decision. the 5-4 doma ruling was written by swing justice anthony kennedy who was joined by the four more liberal members of the court in arguing that the 1996 law was unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection under the law. kennedy wrote doma's is to protect a disadvantaged, separate status and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the state. the effect of the ruling is that the federal government must now recognize the same-sex marriages currently allowed by 12 states and the district of columbia. as a result of the court's other technical ruling on prop 8, those 12 states will now be joined by california bringing the total number of states allowing same-sex marriages to 13. david boyce reacted to the decision. >> this is a great day for america.

today, united states supreme court in two important decisions, brings us that much closer to true equality. >> the president en route to africa released a tweet hailing the doma ruling saying today's doma ruling is a historic ruling #loveislove. he called the plaintiffs live while they were on air. >> we're proud of you guys and we're so glad that californians and that ruling will make it equal. you guys should be very proud of today. >> the prop 8 ruling was also a 5-4 vote but this time chief justice john roberts joined the majority while anthony kennedy dissented. now specifically the court ruled that the defenders of prop 8 lacked standing to argue the

case, there by, sending it back to a lower court which had previously ruled the ballot initiative unconstitutional. the court's ruling marked a huge shift in the landscape of gay rights. back in 1996 bill clinton signed doma into law under political pressure. "the new york times" reported at the time that the president considered it a gay baiting measure but was unwilling to risk re-election by vetoing it. in 2008 california voters passed proposition 8 invalidating marriages already performed in the state. now 17 years after doma and 5 years after the california set back, they were standing on the supreme court steps celebrating true equality in the eyes of the federal government. >> no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, no matter what family you're in, you are equal, you are as good as your friends, parents, and as your friends. >> that's not enough. it's got to go nationwide. and we can't wait for that day! it's not just about us, it's about kids in the south, it's

about kids in texas and it's about kids everywhere and we really, really want to take this fight and take it all the way and get equality for everyone in this entire country. >> today the court said that i am more equal, that we are more equal. our love is just like our parents and our grandparents and that any children that we may have in the future will be more secure. i look forward to growing old with the man i love. >> we're lucky and we know that the fight continues across this country. we cannot forget our lgbt brothers and sisters that are in states that still discriminate against them and we will not allow it. we will continue to fight until all of us are equal. >> right now edith windsor is about to react to the supreme court's decision striking down doma. let's listen. >> at its core, today's supreme court ruling affirms the principle that gay married couples have the same right to be treated with dignity and

respect as straight married couples. the justices have spoken. it is now clear that discrimination against gay people solely because they are gay violates the united states constitution. indeed, as justice kennedy explained, that's all that doma ever was, a statute whose sole purpose was to denigrate gay and lesbian americans as second class citizens. 17 long and painful years after its passage and at a time when most of those who originally voted for it have since recanted, section 3 of the defense of marriage act is finally dead and gone and not a moment too soon. after so many dark decades of living their lives hidden in the closet, gay and lesbian couples throughout this nation can now begin to participate as fully as

members of the american family. this is not mere abstract justice, it has real life consequences, not only for edie windsor who will get her money back but for so many thousands of americans watching today. it means, for example, married gay couples don't have to worried about the unfair burden of the estate tax, the loss of social security, the lack of leave from a job to care for a sick or dying spouse, or the inability of a surviving spouse to receive proper notification when a soldier falls in the line of duty. the days of the skim milk marriages described by justice ginsburg are over for couples who live in states like washington, minnesota, or here in new york city. it is important to recognize that today's court victory never would have happened, where is she, without the tenacity and

courage of a five foot tall, 100 pound lady by the name of edie windsor who celebrated her 84th birthday only days ago. edie is my client, my friend, and my hero, and she is now a hero to millions of americans because she perfect son any phis the meaning of fundamentally american concepts like courage, devotion, citizenship, equality and justice. edie and thea's own lives demonstrate profoundly why marriage and equality matter so much. thea and edie spent 44 years together loving and supporting each other in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, including thea's long battle with multiple sclerosis. when they finally got married in

2007, they needed four best women and two best men to help them disassemble and reassemble thea's wheelchair at the airport so they could get to the ceremony. that was a couple who really, really, really wanted to get married. so when her beloved thea died two years later, edie of course was heart broken. despite her grief she found the strength and courage to fight back, and because of her strength and courage, no gay person will ever again have to suffer the indignity that edie suffered because of dma. like susan b. anthony or rosa parks or harvey milk before her, edie has lit a torch of freedom for future generations of americans to follow. the events of today remind us why it is -- >> okay. we're going to continue to monitor this. that was roberta kaplan, the attorney for edie windsor who's

the 84-year-old plaintiff in the defense of marriage act case. joining me is the distinguished fellow and michael waldman, host of up with steve kornacki and maggie hab berman and also joining us from outside the supreme court is nbc justice correspondent pete williams. the great pete williams. how are you, pete? >> good day. >> pete, can you explain to us, those who don't understand, the technical ruling in prop 8. we get that doma was struck down meaning that the federal government will recognize marriages in those 12 states but explain the prop 8 ruling. >> reporter: let's not blow past the doma one first because i think it's an important point to make. what the court said is it's not saying whether states have to allow same-sex marriage. it expresses no opinion. it says when the states choose to allow same-sex marriage, the federal government can't deny those marriages because it makes

them second class citizens. it's a law that appears to be based on primarily disapproval and it denies them equal protecti protection. it's the federal government discriminating. as justice kennedy says, doma writes discrimination into the u.s. code. it doesn't say what the other states have to do. as far as california, the simplest way to put this is the court says, you know what, it turns out that the people who got prop 8 on the ballot, who appealed the case to the supreme court, did not have the proper legal standing to do so. that may sound surprising. you may say, how come the supreme court allowed them to argue this case, but that was one of the issues always. it's an unusual situation because when the two gay couples in california sued over prop 8, the state of california said, we agree. we think it's unconstitutional. we're not going to defend it. so the question became did the people who got prop 8 on the ballot have the legal authority to stand in for the state.

the court said, no. that shouldn't be too surprising. the federal courts take a very narrow view of who has the right to sue. the old days of i'm a taxpayer and this makes me mad or i think it's bad policy are gone. you have to show some specific injury, and the supreme court says they just couldn't meet that standard and therefore prop 8 is unconstitutional because the lower court rulings stand that declared it so. >> thank you, pete williams. interesting 5-4 that time. kennedy, alitoalito, thomas and sotomay sotomayor. joining us is adam olmhayer. let me ask you one quick question about going back to the doma decision. people are hailing it as having codified marriage equality but it's not quite so because it means in the 12 states that have

passed marriage equality, federal benefits would apply but not in the other states. can you explain that. >> i think what you're looking at is a situation where we've got the foundation that paves the path to equal equality. we're not there yet. that's very clear. we have a lot of work to do, but we're going to keep fighting and future cases will come before this court and will get there one day. i think it's important to note that there are many, many cases over the past several decades that led to these cases. the lawrence decision ten years ago and many, many others. each case builds upon the previous case and we're confident that we will get to full equality soon. >> adam, is the next step then to argue that in the states that have not passed gay marriage, let's say if you live in a state that has not passed a gay marriage law, you still don't have marriage equality, isn't that correct, unless you travel to or move to a state that has it? >> that's right.

but as i said, we're going to keep fighting on all fronts in this battle and it may take another couple of years, but we'll get there. these two landmark decisions on this historic day paf that path. >> all right. thank you very much adam umhoeffer from the american foundation of equal rights. sorry if i mangled your name. >> no problem. >> i want to bring in the panel here. i'm going to mangle the word panel. let's talk about this. maggie, it seems like a sweeping decision, but when you break it down it seems a little less sweeping because it's really confined to 12 states. >> i want to caveat this by i haven't read the decision yet. i'll now go ahead and join that chorus. as i understand it, it says that doma is unconstitutional. it does not say that same-sex marriage is legal everywhere. that is ultimately i think going to become the next hope of the

lgbt community. this means in places like new york that same-sex marriages are legal. it doesn't change or invalidate the states that have bans on same-sex marriage. >> that's the crux of it, right, michael? the court could have ruled that states cannot bar gay marriage that. would have been a broader ruling that would have applied to all of the states. in this case they're saying the federal government can focus on these states. it's great news for people in those states. what would be the next logical step for people in support of gay marriage. >> they ruled as far as they could rule plausibly. they through this procedural ruling allowed same-sex marriage to proceed in california which has 11% of the country's population. down the road one could imagine people asking the supreme court to issue a sweeping declaration that the equal protection clause

requires marriage equality, but what's happening right now is tremendous momentum in the states where public opinion is shifting as well. you heard an interesting comment from justice ginsburg a few months ago, i think, or maybe even more recent where she talked about roe versus wade and the benefits of fighting it out in the political realm as well as in the courts. this is a very powerful signal from the supreme court of which side it thinks equality is on, but it didn't go as far as striking down the marriage laws of the vast majority of states. >> right. steve, i've been trying to look for some consistency. it's hard to find it. they're usually a states right court. this is edith windsor, a six figure tax bill. do you see john roberts having been in the majority in the prop 8 and in the minority of the doma decision? >> what's interesting, it's narrow.

we're talking would this be the 50 state solution? it isn't really. this goes back to california. talking about prop 8, it goes back to california. you can have gay marriage in california. the next question is if you look at doma, okay, if you have gay marriage in california or in new york, one of the other states that allows it, the federal government has to recognize it. you still have an issue where if you're a citizen of new york and you want to move to florida and retire, lots of people in new york want to do that, florida does not have to recognize your marriage. >> right. >> i am struck by look at the rationale for striking down prop 8. not striking it down but it's basically saying that prop 8 supporters did not have the standing to defend this in court because the government of california, jerry brown, the governor, said he's not going to defend this law. jerry brown, 73, 74 years old. you look at the story of his political career. when his career started in california the debate that was taking place in california was should gay people be allowed to

teach school. now he is a governor who more than 30 years later said, you know what, my state is not going to defend prop 8 in the supreme court. that says california can have gay marriage. >> i want to hear what bob herbert has to say about all of this but i want to do it after the break. after the break we'll hear from bob herbert and edith windsor and we'll have the co founders of the no hate campaign and dan savage of it gets better joins us live next on "now." we also produce natural gas. that's how we make our living and that's how we can pass the land and water back to future generations. people should make up their own mind what's best for them. all i can say is it has worked well for us.

they're coming. yeah. british. later. sorry. ok...four words... scarecrow in the wind... a baboon... monkey? hot stew saturday!? ronny: hey jimmy, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? jimmy: happier than paul revere with a cell phone. ronny: why not? anncr: get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

children born today will grow up in a world without doma, and those same children who happen to be gay will be free to love and get married as thea and i did but with the same federal benefits, protection and dignity as everyone else. if i had to survive thea, what a

glorious way to do it, and she would be so pleased. thank you all. >> what was your first reaction when you heard the case -- when you heard the decision? what was your very first reaction? >> i cried. i cried. thrilled, obviously. but, yeah, the immediate residential reaction was just tears. >> if thea were here -- >> that was edith windsor, a gay woman who started the case. to recap the case, today in a landmark ruling for gay rights the supreme court in a 5-4 decision struck down the federal defense of marriage act finding it violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. the court also found that defenders of prop 8 lacked the legal standing to defend the ballot initiative which means that same-sex marriages can continue in california. joining me are the co founders of the no hate campaign, adam

buska and jeff parsley. also joining me is dan savage of it gets better project. let's start with messrs. buska and parsley. edith windsor, i'm not saying her age, it was very touching watching her describe her reaction. >> i think this is a ruling that affects us personally as residents of california and as gay men and committed gay men and the relationship that we're in. you know, this is something that instills our rights back to us, which is why we created the whole campaign for no hate in the first place. >> i think all-americans really have a reason to be proud today. >> adam, you know, or jeff, either one of you that wants to answer it, i just recall in 2008 the sort of, you know, good news/bad news, right? you had the election of president barack obama and then

there was a real demoralization because that same election brought about prop 8. tell us how your trajectory has been then to now. how does that feel to have that reversed by the supreme court today? >> we've come a long way in the past few years. it was a bitter sweet day when the proposition 8 was essentially passed because barack obama was elected. a lot of things were happening, but as you've seen today, the majority of americans do support marriage equality and we have an american president that speaks vocally about lgbt issues. we've seen a progress in the system all over the world so i think times are changing and i think it's symbolic. >> let's go to dan savage and get your reaction, really to the same question, dan. what a swift change for gay rights supporters in the short time, really, between the

defense of marriage act and then prop 8 just five years ago and today. does it feel swift to you? >> it feels at once switch, almost disorientingly so, but also like it's taken a lifetime. we're all a little, i think, shocked and teary as edie windsor rightfully so was today. i was today listening to the verdict for couples who lived and died under the discrimination that so many same-sex couples have been subjected to. historically this decision and this justice comes too late. for couples who live in the 37 states that do not have marriage ee quality, for couples in mississippi, alabama, illinois, texas, and florida, there's nothing in this decision that improves their lives, that this is just the beginning of a whole state-by-state battle to secure marriage equality and justice for all same-sex couples in the state. while we're celebrating in washington state where marriage equality came to us on december

9th last year and i married my husband terry, i remarried him, so nice i married him twice, we need to remember for those of us living in the 13 states that have marriage equality, we need to fight like hell for all of those couples living in states that do not have marriage equality. once we secure that, we will secure all the federal rights and benefits and responsibilities of marriage. this fight is not over today. there's a lot to celebrate today and by 2:00 this afternoon i think we all need to get back to work. >> those are really good points. i want to come to you, bob. there is a lot happening here, that it does feel like tremendous sort of step forward, but as dan just mentioned, there are still the majority of states where gay couples still cannot be married. so does this feel like victory? does it feel like sort of the first battle in a long one? >> it's an important first step. this reminds me many moons ago when i was in the army stationed in virginia in 1967. that was the summer that that loving versus virginia ruling

came down which said that you cannot prevent interracial couples from marrying. so that meant that for part of the time that i was in virginia you had a case of virginia and a handful of other states where it was illegal for interracial couples to marry. they would put people in jail for doing so. it seems to me that we're in a similar situation now with gay couples, and so what the supreme court didn't say specifically, but it is legal in this country, to discriminate in many states against gay couples because they're not permitted to marry. so that's the ruling that eventually we have to get to. it remains to be seen how long it takes to get there. i think eventually we will. >> i want to say that we're sort of sounding with unanimity here about the ruling but not everyone agrees. i want to play for you guys, house republicans are reacting to the rulings as well. we have congressman john fleming, not sure what state he's from. can we play a little bit of his

reaction from louisiana. >> marriage is a fundamental building block of our civilization. it precedes this nation itself. it's the fiber that keeps our civilization so strong and certainly it's the ideal model from which we raise children. >> okay. and that is sort of the other side of the reaction. bob mentioned the notion of the civil rights movement in terms of interracial marriage. there was that dichotomy drawn in terms of proposition 8. bob, can you talk about that a little bit. this was a very different environment. >> it dramatized election day 2008. you had barack obama and this historic victory at the same time that you had proposition 8, but what happened and what i think of as the other side tries to exploit this all the time. you get a split in the progressive community. and i just remember being at

gatherings of african-americans several years ago, sometimes in black churches, where there was overwhelming opposition to the idea of gay marriage. and i just remember talking to people saying, hey, do you remember the times when, you know, blacks couldn't marry certain people and that sort of thing. >> yeah. >> so you have to be careful to mend these rifs and what i think is an all important progressive coalition. >> i want to go back quickly to jeff and adam. jerry brown has issued an order directing the california department of public health to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. can you guys react to that quickly? it appears that the resumption of gay marriage in california is upon us. it is imminent. >> yeah, i think it's been imminent upon us. ever since proposition 8 passed in 2008. and i think that the momentum we've had since then and i think that it's great that governor brown can kind of take that

initiative to quickly instill equality back into the state of california. >> it's an historic day. >> i want to get the last question in for dan and give you the tlast word in on this. >> he did have five years ago an environment in which we didn't have the progressive community really united oen this issue. do you feel like there's been progress in bringing together, for example, the african-american religious community and the gay community around this issue. it was contentious in 30s 8? >> absolutely. i would say we shouldn't separate the gay community from the african-american community. there are a lot of gay, lesbian, tri and bi communities. there's been a tremendous amount

of work. what we learned coming out of prop 8 is there is lousy or no outreach to communities of color or faith leaders. in states like maryland, very successfully so. the lgbt movement is coming out of the defeat in prop 8. learned its lesson in the american voters and african-american faith leaders for granted that they would just see this link between same-sex couples and discrimination once upon a time between interracial couples. this is something we need to reach out about and talk about and also elevate the voices of african-american lgbt people in this debate, to emphasize the fact that they're not white, male, monolithic. this is an issue that touches the lives of all lgbt people, all colors, race, religions, faiths and economic classes.

you can't overestimate the impact that president obama coming off of marriage equality had on african-american voters. the leadership that he's shown, the moral leadership is tremendous. it helped get us to this point today. for that i am very grateful. >> thank you very much. dan savage of the it gets better campaign as well as adam buska and jeff parsley from the no hate campaign. >> thank you for having us. all right. today coming up, today's highs, yesterday's lows. we'll discuss the fallout from the divisive ruling on the voting rights act and why congress won't be the solution just ahead. ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker every day. ♪

♪ i'm a hard, hard worker and i'm working every day. ♪ ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker and i'm saving all my pay. ♪ small businesses get up earlier and stay later. 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. 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. it's hard to describe, because you have a numbness, but yet you have the pain like thousands of needles sticking in your foot. it was progressively getting worse, and at that point i knew i had to do something. once i started taking the lyrica the pain started subsiding.

[ male announcer ] it's known that diabetes damages nerves. lyrica is fda approved to treat diabetic nerve pain. lyrica is not for everyone. it may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, changes in eyesight including blurry vision, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or skin sores from diabetes. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. ask your doctor about lyrica today. it's specific treatment for diabetic nerve pain. disappointing. a dark day. a dagger into the heart. those are just some of the critical reactions to yesterday's supreme court decision on the voting rights

act. now the fight against voter suppression moves to congress. an early sign? not promising. we'll discuss when the naacp julian bond joins us live next on "now." we had never used a contractor before and didn't know where to start. at angie's list, you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. no company can pay to be on angie's list, so you can trust what you're reading. angie's list is like having thousands of close neighbors, where i can go ask for personal recommendations. that's the idea. before you have any work done, check angie's list. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. i love you, angie. sorry, honey.

(annoucer) new beneful medley's, in tuscan, romana, and mediterranean style varieties. ♪

just mix it in, and take play to new places. three cans in every pack. new beneful medley's. when the supreme court struck down section 4 of the voting rights act yesterday, they essentially eviscerated what is widely considered to be among the most important piece of civil rights legislation in american history. voting rights was a cause so important that americans endured incredible violence, including beatings and tear gas, while attempting to cross the bridge in selma, alabama, in 1965. now the supreme court says it's up to congress to come up with a new way of identifying which states and counties meet special scrutiny when it comes to changing their voting laws. john lewis, who led the 600

civil rights protestors over that bridge nearly 50 years ago, a man who has been arrested over 40 times for civil rights calls yesterday's court ruling a dagger into the heart of the voting rights act and offered a reminder of the importance of the law. lewis said -- >> we may not have people beaten today. maybe they're not being denied the right to participate to register to vote, they're not being chased by police dogs or tram bl trampled by horses, but in the states of the confederacy and in states outside of the south, there has been a systematic and deliberate attempt to take us back to another period. we must not forget our past. we must not forget our history. if we forget it, we will repeat it. >> president obama said he was deeply disappointed with the supreme court's decision, as did attorney general eric holder.

the president and eric holder was joined in their scorn by pat leahy, the clintons, and house majority leader eric cantor who joined congressman lewis in commemorating the selma to montgomery march. cantore said my experience with john lewis in selma earlier this year was a profound experience that demonstrated the fortitude that it took to advance civil rights and to ensure equal protection for all. i'm hopeful congress will put politics aside as we did on that trip and find a responsible path forward that ensures the sacred obligation of voting in this country remains protected. but not all republicans are as cognizant of history. senator chuck grassly told "the new york times," what it tells me is after 45 years the voting rights act worked. it just proves that it worked. in other words, mission accomplished. and yesterday when senate minority leader mitch mcconnell was asked what he thought about

the ruling, he simply drew a blank. >> well, i haven't read it yet. obviously it's an important bill that passed back in the '60s at a time when we had a very different america than we have today. i think i'm just going to have to read it first but i would say i do think america is very different today from what it was in the 1960s. anybody else want to comment on that? >> anybody? anybody? we'll take that as a no. as we wait for congress to decide the fate of what remains of the voting rights act, we're already seeing the consequences of yesterday's ruling. just two hours after the supreme court issued its decision texas announced it would move forward with the voter i.d. law. the same law that was said to be discriminatory. other republican controlled states like mississippi and alabama said they would move ahead with those laws as well. justice ginsburg summed it up

when she wrote in her passionate dissent, quote, the court's opinion can hardly be described as an exemplar of restrained and moderate decision making. quite the opposite. hub brus is a fit word for today's demolition of the voter rights act. >> chairman bond, i'm struck by justice ginsburg's words. a demo mission of the voting rights act. >> that's what it was. we saw evidence of the animus that justice roberts has had of the voting rights act going back to when he worked under reagan. he opposed it then, owe he opposes it now. this was a terrible, terrible day for civil rights. >> justice scalia had already referred to racial entitlements. the hostility towards this law essentially saying stop holding the southern states accountable for what happened 50 years ago.

it's, a, historic, of course, but you described it exactly, it is hostility to the notion of holding states accountable for voting rights. >> it's also hostility to the notion that people of color ought to have the right to vote, ought to have the untrammelled right to vote, ought to have the ability to vote whenever they want to whenever an election is held. and to see this animus coming from at least two supreme court justice and now we know a larger number of them is just terrifying. there is a remedy for this but it's a hard, tough remedy that will take a lot of effort by a lot of people. it won't be easy. >> if congress doesn't fix this, people will have to sue in order to roll back these kinds of voting laws. >> right. section 2 puts the onus on the individual to prove that there's some sort of discriminatory intent. but what's interesting to me is the other remedy that's available is for congress to step in and to clarify, come up with a new formula for section 4 that would make section 5

applicable again. i remember covering in congress in the house in 2006 the reauthorization. the vote to reauthorize for 25 years the voting rights act in 2006 was 390-33. it was an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority. the only no votes came from a couple of conservative republicans. jim sensenbrenner was at war on the floor with his fellow republicans. what's interesting, the line that you have from scalia, racial entitlement, the full context of what he was saying is he was saying as a supreme court justice he believes that the voting rights act had reached a point where no member of congress, no republican member of congress had the guts to vote no on it. 2006 it's going to be reauthorized in perpetuity because no one has the guts to vote against it. i as a supreme court justice am going to take it away. this is the test now because all those republicans, the overwhelming majority of republicans who voted for it in

2006 have the opportunity to say to scalia, no, you're wrong. we're coming up with a new coverage. i'm skeptical but they do have that opportunity. >> this is legislating from the bench if i've ever heard of it, michael. this is the court saying, congress, i don't like what you did, even though did you it overwhelmingly. we're not happy so we're going to make the decision because you're not strong enough. >> there's nothing clearer in the constitution than the 15th amendment command 245 that we n to protect voting rights for the people who have been released from slavery and congress has the power to do it. this was judicial activism legislating from the bench to a degree we haven't seen in years if ever from the supreme court. it was remarkable. they didn't make any bones about it. scalia said, the voting rights, who could be against that wonderful name. he's not a senator. >> right. >> they very clearly said we know there was a big record in this. there were 52 witnesses, 15,000

pages of testimony. we didn't think it was very good. >> yes. >> here's why we would have voted a different way. it was a pure expression of judicial activism untethered to an actual constitutional obligation. >> judicial animus, bob. literally codifying the resentment that people in the old south have to washington telling them how to treat the african-americans, the minorities. >> no question about it. mitch mcconnell's comment is important in this context because the people who agree with the decision make the argument that, well, this is a very different place than it was in 1965 and the states affected should not be held accountable to the way things were then, which is not the case. the states that still require or still required under the voting rights act before yesterday's decision preclearance were found to have discriminated against blacks and others in recent years and to have done it

repeatedly. that, you know, really needs to be made clear in this discussion. >> maggie, this was in my mind, murder without fingerprints. as adam described it, anesthetize the patient knowing no doctor would come. >> they passed it on to congress but is there any realistic hope that congress will take it up. the house of representatives, really? >> it's possible. as you say, the doctor's sort of in the hall. it seems very unlikely. this is problematic from republicans. what you saw from eric cantor in terms of that statement versus what you saw from mitch mcconnell is what you are seeing republicans deal with. they have many other issues that they already don't want to deal with, the main one being immigration where we don't expect much to happen in the house. >> in states where there's a growing hispanic population, you're asking congress to legislate against their own interests which they're not going to do. >> i don't want to let congress off the hook on this. this has been mentioned where there was in recent years strong bipartisan support. mitch mcconnell may not remember

but he voted for the voting rights act on the floor of the senate. >> he can't remember what it's about. >> he can't remember. i took his unwillingness to endorse it as a positive. we can't let them off the hook as hard as it is. >> let's let chairman bond not let them off the hook. what do you want to see them do next? give us hopeful forward moving steps that people can take now. >> i want to see the re-creation of the same kind of bipartisan majority that passed the voting rights act the last time, i want to see people around the country, black, white, brown, yellow, all races and colors come together and say this is something the country needs to do and we need to do it quickly. this is a great day for gay people. i'm happy to have served on the committee that hired the lawyers, that found the plaintiffs, that filed the lawsuit and created this victory. we did this and we did this, i think, largely through a people's movement. a people in america changing their mind about one way of

thinking about something and thinking one way right now. we can do the same thing with this. americans need to wake up and know this needs to be done. if they put their shoulders to the wheel, i think we can do it. >> very positive and hopeful note. thank you very much, chairman julian bond of the naacp. appreciate you being here. >> thank you. coming up, day three of witness testimony is underway in the george zimmerman trial. we'll have the latest with legal analyst lisa bloom next. 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. a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested.

but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto®

if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. 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.

yesterday for the first time the jury in the george zimmerman murder trial saw images of the 17-year-old victim, trayvon martin, after he was shot and killed. zimmerman is facing charges of second degree murder and has pleaded not guilty. martin's father, who last saw the pictures when he had to identify his son, walked out of the courtroom. anthony raymondo testified about the position of his body when he

arrived on the scene and his attempts to revive the victim. the photos may be disturbing to some viewers. >> is that a fair and accurate depiction of the way trayvon martin's body was positioned when you approached it? >> yes, sir, it is. >> did you see any movement from trayvon martin's body as you approached him? >> no, sir, i did not. >> after you rolled his body over on to his back, did you again try to get a pulse? >> yes, sir, i did. >> how did you do that? >> same carotid area. >> were you able to get a pulse? >> no, sir. >> what did you do next? >> i breathed for him, or tried to. >> joining us is legal analyst, lisa bloom. lisa, how important do you think the position of the body is going to wind up being in this case? george zimmerman testified that he spread martin's arms apart away from his body but this witness or the police sergeant said that he found the arms underneath. >> the prosecution's goal in this case is to pick apart

zimmerman's statement bit by bit and show that he was lying or mistaken. having said that, trayvon martin's body was moved by zimmerman, moved by the first responders when they administered cpr. ultimately probably not a huge issue in the case. >> do you think seeing the other pieces of evidence. the skittles bag, can of arizona drink, those images will impact the jury or in these cases do they impact the case? >> i do. the story is trayvon martin was an unarmed high school junior. when you see candy and fruit drink, it tends to underscore that. george zimmerman was the adult and he was carrying a gun. >> you had one witness, it was pretty intense questioning, that she liked the facebook that was in favor of trayvon martin. do you think that could discredit that witness? >> i think among other things the defense did to completely discredit that witness who had a new version of her story for the first time at trial notwithstanding several other inconsistent statements she had made. that was probably a very good cross kpks for the defense.

>> a lot of dramatic testimony today and thank you very much to msnbc's legal a.m. list, lisa bloom. >> we'll be back after this. ♪ cash money sorry. i see you have allstate claim free rewards, for every year you don't have a claim,

you'll get money off your home insurance policy. put it towards... [ glass shatters ] [ girl ] dad! dad! [ girl screams ] noise canceling headphones? [ nicole ] that's a great idea. [ male announcer ] home insurance that saves you money for not having a claim? that's allstate home insurance with claim free rewards. talk to an allstate agent... [ doorbell rings ] and let the good life in.

thank you to our panel, bob, michael, maggie, ed, steve. that's all for now. i'll see you back here tomorrow at noon eastern. "andrea mitchell reports" is up nicks. next. card. [ garth ] boris' small business earns 2% cash back on every putestimony, please.s "buk, buk, bukka!" [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase every day. told you i'd get half. what's in your wallet?

missing workouts because of sports injuries. runner's knee... ...it's right there. shin splints... ...it hurt right on this side. injuries like these can come from the pounding your feet take. but i found something that helps. dr. scholl's active series insoles with triple zone protection to help reduce pain from three sports injuries: runner's knee, shin splints, plantar fasciitis. i can feel the difference. i'm a believer. i'm back working out. i'm a believer. try dr. scholl's active series. i'm a believer.

where we've switched their fruits and veggies with produce from walmart. it's a fresh-over. that's great. tastes like you just picked them. so far, it's about the best strawberry i've had this year. walmart works directly with growers to get you the best-quality produce they've ever had.

all this produce is from walmart. oh, my gosh. i'm shocked. [ laughs ] i know where i'm going to be shopping for strawberries now. find fresh berries and all your quality produce backed by our money back guarantee. walmart. history is made. the supreme court. in its final rulings of the term. changes the definition of marriage in america. >> we've won everything we asked for. wow. i'm honored and humbled and overjoyed. in the defense of marriage act. it's discriminatory, the law. >> today's