has to put a bill on the floor any time soon. the senate could pass this as early as thursday next week. the house does not have to put a bill forward. we could be talking about the fall before we see something. i don't know that that's going to happen but the more time you

get away from the 2012 election and the senate vote, it helps the house republicans who don't want to vote for it. >> but speaking to the time factor, the closer we get to the midterms that's also something in the house they're going to be thinking about, whether or not -- how their vote may be used against them. and i think one thing we also have to keep in mind when we're looking at the house of representatives when we talk about the pressure they'll feel, say, with some momentum coming out of the senate, that's looking at it from a very traditional sense. this is not, as you mention, this is not a traditional house of representatives. there's that certain caucus, they will not feel that pressure at all. they are anti-establishment. they are -- they're not necessarily inclined to compromise. they are not -- they certainly don't want to be corralled or rangeled bir their speaker. what they're passionate about is opposing the path to citizenship, what they call amnesty. they're a wild card. as we're seeing with the speaker so far, they're not a group that's going to be managed or pushed into a certain slot.

that's not how they -- that's a new factor. >> the other issue, we say as 2014 approaches and you look at their incentives they feel pressure, to me when i look at republicans in the house, they say the electoral pressure they'll feel in 2014, most house republicans is the primary. i don't want to lose the primary. i'm not running a district with a heavy latino population. i'm running in a fairly white conservative district. i'm worried about being the amnesty congressman. i want to bring hakeem in because i want to ask about this issue of bipartisanship in the house and if he senses any of that is brewing. y. using night-vision goggles to keep an eye on my spicy buffalo wheat thins. who's gonna take your wheat thins? i don't know. an intruder, the dog, bigfoot. could you get the light? [ loud crash ] what is going on?! honey, i was close! it's a yeti! [ male announcer ] must! have! wheat thins! like other precious things that start off white, it yellows over time. fact is, when it comes to your smile, if you're not whitening, you're yellowing.

crest 3d white whitestrips go below the enamel surface to whiten as well as $500 professional treatments, at a fraction of the cost. guaranteed, or your money back. crest. life opens up when you do. want a whiter smile today? try 2 hour express whitestrips. want a whiter smile today? so you can capture your receipts, ink for all business purchases.

and manage them online with jot, the latest app from ink. so you can spend less time doing paperwork. and more time doing paperwork. ink from chase. so you can. 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. ♪ [ male announcer ] that's handy. help the gulf recover, andnt to learn from what happenedg goals: so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven.

and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world. over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger. we have congressman hakeem jeffries here. i want to ask you. are you having conversations, are you having or witnesses across the aisle bipartisan conversations, do you have a sense from republicans who are telling you, hey, this is our dilemma on this, i want to vote for this but? do you have a read on them? >> there are two thing going on

in the house of representatives right now. john boehner is allowing the judiciary committee taking a piecemeal approach on immigration reform. we worked on two bills, one related to agricultural workers, the other related to interior and border security. both bills that many immigration advocates and democrats wouldn't find tenable, but it is at least a step toward immigration reform through the context of regular order in the judiciary committee process. next week i'm told we're going to confront two additional piecemeal bills. one will be on e-verification system that would require employers to verify immigration status of individual workers before they're hired. the other on stem workers to deal with the absence of high-tech employment opportunities or the need to fill those opportunities possibly with highly skilled immigrants. then you also have a parallel phenomenon taking place where

you had the senate gang of eight. we originally had the house gang of eight, four democrats, four republicans, working on comprehensive immigration reform bill. that in all likelihood would include a pathway toward citizenship. the gang of eight is now magnificent seven because congressman dropped out because of health care on that pathway. we're expecting to see a pretty tough but fair bill unveiled within the next few days by the magnificent seven. so, that will set up a very interesting dynamic. if you couple that with the fact that if we get a strong bipartisan vote out of the senate, the american people clearly support comprehensive immigration reform. the president still has a great deal of popularity and the pullpul bully pulpit to push this issue.

perhaps the minority of the majority of the republican conference, and that ultimately will be speaker john boehner's dilemma. >> that's what i wonder about. i look at the farm bill debacle you could call it where it failed and nobody thought it would fail. you look at the cuts in that farm bill. we talked about this a little bit yesterday. but $20 billion cuts in food stamps which drove the left crazy to see this. it was a huge concession to those in the left, yet you had five dozen republican members reject a personal plea from john boehner to vote for this because they still didn't think it was conservative enough. you hear about the magnificent seven, i like that phrase, but if they come up with a proposal that includes a pathway to citizenship, i can see how that gets sold to republicans on the senate side. i think we're watching that happen. but i look at what happened thursday in the house, and i ask, could you sell a meaningful number or would you face a

revolt? >> i voted against the farm bill because of the $20 billion cut but you had as you pointed out 60 republicans vote against it because $20 million wasn't sufficient enough. that does speak to the dynamics in the house. what's important to note is on three different occasions during this calendar year, john boehner has brought meaningful legislation to the floor, on the fiscal cliff agreement, then the superstorm sandy aid relief package and then the morrow bust violence against women's act that included protection for immigration community, lbgt community, that passed with a fraction of republicans supporting it. the question is does this fall into that pattern of legislative activity where, for the fourth time, john boehner can find the will and the ability to bring a bill to the floor that it's in the interest of the republican

party to pass even though a majority of the house conference -- >> and this is that whole idea of secrecy, like what do they secretly want come into play? i feel like those republicans said, for our party we need to get the fiscal cliff thing resolved, we need sandy aid, but in my overwhelming republican district, i cannot vote for it but let's do it. maybe it wasn't a violation of the hastert rule in that sense. you know, robert, what do you think would happen if boehner put something like the senate bill, something with a path to citizenship f he put that on the floor of the house? what do you think would happen to him? >> i think boehner would perhaps be in political trouble. he's playing a chess game with the senate. he's trying to get to a point where the house immigration group that the congressman mentioned comes up with its own legislation, pathway to legalization and border security, his play for that to pass, a conference committee to meld with the bill, but if that

doesn't happen, he is thinking perhaps about retirement in the next few years and he says, this may be part of my legacy. i take the risk. even if the steve kings and rohrabachers go on talk radio, i have to take the political risk for the part. may have his speakership at risk. i don't see him being challenged because of eric cantor, mccarthy, paul ryan, i don't see them challenging boehner for the gavel after this. [ male announcer ] i've seen incredible things.

otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ suddenly, faraway places don'tfoour neighbors..... and our communities... america's beverage companies have created... a wide range of new choices. developing smaller portion sizes and more.. low and no-calorie beverages... adding clear calorie labels so you know... exactly what you're choosing... and in schools, replacing full-calorie soft drinks... with lower-calorie options. with more choices and fewer calories... america's beverage companies are delivering.

raul, you wanted to say? >> picking up on robert's point, i think he made a great point that speaker boehner is very much concerned with his legacy. this might be the moment, even to go so far that he might be willing to make a tradeoff between his legacy, doing something -- being part of something historic, tremendous, certainly something the immigration reform that his party needs to attract hispanic

voters. meanwhile, putting his speakership at risk. and i think, you know, everyone's criticizing him and trying to second guess what he's doing. i think so far, just from the purely strategic standpoint, he's playing his cards well. he's not way too much. he's trying to hang onto the leverage he has. even though he takes a a lot of criticism for not being able to control his house, if someone else were speaker, i don't think it's any different. that's the group he has. so i think he might be leaning towards a legacy. something on the side of legacy. >> it's so interesting to take a look at nancy pelosi. does he want to help him or sit back and say, good luck with that. >> you own it. >> looking at legacies, she's probably much more likely to retire than he has in the next few years so what does she want to do to bring this along? could this be her final grand bargain? >> she gave an interview to "the washington post" where she said, hey, have you to work with us now. john boehner, you have to work

with us. >> pelosi has made clear immigration reform is a high priority. they'll stand unified but ready to work with republicans to get something done for the good of the country. this is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. the american people have demanded it. the senate is working its bipartisan will. it will land in the house of representatives and hopefully we can make progress in the fall or some point short of the midterm elections. the electoral dynamic is such that while there are house republicans concerned about a primary and, therefore, may not support a bill that has a pathway toward sit shen zipp, overall there are about 65 republican-held seats that are competitive elections where immigration reform could make a difference. and so, there is an institutional interest, i believe, in getting something done. >> and there was a somewhat surprising endorsement of immigration reform and the path to citizenship this week. let's play that right now.

>> republican party has a lot to lose here. if it doesn't compromise, many hispanic voters will reject the gop entirely pretty much doing the party in the future. that's reality. it is time for the usa to pass immigration reform. for years i've called for a more secure southern border. you know that. and now it looks like the secure border is in reach. at least somewhat. so i hope this bill does become law. >> you know, what strikes me about that is paul kahne had a good story and talked about how the average conservative member of congress doesn't feel any pressure to answer to leadership. they answer to external voices. external voess like bill o'reilly, like sean hannity, the conservative masses listen to them. that seems to me maybe a big difference between now in 2007. hannity and now bill o'reilly. the top two fox voices. >> senator rubio has been very critical. he's done a strategic outreach

to conservative talk radio, conservative television to sell this plan. every time there's any critique about it he goes back and rebutts it. if that happens where you have grass roots support from the conservative side, he has a lot to do with that. >> has rubio hurt himself? i know this has been a delicate act for him where he goes on talk radio but ultimately is supporting part of the base they think is amnesty. has he hurt himself? >> it's a complicated question. to be a national leader in historical terms you need to take political risk. rubio comes in as a tea party senator in 2010 and he's taking political risks. he landed on the cover of "time" magazine. at the same time f he has to go to iowa, new hampshire, south carolina in 2015 and 2016 running for president and they still think this is amnesty, he has damaged himself through the prism of primary politics. >> i want to thank christina

bellantoni of pbs newshour. alec, for this mission i upgraded your smart phone. ♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capital one purchase eraser. i can redeem the double miles i earned with my venture card to erase recent travel purchases. and with a few clicks, this mission never happened. uh, what's this button do? [ electricity zaps ] ♪ you requested backup? yes. yes i did. what's in your wallet?

[ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat more dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting

to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪ can help you do what you do... even better. aren't always the most obvious. take the humble stevia plant, with a surprising secret to share: sweetness. truvia sweetener. zero-calorie sweetness, born from the stevia leaf. from nature, for sweetness. what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious! just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'. ♪ i'm a loving husband and a real good dad ♪ ♪ but weeds just make me rattlesnake mad ♪ ♪ now roundup has a new sharp-shootin' wand ♪ ♪ i'm sendin' them weeds to the great beyond ♪ ♪ roundup yeha! [ whip cracks ] ♪

♪ no need to pump, just point and shoot ♪ ♪ hit 'em in the leaves, and it kills to the root ♪ ♪ 'round fences, trees, even mulched beds ♪ ♪ 'cause the only good weed is a weed that's dead ♪ ♪ roundup yeha! [ whip cracks ] [ male announcer ] roundup... [ whip cracks ] with the new one-touch wand. ♪ leaving >> you probably know next year's midterm election aren't supposed to go that well for democrats. we've talked about why before on this show. there's a new turnout pattern emerged in the last decade or so. that's where you have republican voters who are older, whiter voters, generally. they tend to vote in every election. you have a democratic coalition which is younger and more diverse. that coalition right now is only coming out in droves for presidential elections. maybe that will start to change next year. we'll see. right now, democrats look like they're going to be running uphill in 2014. their challenge is even more pronounced when you focus on the

senate. prit now democrats have 54 seats there to 46 for republicans. that margin will almost definitely grow to 55-45 this fall. that's when new jersey will hold its special election that completely unnecessary $24 million special election that chris christie decided to hold. remember that christie appointed a republican to fill the seat of frank lautenberg for a few months while that campaign plays out but he's not running in the special election and cory booker is. no one expects republicans to lose that one. 2014 is a different story. democrats only have 13 seats up. there aren't that many pickup opportunities on the board for democrats. only one republican seat that's up is in a state that president obama carried. that would be susan collins of maine. she's widely expected to win again. but there are seven democratic seats up next year in states that mitt romney carried in 2012. so, yeah, if you put the turnout

problem and that map together, there's a real chance republicans could take back the senate next year. but there's also a real chance they're blow it and that things won't be that bad for democrats after all. there are actually two reasons for this. and to understand those reasons, all have you to do is look at one state. georgia. that state's seat is up next year, hold by saxby chambliss. he's retiring and it's an open seat and georgia is a heavily republican state. there's a lot of ambitious republican politicians angling to succeed him. if you want to succeed saxby chambliss, you first have to win the republican primary, in georgia, where it's extra conservative, especially on cultural issues. one of the republicans running is congressman paul brown. same congressman paul brown who a week after president obama was elected in 2008 compared him to hitler and suggested obama would try to create a marxist

dictatorship. the paul brown this week who voted against a republican bill in the house to ban abortions after 20 weeks. brown had been a co-sponsor, but when the bill was amended to include exceptions for rape and incest, he took to the house floor to demand his name be taken off it. that was monday. on tuesday, a day later, another georgia senate candidate, who is also a member of the house, republican congressman phil beginning gingry put on his own show. his message, we should teach gender issues in school. >> part of the problem, maybe we should go back into the schools at the very early age, maybe at the grade school level, and have a class for the young girls and have a class for the young boys and say, you know, this is what's important. you know, this is what a father does that is maybe a little different, maybe a little bit better than the talents that a mom has in a certain area and

same thing for the young girls that, you know, this is what a mom does. this is what is important from the standpoint of that union, which we call marriage. >> that could very well help gingrey in georgia's primary, and paul brown's antics could very well help him, too. the one upmanship they're engaged in is a problem for the republicans. if this is the stuff the republican base is going to demand and reward, it's going to produce candidate who is will invariably say and do things that frighten general election voters and cost republicans races they should not lose. it happened with todd akin and richard murdoch last year. happened in a number of states in 2010 and could happen in georgia next year. which brings us to the second reason to keep an eye on georgia. changing demographics. georgia is a state -- is a republican state, as you know, but it did stand with jimmy carter, ets favorite son in 1986

and 1980 and did go for bill clinton in 1992. the water is starting to get warmer for democrats. a lot warmer. african-americans have been moving back to the state in big numbers. there are nearly half a million more african-americans in the atlanta area now than there were ten years ago. barely half of georgians under the age of 18 are white. president obama only lost the state by eight points last year. he actually got 47% back in 2008. in that same election in 2008, the democratic senate candidate, jim martin, came within a few points of knock off saxby chambliss. this is the story of the future, evolving demographics creating opportunities for democrats in states they've been writing off until now. numbers aren't quite there in georgia yet, but they may not need to be in 2014 if republicans end up nominating the georgia equivalent of todd akin. supreme court's bill ruling on the voting rights act could come any day now. [ phil ] when you have joint pain and stiffness...

accomplishing even little things can become major victories. i'm phil mickelson, pro golfer. when i was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis, my rheumatologist prescribed enbrel for my pain and stiffness, and to help stop joint damage. [ male announcer ] enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis

and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. you should not start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have symptoms such as persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. since enbrel helped relieve my joint pain, it's the little things that mean the most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists.

any day now, possibly tomorrow, the supreme court will hand down ruling on section 5, the clause that put extra scrutiny on states in localities with history of voter suppression or discrimination, requiring them to seek preclearance from the justice department before they can enact redistricting schemes or any changes to election process. the law covers nine states completely, almost all in the deep south, plus specific counties and cities across the country. there's already a provision in the voting rights act that requires them to petition courts to bail out of the preclearance requirement. it's risky to predict what the supreme court is going to do. you can remember how everyone knew, just knew last year the court was going to toss out individual mandate in the affordable care act. that didn't actually happen. right now prevailing expectation is that section 5 of the voting

rights act will be overturned. during oral arguments they seemed to argue section 5 formulas that use data from the 1960s and early '70s to determine what states and localities will be put under scrutiny have become a relic. >> the formula was rational and effective in 1965. the court upheld it then. it upheld it three more times after that. >> the marshall plan was very good, too, the morrill act, but times change. >> we're not predicting it's going to happen but we should be prepared for the possibility this long-standing part of of the voting rights act could soon be no more. want to bring in ana marie cox from "the guardian," and theodore shaw, trial attorney in justice department civil rights division, now professor at columbia university law school.

he's argued before the supreme court and testified before congress on extension of the voting rights act. ted, i'll start with you. i said prevailing wisdom, from what i can tell, is people expect this to be tossed. do you agree with that? if you do, what does it mean? >> yes, i agree with it. during the oral argument in what we call the mudd case, in municipal district case in austin a few years ago, the chief justice of the supreme court indicated a lot of hostility and suggested in the opinion that came out of that case that congress change the statute. that didn't happen. so, this is a case very hostile to race-conscience measures, particularly those not involving so-called reverse discrimination claims. and, you know, most of us expect that section 5 is not going to merge intact. what it means is that

african-americans, latinos, people of color are going to be more vulnerable to the m matinations trying to fence them out of the voting process, whether we're talking about moving polling stations, voting i.d. laws, all the things we saw happen in florida a few years back. i think they're not going -- we know that if section 5 is struck down, they're not going to have the kind of protections we've had since 1965. one other thing very important is that we're not talking about a formula that wasn't revisited. congress had extensive hearings, and there are tens of thousands of pages of testimony and evidence that supported the recent extension of section 5. so, i just want to get that off the table. >> it was -- the reauthorization took place, the most recent one in 2006, the vote in the senate was 98-0. ana marie, you hear this

argument, it came up in oral ar uments all the time from skeptical justices, this is a law from the 1960s. do times change? why is this -- >> time has changed but, you know, the legacy of discrimination in the south is still very apparent if you look at voting patterns there. who they elect and who votes in those elections. you know, this is interesting, in 2006 you see how the political will has changed. in 2006 boehner and issa both voted in favor of this law. republicans right now are trying to distance themselves from this case in particular but it's very clear the political will seems to be indicating republicans believe they can get rid of section 5. it's possible to do that. in 2006 you had republicans moderate and conservative republicans almost laughing out of hand in attempts to change the voting rights law in the ways that the conservative justices seem to be suggesting we do, which is to get rid of some formulas for coverage. as a matter of fact, the formulas for coverage, to be quite honest, and i think the lower court found this, have

always been a little jerry-rigged in order to cover those areas of the country that have the strongest, most powerful areas of discrimination. to get those out of there would be kind of -- it was as actually sensenbrenner said as he was arguing for the reauthorization of it, he said it would make a mockery of the voting rights act if we tried to re-engineer this formula to effect some modern practices. some practices we've decided are discriminatory would continue and allow jurisdictions that kind of want to tinker with access to go back and use some things they tried before but the court had turned away -- or the justice department turned away. >> another thing, we think of this only affecting, primarily affecting the south, but there are areas of new york that are coverage under section 5. >> brooklyn, manhattan and the bronx are covered by sections 5

of the voting rights act. the issue related to the coverage formula, as you mentioned in your opening, there is a bailout provision that allows jurisdictions to be preempt from the preclearance requirements to the extent they demonstrate hostility no longer exists. in fact, i believe 198 jurisdictions since the passage of the voting rights act have been excluded and exempt. there is flexibility built into the law to make adjustments as change things. >> there's a provision for if you can establish for ten years you haven't had issues, can you get out of it. there's a lot more on this we want to pick up on right after this. [ male announcer ] moving object detection. ♪ blind spot warning. ♪ lane departure warning. safety, down to an art. the nissan altima

with safety shield technologies. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪ well, everything but palm trees, sunshine and fruity drinks, that is. i found our colors. we've made a decision. great, let's go get you set up... you need brushes... you should check out our workshops... push your color boundaries while staying well within your budget walls. i want to paint something else. more saving.

more doing. that's the power of the home depot. glidden premium interior paint starts at a new lower price at $18.94 a gallon. every day we're working to and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away.

♪ (announcer) at scottrade, our doncexactly 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. talking about the voting rights act, a critical component of section 51 in jeopardy and its fate will be decided by the supreme court any day now. we're here with ana marie cox of

"the guardian," former naacp president, ted shaw, congressman hakeem jeffries of new york and robert costa. we were talking about 2006, the last time congress reauthorized the voting rights act. there were 390-33 in favor. i remember covering this debate. it was really interesting to me because all the no votes, all the no votes came from southern republicans. so, when you had the floor debate, you had a band of southern republicans strenuously arguing against this saying section 5 unfairly singles us out. you had a conservative republican from wisconsin, jim sensenbrenner, leading the debate. it's fascinating to watch this republican-on-republican argumea argument. this is what jim sensenbrenner said about reauthorizing the

voting rights act six years ago. >> based on the records, let me put the books of the hearing on this record on the table. one of the most extensive considerations of any piece of legislation that the united states congress has dealt with in the 27 1/2 years that i have been honored to serve as a member of this body. all of this are a part of the record that the committee on the constitution headed by mr mr. shabbot of ohio showed the need for the reauthorization of the voting rights act. >> a conservative republican from georgia, one of the 33 who voted against it, and he made this case. >> by passing this rewriting of voting rights act congress is declaring states with problems

from 40 years ago can never be forgiven. georgians have to wear the scarlet letter because of their grandparents. as fanny lou hamer famously said, i'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. >> now, i guess i bring this up. the final vote was 390-33. a position so marginalized in the house. we're talking in all likelihood the majority position of the supreme court. the other reason i bring it up, if the court strikes down section 5, it will possibly give an opening to congress to come back and rectify it, for congress to go back and make a fix. when i look at sensenbrenner and all the republicans in 2006 who voted for reauthorization, do you feel there might be an appetite for republicans in congress if this is struck down to come up with a rework that would meet the court's standards? >> i think watching those two

clips shows the tension in that year, and the tension between republican congressmen right now. we just talked about immigration in the first hour. republicans want to reach out to minority voters but a new strain in the party since the videos were made, ted cruz wing, constitutional tea party argument now being made on the right. if this is struck down, this section, it's another test for the republicans in the house. how are they going to rebuild, rewrite the voting rights act? will they take a political risk? will they go against that bloc of 33 or whatever the number is this year? >> one thing, sensenbrenner has committed himself to doing something if it's struck down. he continues to be in favor of some change to section 5. in the entire congress, one of his -- >> in his words, congress has the obligation to fix it. >> and he says, getting there is

half the battle. he said, he'll enjoy the fight when it comes. i want to say the idea there's some kind of new tea party argument for gutting section 5, that's just rebranding. it's always been the same arguments for getting rid of section 5 but ted cruz has a fancy, showy way to talk about it. i do think that the idea the south doesn't deserve special consideration in this area, it's a little bit -- when you look at what's actually happened, when you look at what the d.o.j. has said they cannot do, those arguments have mainly been from the south. the moves to change voting rights access, to change polling places, those things have come from the south. i mean, if the south has really recovered, then how come these jurisdictions under section 5, how come they're still bringing so many things to look at? >> it's another point to emphasize while a lot of the coverage is based in the south and deep south and there's a legacy of slavery, a legacy of discrimination, and while jim

crow may be dead he has nieces and nephews alive and well in the deep south and other parts of the country but you have arizona that's covered, alaska that's covered, parts of new york new york that's covered, parts of california. there's a reality post-2010 we saw in this country. in 41 states, 180 voter suppression laws were introduced in the 2011-2012 legislative session. it was an extraordinary moment, collective action, trying to suppress the rights -- >> we have amap here that shows. these have states that have passed voter i.d. laws not covered by section 5. we talk about section 5 being a backstop against, you know, voter suppression laws. these are states not covered. they managed to go out and do this in the last few years. and there's nothing to stop other states that aren't covered from doing the same. that idea, though, of all of the -- of how lopsided the republican support was in 2006 for the reauthorization, i think

when i was listening to a bit of the oral argument before the court in march, scalia was addressing it. he was basic cal grappling with why so many republicans voted for reauthorization and why he thought, maybe, maybe they didn't really mean it. this is a famous clip from scalia. let's play it and thauk about it. >> whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it's very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. i don't think there's anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. and i am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the constitution. >> when i hear that, he seems to be saying, look, republicans are scared of being called racist so i'm going to get rid of it for them. >> first, that statement is not

famous but infamous. the notion that these protections for the right to vote, that they are not to racial entitlements. that's an outrageous statement. it was tremendous to hear a supreme court member say that in this day and age. having said, that the other thing about justice scalia, he's well known for being absolutely hostile to legislative history. so, you know, one would think if he was consistent with what he has written and said in many of his opinions, that he would take the voting rights act and say, look, face value, have i to take what congress said. i don't look behind it. but that's not what he's doing here. there's an inconsistency. the other thing i want to point out is this. it is true there were members of the house and the senate who voted for the voting rights act, but who were throwing -- or planting, i should say, land mines. and they were looking for the

litigation. they knew that this was going to be challenged in court. that's true. but congress should have to live with what it does. and it overwhelmingly, as we talked about, enacted the voting rights act. and for justice scalia to say it's the court's role to set aside what the elected representatives do that is a fundamental problem with respect to the way we understand democracy operates. it's a hallmark of this court, which until now has been hostile to legislative enactments by congress. >> there's section 2 and section 5. it gets a little complicated. section 2 is not part of this. section 2 is when we push the burden on the individual to pursue the action. section 5 says the government will proactive look at -- >> section 2, rather, is permanent. it doesn't have to be reenacted. >> right.

one thing section 5 has done, we talk about the creation of majority/minority congressional districts which have resulted in -- you had basically nonexistent representation two generations ago in congress. it's brought those numbers up significantly. it's had some other interesting complications that i think -- that complicate the discussion. [ male announcer ] erica had a rough day. there was this and this. she got a parking ticket... ♪ and she forgot to pay her credit card bill on time. good thing she's got the citi simplicity card. it doesn't charge late fees or a penalty rate. ever. as in never ever. now about that parking ticket. [ grunting ] [ male announcer ] the citi simplicity card is the only card that never has late fees, a penalty rate, or an annual fee, ever. go to citi.com/simplicity to apply.

or an annual fee, ever. so wof the house?hink it's got a great kitchen, but did you see the school rating? oh, you're right. hey babe, i got to go. bye daddy! ...but what about when my parents visit? ok. i just love this one... and it's next to a park i love it i love it too. here's our new house... daddy! you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. zillow

i did want to talk about one other aspect of the voting rights act. the voting rights act, it's a bit of a complicated story but in 1982 the voting rights act was changed to encourage majority/minority congressional districts and it took until the 1980 census where it applied to the maps.

a significant jump in number of african-americans in congress. it was a year in which african-americans reached the highest level in the house that year. somebody went and actually looked at -- this is a little tough to explain. but if you look at -- if you did the electoral votes by congressional district instead of by state. if you look at in the 1980s, this is before we had the explosion of my joert/minority districts, in 1980 democrats would outperform. in 1992 it switches and a new pattern emerges and republicans begin to enjoy an advantage at congressional district level. what it speaks to, you know, there's been the incentive to get more african-american, more hispanic representation in

congress, but republicans in many states have seized on this, too, because they've seen an opportunity to pack in democratic voters into a small sort of geographically compact area, believing much more republican-friendly areas in the rest of the state. that's one story we have right now, as we talk about republicans having a likely majority in the house for the next decade or say. we say it's gerrymandering but the population leaves republican districts across the state. it's complicated. in 1990 when they first started these black majority, hispanic districts, it was the bush white house that was part of the push for that. >> actually, the creation of districts that allowed african-american voters to elect representatives of their choice, and i use that language because that's the language the courts talk about, and i use that language intentionally and carefully, because it didn't necessarily mean they would elect african-american

representatives. but in many instances they did. that started much earlier than the 1990s. what happened in the 1990s was a follow-up to the reagan administration. while the reagan white house was very opposed to the civil rights policies democratic administrations and republican administrations before it pursued, the one area they didn't change was voting rights. and that was because they did recognize that they could create what they considered to be -- they didn't use this language -- an unholy alliance. the more majority black districts you created, the whiter the surrounding areas, as you pointed out. some people have pointed to african-american representatives as the reason that democrats have lost. i think that's an unfair charge for a lot of reasons that we could discuss. but you did have this interaction. what happened in the 1990s was that there was a series of suits after these majority of black districts had been created, challenging these districts. there was a case shaw v. reno

that said creating these districts, it was brought by white voters in the north carolina shaw case, no relation to me, by the way, that there was discrimination against white voters putting them in majority black districts. it kept challenging these cases. you had justice o'connor writing an opinion where she wrote a district in north carolina as, quote, political apartheid, which was problematic. it's a complicated discussion. at the end of the day i said, why should african-americans be the ballist for the democratic party they would have to forego electing representatives in their communities to have democrats take the majority in the house, for instance. >> there have been -- charlie rangel comes to mind, who was able to get a gavel in the ways and means gavel because of

longevity. jim clyburn from south carolina has climbed into leadership there. one thing covering politics, in states that have vra districts the state political establishment often looks at candidates, members of congress from those districts, and they almost stigmatize them and say, you're from the majority black district, we can't market you across the state. it's totally unfair but i definitely picked up on those attitudes talking to democratic party leaders. >> that's existed in the past. i think that's begun to change, obviously with the elevation of barack obama to presidency. cory booker, i think, we'll see win an election in new jersey. you're absolutely right. there is a tendency among some, i've heard the expression used, to ghetto-wise african-american leaders from bigger districts. there's a broader issue at stake. it is important we've seen an explosion of representatives

from the african-american, latino community in congress. this democratic conference is the most diverse in the history of the republic. for the first time majority are women, people of color and members of the lbgt community. but the paradox is we're also in the minority. part of the issue is republicans across the country have used redistricting, instead of creating an opportunity to elect district where african-american community, latino community, has a meaningful opportunity to elect representative of its choice, they've chosen instead to create these super majority districts, pack voters into isolated, narrowly drawn congressional districts, and then spread republicans out throughout the state. and that is really what has created the problem that needs to be addressed. >> i want to thank theodore shaw, former president of the naacp legal defense fund, democratic congressman hakeem jeffries of new york. five ways the supreme court could allow gay marriage after this. [ whirring ] [ dog barks ]

i want to treat more dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪

so you can capture cayour receipts, ink for do... all business purchases. and manage them online with jot, the latest app from ink. so you can spend less time doing paperwork. and more time doing paperwork. ink from chase. so you can. twenty-five thousand mornings, give or take, is all we humans get. we spend them on treadmills. we spend them in traffic. and if we get lucky, really lucky, it dawns on us to go spend them in a world where a simple sunrise can still be magic. twenty-five thousand mornings. make sure some of them are pure michigan. your trip begins at michigan.org.

we're just days or maybe hours away from two supreme court decisions on marriage equality. one vofls the 1996 defensive marriage act which bars the federal government from barring recognizing same-sex couples where gay marriage is legal. justice ruth bader ginsburg questioned the logic. >> you are really diminishing what the state has said is marriage. you're saying, no, state did two kind of marriages. the full marriage and then this sort of skim milk marriage. >> the other major case involves california's proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage referendum, invalidated in earlier supreme court ruling that legalized gay marriage but in 2010 prop 8 was overturned by a federal judge. that's what brought it to the supreme court. on tuesday one of the two argues

that argued the case, david boyes laid out ways in which gay marriage can win. strike down gay marriage bans across the country. option two, make a narrow ruling that strikes down prop 8 in california but doesn't affect any other state. option three, rule that it's discriminatory for states to grant civil unions but not call them gay marriage, known as the eight state solution since it would make it legal in eight states. option four is to simply declare prop 8 that argued before the court don't have standing because they're not official resident of california, whose governor has decided to defend the law. which means throwing out prop 8 would stand and gay marriage would be legal in california. option five, least likely by far, in which the court says it shouldn't have heard the case at all. which would mean the lower court's ruling would stand.

also, option six, they could rule prop 8 is constitutional although boyes doesn't think that would happen after his appearance before the court. >> each one of these ways sounded from the question at the time of the argument in the supreme court as if there was one or more justices that were seriously considering each of these approaches. >> want to bring in chris geidner from buzzfeed.com and garance franke-ruta. i want to start with doma and prop 8. i want to start with doma. it seems weird because the u.s. government is not defending this thing. bill clinton signed the defensive marriage act of 1986 repudiated it, lower courts ruled against it. we have a strong impression, based on oral arguments -- at least kennedy, the swing vote,

isn't wild about it. is there much suspense on this one? >> there is because it's the supreme court. that's the bottom line. the supreme court does what they want. we still don't have any of the major decisions you've already been talking about today. but when the justices considered the argument, there are so many ways that doma can be found unconstitutional. this section 3 that defines the federal marriage law, that it could be struck down as a violation of equal protection. it could be struck down as a violation of due process because of the guarantees the court has given to marriage law. it also could be struck down on federalism grounds because of the fact that the federal government has not traditionally been involved in this sort of legislation. >> there's a lot of it could be struck downs there. and i guess i'm kind of interested in the roots of doma.

1986, 17 years ago, height of election season, bill clinton was running for re-election against bob dole. somehow he was scared bob dole would beat him. 1984 was rough year for democrats. clinton was probably right to be nervous. you've written about the roots of doma, the language in the bill. take us back to that time and where this really came from. >> one of the things justice kennedy brought up in questioning is there is this house judiciary committee report to congress when the bill passed out of committee talking about the rationale for the bill. they said specifically that civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect a collective judgment about human sexuality. and this judgment entails moral disapproval of homosexuality and moral conviction heterosexuality better comports with moral. it is a moral judgment about human sexuality. >> and it was -- as i say, it

was signed by bill clinton. there was a moment in the 1996 campaign where bill clinton didn't just sign it, he ran ads on christian radio stations saying, hey -- >> interesting contrast to voting rights act. where the political will is and can be between two points in history of an issue. here we're saying congress enacted this because, yes, this is how people feel so we're going to legislate something that people already feel. we're not going to legislate morality to enshrine it and the voting rights act people argue, we don't need it because morality changed and we're good now. it seems like this will get struck down. i want to point out the voting rights act gets struck down, we don't know what will happen with congress in the future. some gains we made that seem so obvious now. i want to point out these things can be put in jeopardy. we think of the political will as moving in one direction a lot of the time but it can move in various different directions. i think, again, if you compare this to the voting rights act, you'll see that as well. >> the one thing we can be fairly confident of in the upcoming rulings is scalia's

position. you know, he said to the north carolina bar association that he doesn't think that the justices should be moral arbitrators and there's a series of cases in which they're being called on to be moral arbitrators. i think he should very much avoid trying to do anything that suggested he is doing that. >> i think it's important to note that it's not just the democratic side. i mean, it's also bob barr, who was the lawmaker who wrote doma in the house, has also -- >> republican congressman from georgia, libertarian candidate for president. >> different from gingrey, who you showed earlier. this issue unlike the voting rights act, or sort of maybe very similar in a way that scalia talked about, this issue has changed so much that you do have even the republican lead s leaders -- you have very few people willing to speak out who were involved in doma about defending it still to this day.

>> i want to point out -- >> i'm want sure about that. it's fun to look back at the politics of 1986 and look at the legal considerations ahead of the court. let's look at the day after this decision comes down. i think there are a lot of people on the right, let's say if it's struck down, who will be animated. i think this could reignite the culture wars in 2014. let's say the court keeps it in place. i think the left, those who support same-sex marriage, this will animate them ahead of 2014. i think the politics of this are very heat and we need to be aware of that beyond the legal -- >> i wonder -- because when the republicans did their autopsy, right, their post-2012 autopsy, i think one thing they talked about is gay marriage, gay rights being gateway for young voters. if the ruling goes to throwing out doma and there's an instinct on a lot of the people in party to make this another cultural

war, is somebody putting brakes on this? saying, look, put the brakes on. we can't do that. >> the beltway, they are doing that. rob portman of ohio, he's now supporting same-sex marriage. there very much an element of the party that rejects the republican national committee's autopsy. the legal case is fascinated here. i think the culture war is very much alive. i was although the faith and freedom conference in washington, d.c. the republicans who are running in the -- trying to run, perhaps n the 2016 presidential election are very much pro-traditional marriage or whatever you want to call, it pro-life. this is still the bloc of the republican party that animates a lot of the decision. >> pro-life and pro-gay marriage are not option. there are those who are pro-life and for marriage equality. that's an important distinction in the new republican party. the cultural wars may be alive, but alive within the republican party and maybe between sort of progressives and conservatives. again, many conservatives making

arguments for marriage equality. the culture war may be alive but most americans doernt care about it. if you look at polling on marriage equality, more and more people are drifting toward favoring it. not like, i'm going to march in the gay pride parade way but in a way in my new home state of minnesota where people are like, let's let people do what they want. >> there's a -- there's a real interesting poll finding that we found finding -- we found this poll this week. [ panting ] we're headed the same way, right? yeah.

♪ [ panting ] uh... after you. ♪ [ sighs ] [ male announcer ] it's all in how you get there. the srx, from cadillac. awarded best interior design of any luxury brand. lease this 2013 cadillac srx for around $399 per month, with premium care maintenance included.

using night-vision goggles to keep an eye on my spicy buffalo wheat thins.

who's gonna take your wheat thins? i don't know. an intruder, the dog, bigfoot. could you get the light? [ loud crash ] what is going on?! honey, i was close! it's a yeti! [ male announcer ] must! have! wheat thins! so, the poll finding we found this week was from march. this is from the republican institute. they asked 18 to 34-year-old white evangelical, the most dominant component of the republican party, gay marriage 51% favor, 43% oppose. that jumps out at me because i've been trying to figure out -- we have just about every democratic senator has come out

for gay marriage, maybe everyone. i think there are three republicans, with lisa murkowski that has done it. when i see a number like that, i say it's -- it's almost -- it's attrition, isn't it? are we a generation away? >> i mean, i think we are. and i think one of the questions that i have for bob is the idea that we didn't hear republicans defending doma when it was before the supreme court. that was their golden moment. i mean, that was the moment where we had, like, a dodz senators come out for marriage equality in that week. where were -- if the culture war is on this issue are still alive, where were those people that week? >> can i quickly respond? i think chris brings up a great point. the house republicans are the petitioner when it comes to doma. he's right. they're not taking a public role in battling for their own. there is a divide between

conservative movement and republican party leaders. the interest groups will be activated on this issue even if the party is perhaps moving more towards same-sex marriage support. >> very strong libertarian strain right now in the republican party. i think that's what you saw with murkowski. she cited personal liberty and government for rationale as supporting gay marriage and times are changing and thinking is different. >> i want to play it for a second. the way she addressed her transformation on this is interesting. let's play lisa murkowski this week. >> i think it's important that we acknowledge that as time passes and as attitudes and perspectives change, it's important for us to pay attention to what we're saying. you speak with particularly many young people here in this state,

here around the country, and you ask them about the issue of marriage equality and where they come down on it. and it's almost -- it's almost a discussion where they say, we're not even sure why you're deliberating and debating over it. >> yeah, i mean, this is actually a very similar argument to the case made by her fellow senator -- democrat senator, they talk about the same things that senator mccaskill talked about, senator hagan, when these more moderate democrats and moderate republicans are talking about these issues, they talk about them in terms of limited government, in terms of the proper role of government in people's lives. and it really gets into -- the

reason i think what ana was talking about, the distinctions between this issue and abortion rights, the idea that this issue is moving guaforward so quicklyd that politicians can't even keep up with it. >> i want to speak up to how this issue is moving forward. it is moving forward. we shouldn't take it for granted, though, because the way that this will sort of become a part of just a nonissue is through these court decisions but also through the representation of gays and lesbians in the political sphere, which is something we've seen happen amazingly fast. thank god that it is. secretary of the air force, right? >> the acting secretary of air force as of friday. >> and there were two -- >> is gay. >> and two ambassadors this week to -- >> and two last week, actually. >> spain was one and -- >> denmark, spain. >> all the good countries. >> australia. >> dominican republic. >> there you go. i do -- we did a little on doma.

i want to get into prop 8 because it's very complicated possibilities on prop 8.

i got this. [thinking] is it that time? the son picks up the check? [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired. i hope he's saving. i hope he saved enough. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. whether you're just starting your 401(k) or you are ready for retirement, we'll help you get there. [ male announcer ] yep, there's 8 layers of whole grain fiber in those mini-wheats® biscuits... to help keep you full... ♪ 45 bushels of wheat on the farm. 45 bushels of wheat! ♪ ...all morning long. there's a big breakfast... [ mini ] yeehaw! ...in those fun little biscuits.

there's a big breakfast... [ every day we're working to and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger. her long day of pick ups and drop offs begins with arthritis pain... and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard.

♪ prop 8 is the other big decision coming down from the supreme court. i want to play an exchange from that. this involves ted olson, a republican, very well connected republican lawyer who teamed up with david boies, a democrat, to argue against prop 8. this is oral argument with, who else, scalia. take a listen. >> i'm curious. when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868 when the 14th amendment was adopted? sometime after baker where we said it didn't even raise a substantial federal question? when did the law become this? >> when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit

interracial marriages? when did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools? >> easy question, i think, for that one. at the time that -- that the equal protection clause was adopted. that's absolutely true. but don't give me a question to my question. >> i'm putting scalia down as a maybe on this. i can't quite read where he's coming from. but, chris, no, what do you make of -- you listened to the oral argumen arguments. what do you make of this? >> i think as skeptical as the justices were of the role of congress in passing doma, they were just as skeptical of reaching the broad decision that would apply to all 50 states that ted olson has been urging. i think the justices just didn't see it. and you got concern even from justices like society mow mayto

ginsburg. where the issue is in the country is that people are seeing -- in a recent pew poll showed this, that on this issue of if couples are legally married by a state, should they be recognized by the federal government? those numbers are getting up into the, like, 60s and 70s. and the number of, if you think it should be legal, period, is just a little above 50. and i think that you're going to see that reflected. that's the reason why ted -- why david boies had to give five different options. and i think there's actually some other ones, too. >> i wonder -- we talk about ted olson's role in this. i think of the 2000 election, the guy who really helped george bush become president, and now with david boies advocating for gay marriage. ted ol soolson, what has this de

to him in republican world? >> it would easy to say he's been cast out of the conservative movement but that's not the case. there's a serious debate going on within the conservative movement and republican party, what is the future on this issue if you're a republican or if you're a conservative? and i think ted olson has done a good job of encouraging conservatives to reconsider their position. i think the way you presented this today has been smart. these are totally separate issues, prop 8 and doma. there may be more support for same-sex issues than doma but still state rights concern on prop 8 type issues versus there are more openness to be -- to getting rid of a federal definition of marriage. >> the interesting thing on the prop 8 decision is that many of those options would lead to an outcome where it changes things for people who are seeking same-sex marriages in the state of california and not nationwide. and that's the majority of the options, where it would just change things in california.

it would be a california-based ruling rather than a national one. >> which brings us back to -- we've shown this map before but if you have a gay map, it really starts to look like the red state/blue state map. fitz not going to be a national solution imposed by the supreme court, then we could be in for -- you could see a lot of states, a lot of blue state, very blue states where, you know, pretty quickly, this becomes legal. you could look down at -- think of mississippi, think of alabama, think of the most conservative states in the country, the states with the highest sort of -- where conservativism evangelicals freedom nature, could be a much longer slog there. we saw the poll of 18 to 34-year-olds. what should we know today? n and then treating day after day is a thing of the past. block the acid with prilosec otc, and don't get heartburn in the first place. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business.

my goal was to take an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. i never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side. [ male announcer ] moving object detection. ♪ blind spot warning. ♪ lane departure warning. safety, down to an art. the nissan altima with safety shield technologies. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪ ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear!

v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle.

today? should know ten years ago today howard dean announced he was president. based on comments he made this week, he might be running again. on thursday the former

democratic governor from vermont and dnc chair told cnn he would not rule out a run for president in 2016. dean said, quote, i'm not trying to hedge. it's a hard job running. it's really tough. i'm doing a lot of things i enjoy. you should never say never in this business. after republicans radaring of susan rice effectively led to the confirmation of john kerry as secretary of state, continued republican obstruction has helped land another kerry in the cabinet. until senate confirms congress secretary john kerry will be working aside the new commercial secretary cameron kerry, his younger brother. before taking the post, cameron or cam, i guess, was serving as general koubl counsel at the commerce department. as the boston globe noted this is the first time in american history siblings will be serving in a presidential cabinet at the same time. we should know if republicans continue to obstruct mccarthy's nomination, probably wouldn't be

surprised if john kerry's wife teresa steps into that role. on friday mitch mcconnell spoke at the american enterprise institute about the first amendment. mcconnell used his right of free speech to go after warrenstein. he's a scholar who has and on this program stood up to ask a question. before he could, mcconnell had something to say. >> senator -- >> i've enjoyed dueling you, norm, over the years. you've been consistently wrong on almost everything. i've always wondered, who eats lunch with you over here in this organization. >> i've got more friends than you think here, senator. >> actually some of the worst things said about me over the years have been said about you. you've been entirely wrong on virtually every occasion. i'm glad to see you. what's on your mind. >> after mcconnell got that off his chest he asked the senator

about comments he made in 2000 in support of political disclosure. mcconnell pretty sized the premise of the question but answered him in slightly gentler terms. >> make no mistake about it, norm is a good ol old-fashioned far left guy. i like him. he's fine. he's been wrong for as long as i can remember. it's great to see you here. i've been wanting to spar with you for years. >> we should also note that norm has got some friends here even if he doesn't have them in harry reid's office. finally we should know the longest srveg member of congress john dingell tried out the most anticipated piece of technology, google glass, months before any of us got to. he sat with google representative and used glass to find a place to eat. >> direction toss a good chinese restaurant. >> tap one more time and once more after that. tap once more, i'm sorry. then tap one more time.

it will give you the whole route. getting there, 28 meals away, 4 minutes. a little traffic. that's why you see yellow lines. you're getting there by car right now. >> this is quite a machine. >> according to dingle's spokesperson the representative had a grand old time using the technology. no word yet on the food. want to find out what my guests thinks you should know. starting with you ana marie. >> starting with overreach i want to start with the dog contest. they found wally. there was a cry because wally is adorable. i think it's an injustice that there is an ugliest dog contest. we love them because they love us. >> it's not all marriage. there's also this issue of employment nondiscrimination act that would ban employment discrimination against lgtb people. senator harkin told me he's planning on moving that legislation in his committee

after the fourth of july holiday. so be looking for him to be posting news of that hearing. >> all right, robert. >> three years ago in january 2010 i went up to boston and spent about a month covering scott brown's senate race. you really felt the momentum on the ground then. three yearsay later tuesday you have a special election to fill john kerry's case. gomez and markey. i think markey, long time democratic congressman will win that seat. markey's marriage, 45 to 47, important to watch to see if republicans have any kind of future in that deep blue state. >> i think we are getting back to where in the world is edward snowden this week. he is on a plane to moscow. from there we don't know. reports saying he might be going to cuba and then venezuela. i think we're going to be having a real conversation about him and his motivations again instead of his revelations. >> i think apparently during the show he has landed in moscow and

now the question is where is he going to go from there. i've heard cuba, venezuela, every country in the world at this point. who knows. that's something we'll all be following today and maybe the next few days. i want to thank ana marie cox, robert costa of the national review and garance franke-ruta. thanks for getting up and joining us, back next week saturday and sunday at 8:00 eastern time. our guest will include former congresswoman and presidential candidate pat schroeder. the claim societal rules, norms, classes have created a permanent underclass in african-american men, legacy from slavery to jim crow to our current incarceration nation has put black men in such a position of disadvantage we're in need of overhaul. conversation not to be missed on melissa harris-perry.

see you next week here on "up." ♪

if you have high cholesterol, here's some information that may be worth looking into. in a clinical trial versus lipitor, crestor got more high-risk patients' bad cholesterol to a goal of under 100. getting to goal is important, especially if you have high cholesterol plus any of these risk factors because you could be at increased risk for plaque buildup in your arteries over time. and that's why when diet and exercise alone aren't enough to lower cholesterol i prescribe crestor. [ female announcer ] crestor is not right for everyone. like people with liver disease or women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. tell your doctor about other medicines you're taking. call your doctor right away if you have muscle pain or weakness, feel unusually tired, have loss of appetite, upper belly pain, dark urine or yellowing of skin or eyes. these could be signs of rare but serious side effects. is your cholesterol at goal? ask your doctor about crestor. [ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

[ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, running a small business riding against the wind. uphill. every day. we make money on saddles and tubes. but not on bikes. my margins are thinner than these tires. anything that gives me some breathing room makes a difference. membership helps make the most of your cashflow. i'm nelson gutierrez of strictly bicycles and my money works as hard as i do. this is what membership is. this is what membership does.

this morning, my question, is obesity really a disease? plus devious retaliation against protesters in indiana. amazing soldiers fighting the good fight in gideon's army. first, i have a table full of beautiful black men. good morning, i'm melissa harris-perry. if you were a black man on november 4th, 2008, you may have felt like you were the king of the world.