is? plus, the fears of a hollow victory in the supreme court rulings this week. and a huge step forward on immigration reform. but first, this week in voter suppression in a supreme way. good morning. i'm melissa harris-perry. thank you for joining us. the supreme court giveth and it taketh away. it was a mixed bag this week for members of the diverse progressive coalition, whose lives hung in the balance while the court rendered its decisions on its foremost highly anticipated history-making equal rights cases. on the one hand, unbridled joy and celebration as windsor versus united states took its place alongside other outcomes that have become synonymous with human equality. the court struck down the defense of marriage act and affirmed federal protections for same-sex couples in states that

currently recognize their unions. and the court essentially legalized same-sex marriage in california by punting honest decision and restoring the original ruling of a trial judge that overturned proposition 8. on the other hand, there is disappointment and uncertainty for the future of democracy after the court gutted a signature piece of legislation that has secured the right to vote for millions of americans for nearly 50 years. the court's invalidation of section 4 of the voting rights act removed the teeth from section 5, the provision that had required pre-clearance of voting changes in states with demonstrable histories of discrimination. and in so doing, broke the strongest line of defense against voter suppression, defense that was deployed to great effect as recently as last year, when section 5 was all that stood between some minority voters and laws that would have kept them from passing a ballot on election day. no sooner had those floodgates opened than the very kind of legislation section 5 was meant to stop came pouring through.

texas and north carolina are already moving to enact voter i.d. legislation in response to the ruling. so now it's up to congress, yeah, congress, to review and revise section 4's coverage formula to determine which states qualify today for federal oversight of their voting laws. but let's be clear. the consequences of the supreme court's decision was not to empower congress at all. in fact, whether the outcome of these cases has inspired celebration, mourning, or a bittersweet combination of the two, we can all agree on a single, most consistent theme communicated by the court this week. that the biggest loser in all of these cases was the federal government. a loss lamented by justice ruth bader ginsburg in her dissenting opinion for the minority in shelby county v. holder. where she wrote, "the question this case presents is who decides whether section 5 remains justifiable. this court or a congress charged

with the obligation to enforce the post-civil war amendments by appropriate legislation." with overwhelming support in both houses, congress concluded that for two prime reasons, section 5 should continue in force, unabated. first, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made. and second, continuance would guard against backsliding. those assessments were well within congress' province to make and should elicit this court's unstinting approbation. as we like to say in nederland, ginsburg is boss. except, instead of approval for congress' call on voting rights, the court's majority expressed its contempt by gutting those congressional powers, thus weakening a federal authority to defend equality has robbed and marginalized americans who are still very much in need of equal right protections of one of the most powerful allies. and it's what makes the two very different rulings we saw in the doma and vra cases more alike than they may seem.

it just so happens in the doma case, the loss for the government meant a win for marriage equality. justice kennedy, in writing the majority opinion, negated the power of the federal government to, quote, disparage and injure those whom the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in personhood and dignity. and the court has secured those protections for those in the 13 states and the district of columbia where same-sex marriage is legal. but it also may have denied those still awaiting that equality the possibility of a more robust victory. a victory that still remains only a district hope in 37 states. the same argument against federal power that protected the rights for some could also be erected as a barrier to prevent congress from passing a national marriage equality law, that would guarantee those same rights to all. which means that whether this week left you crying tears of joy or remorse, yes, the struggle still continues. with me at the table is wade henderson, president and ceo of

the leadership conference on civil and human rights. caroline fricedericson. kenji oseeno, professor of constitutional law at new york university school of law. and barbara armwine, president and executive director of the lawyer's committee for civil rights under the law. what a week! let's start with the vra, just so we're kind of moving through time this week. how afraid should we be about this ruling? >> we should be very afraid, melissa. what the court did was, in essence declare that the fight for equal rights, regarding voting, is over. in a very cynical opinion on behalf of the majority, justice roberts in effect concedes at the outset that voting problems still exist in america. and then turns his back on that very evidence to declare mission accomplished when it comes to talking about protecting the right to vote. we should with very afraid. because what the court did, not only invalidated the heart of

the voting right acts as jean lewis said, our great hero on the voting rights act, it was a dagger in the heart of the voting rights act, but it also sets the stage for more problems in the future. because as you pointed out so correctly, states like texas and north carolina have moved expeditiously to put into place a voter i.d. law that will have devastating impact on the right to vote in those states. >> when you say stabbing in the heart, let's be clear we're also very clear, it was the heart of dixey that was covered. let's take a look at the map that was the section 5 precoverage area. right, the area where, in fact, you had to have preclearance in order to change your voting rights. so there's a lot of rhetoric on this, but, basically, if you were going to make voting changes, if you were in these areas that you see in red, then those areas had to actually first get preclearance. >> that's right. >> now let's take a look at what the naacp legal defense fund has already been tracking in terms of states indicating they're moving ahead right away on new

restricting voting laws. oh, look, how similar this map looks to that other one. barbara, this feelings to me like the actual empirical evidence of the thing the court just told us no longer exists. >> oh, it's the rise, again, of the neo confederacy. >> which looks an awful a lot like the old confederacy. >> it's the court restoring state rights as their fundamental principle over, you know, racial -- over, you know, ameliorating, destroying racial zrinl discrimination. this is a really ugly decision, and what we're going to have to do is just fight. we cannot think that what we just saw on that map is what should be. we're going to have to really organize, we're going to have to go not only into the courts and litigate. because, remember, section 5 and section 4 are just one -- just two of the many provisions -- >> section 2 is still -- >> is still powerful. so is section 3. we're going to go into congress

and go into the states and get new laws. i mean, we've got to be very clear that we don't just take this. that this is a time for mass resistance, it's a time for people to rise up for justice. >> so, on that. because as we take to the streets or as we just line up behind ruth bader ginsburg, i just want to know, help me to understand the ruling around section 4 here. because, i wasn't sure, and i've tried to read it a couple of times. kenji, are they saying that you simply cannot treat any state differently, as an inherent matter. so in order for there to be precleerps, it must be preclearance for all or preclearance for none? or are they saying there is some other substantiative formula that congress could theoretically come up with that would give teeth back to section 5? >> that's an excellent question, and there are notes about the equal sovereignty of the states and how the voting rights act calls into question the equal sovereignty of georgia vis-a-vis

massachusetts or what have you. but i think the upshot of it is, let's remember that the baseline constitutional inquiry is whether or not this is congruent or proportional to violations of voting rights on the basis of race, right? so if we can come up with a formula, if congress can have a will to come up with a formula that says, well, we're actually pegging this to demonstrable violations on the basis of voting rights and the basis of race, then it should be constitutional. what's so outrageous about this, going back to barbara's point, is that congress already did that! >> right, in 2010! they kept saying, this is 40-year-old data. but in 2006, when it was reauthorized, there was new data. >> exactly. so they looked at all the data. there was 15,000 pages of congressional records. that was a 98-0 vote in the senate, a unanimous vote in the senate, and then a super majority vote, i think it was like 300, 390-33 is the ultimate number in the house of representatives. so this was passed with overwhelming majority. you know, i just have to get

this out. during oral argument, justice scalia said, you know, if something is unanimous, then that actually calls the integrity of the process into question, because it means that people are afraid and suggests that there's some kind of racial preferment or entitlement going on. kind of like, okay, so in the future, is that a note to people in the senate who favor voting rights that they should throw their votes against to protect it from justice scalia on the back end? this is a crazy way of thinking about, you know, constitutional law. >> the same to doma, that's for sure. >> let me ask this, then. if there is, theoretically, some possible equation, is disparate impact part of that equation? so, in other words, as congress develops this theoretical equation that hopefully will not have unanimous support, but only say, two-thirds support, so it will pass scalia's test, can they say that if a new law disparately impacts minorities, the disabled people, the elderly, for example, then that,

itself, is sufficient evidence, or are they going to have to -- since history is no longer a sufficient claim, is disparate impact a sufficient claim? >> well, i mean, i think there are a lot of measures that you can look at. but just to go back to the empirical evidence that they had, i think, you know, in addition to what kenji was mentioning in terms of the 15,000 pages of evidence, there were actually 600 plus examples of the justice department rejecting changes, since the last reauthorization that would have disenfranchised minority voters. so talking about desperate impact, it's clearly there. they actually have these examples that section 5 has been enormously powerful in protecting people's right to vote against an onslaught of efforts. and these are things that i think are way below the radar in most cases, because we're talking about city council, county councils, school board, changing voting districts, going from at large to multi -- >> but, of course, school boards are exactly how art pope ended

up buying north carolina. stay with us. it is going to be almost impossible this entire day to get me to go to commercials. the nederland crew is screaming in my ear, we've got to pay for the show! but we'll be back on this topic when we come back. you thought this beach couldn't get any more tempting...

... you thought wrong. seize the summer with up to 50% off hotels at travelocity.

with its decision to do away with doma and affirm marriage equality, the supreme court belatedly got on board a train that had already left the station. popular support for same-sex marriage first outpaced opposition two years ago, according to polling from pew research. and that support is only increasing. it's a trend that re-writes an old rule. because as it turns out, familiarity does not breed contempt. as lbgt americans have enjoyed increasing freedoms to become more completely and openly themselves, familiarity has given way to tolerance, acceptance, understanding, and

paved way for what follows. government enforcing the will of the people by enshrining that expanded equality into law. it's what the supreme court's decision on affirmative action this week is part of why it was so disheartening. you see, the justices sent a case back to the texas paste court, with orders to reconsider the ut austin admissions process under a strict standard that could put the program in jeopardy and open the door for future challenges that could end affirmative action altogether. which could ultimately close the door on the kind of progressive momentum around race policy that we witnessed this week around marriage equality. where else do we find those faces among unfamiliar identities than in diverse college classrooms enabled and created by affirmative action. so i want us to talk about this affirmative action thing, but i also don't want us to lose vra, because they feel connected. >> let's go back to the texas voter i.d. issue, which has been put central in the debate about voting rights act. in texas, even the state itself,

when that voter i.d. law was passed, conceded that 800,000 of their citizens would be disenfranchised, because they didn't have the i.d. necessary to vote. in fact, texas allowed individuals who had concealed/carry permits to vote, but students with valid i.d. couldn't. so the assumption that voter i.d. simply requires you to produce a picture i.d. is absolutely false. and i want to say something about kenji's point about the 98-nothing issue that justice scalia seemed to ignore. in fact, he was confirmed by that same vote, 98-nothing. one would think that that raises questions under his standard about how efficacious his confirmation -- >> oh, that's very good! >> but also, you know, what still strikes me about this opinion is that when you read it, it is interestingly myopic and revisionistic about history, because what it doesn't talk about is the last two years. all of a sudden, there's nothing about the texas voter i.d. law, there's nothing about the fact that we had in south carolina, florida, all of the, you know, all of the states, there's

nothing about that. in fact, they don't even talk about racial polarization and voting very well. there's so much that they get wrong in this decision. that's why it won't stand the test of time. it's going to be overruled, no doubt about it. >> if i could jump in on barbara's point, i think the terrible irony is that they didn't look at alabama. the plaintiff in the case, who has an incredible recent record. >> absolutely. >> of voting violations, and has been under the microscope of the justice department for exactly that reason. >> and, you know, one of the things, i think, is very disen heartening about the opinion, and maybe is revealing, is how little attention is actually paid to the constitution. >> right. >> and chief justice roberts barely gives a glance to the 15th amendment, which says -- >> which is where it is! >> right. congress has the authority to pass appropriate legislation. now, ruth bader ginsburg, who i know now we are all super fans of, pointed to that very clearly and said, what about this? it says congress gets to decide. we can't substitute our own policy judgment. we may not like the way they did

the formula, but that's congress' job. not the court's. >> let me ask this. both the 15th amendment and the 19th amendment, and the other sort of voting amendments are there, in what they do is they prohibit states from behaving in certain ways. is it type for an affirmative, constitutional right to vote for all citizens over 18? >> right. so, maybe. but i don't think we need to even go there, because i think we have enough with the amendments that you mentioned. so the 15th, the 19th, the 24th, and 26th amendments are all amendments dealing with the right to vote. you know, expanding the franchise on the basis of race, on the basis of gender, on the basis of wealth, you know, and the basis of age. so for me, what's so scandalous about this decision is exactly what carolyn was saying. which is, what we have is something that's at the intersection of a fundamental right, the right to vote, and race, which is a heightened scrutiny classification. so the idea that congress, having been given under 15-2,

section 2 of the 15th amendment, the right to enact legislation that is appropriate to enforce the provisions of this article, meaning the voting, you know, promise in 15-1, it just seems so obvious that they would have the right to enact something like the voting rights act. so to me, i think what we need to -- >> and to reauthorize it. not just that the congress of the 1960s had the right to do it, but the congress of 2006 had the right to reaffirm it. >> and that the congress of 2013 needs to be asked, right? i mean, this is -- voting is different. like, i care a lot about, obviously, about same-sex marriage. i care a lot about affirmative action, but voting is different. the supreme court has told us that voting is a right that is preservative of all other rights. so i think we need to face down congress right now in 2013 and say to them, okay, you keep telling us you can't do everything, everyone else keeps saying you're so dysfunctional, maybe immigration is an exception, but you're so dysfunctional on gun control, et cetera, et cetera. if you can't do this, what can you do? >> isn't that the real issue

behind robert's opinion? it's a cynical recognition that congress is dysfunctional. if you can't pass a farm bill -- >> if you can't raise -- >> your debt ceiling, your economic status globally, how can you possibly pass a law as controversial as this? we believe, however, as kenji pointed out, that voting is unique and that there was such strong bipartisan support in 2006, for the reauthorization, that we can count on both democrats and republicans to stand up to this decision. >> before we go, i do want to remind folks that as hard as congress, at the federal level, as difficult as they're finding it to pass laws, states are having no problem. >> right, right, right. >> and i wanted to remind us of how bad it has been in this country. i am looking right now at a literacy test that was part of what it took for someone to vote the in my state in louisiana. and you had to ask questions -- answer questions like, draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence. draw a line under the last word in this line.

draw a line through the letter below that comes earliest in the alphabet. look at the line of numbers below and place in the blank the number that should come next. number 25, write down on this line provided what you see in the triangle below. folks, this is the idea -- this is in our living memory in this country, what we did to the thing that you have just defined again as the preservative right. the thing that makes us a democracy. everyone stay with me. when we come back, we're going to take a look at the celebrations on wednesday and explain why they may not have been all exactly what we initially thought. let's play: [ all ] who's new in the fridge! i help support bones... [ ding! ]

...the immune system... [ ding! ] ...heart health... [ ding! ] ...and muscles. [ ding! ] that can only be ensure complete! [ female announcer ] the four-in-one nutrition of ensure complete. a simple choice to help you eat right. [ major nutrition ] nutrition in charge.

a simple choice to help you eat right. and now there's a new way to buy a car -- truecar. at truecar.com, we'll show you what others paid for the car you want so you'll know if that sales price is a great price. save time, save money, and never overpay. visit truecar.com. [ agent smith ] i've found software that intrigues me. it appears it's an agent of good. ♪ [ agent smith ] ge software connects patients to nurses to the right machines while dramatically reducing waiting time. [ telephone ringing ] now a waiting room is just a room. [ static warbles ] [ telephone ringing ] now a waiting room is just a room. 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

our plaintiffs now get to go back to california and together with every other citizen of california, marry the person they love. >> it is going to be one amazing pride weekend. >> today we can go back to california and say to our own children, all four of our boys, our family is just as good as everybody else's family. >> we won everything we asked or hoped for. >> it's the day i finally get to look at the man that i love and finally say, will you please marry me? >> while wednesday's supreme court rulings on prop 8 and doma were cause for celebration for many seeking marriage equality, i wonder if we're celebrating hollow victories. i want to party, but not too much.

joining the table is evan wilson, president of freedom to marry. congratulations, what a week. >> what a week indeed. really wonderful. a lot more to do, but great things to celebrate. >> you know, in the hours following the ruling, you know, i'm watching msnbc, there were some great moments. and everybody kept talking about how the supreme court had amped the humanity of same-sex couples. and i thought, no, it didn't. like, we are -- we're reading it that way, right, but it felt like the court was like, eh, we don't want to be bothered. back to the -- and by reading that wrong, is there something that the court itself did in the decision that says we're affirming the -- like the loving decision was? >> i think your aim is right, but i think your undervaluing what the court did in this decision. both what it said and what it is immediately and will be meaning. first of all, the language of the ruling was strong and clear and powerful and emotional. he talked about couples who want to marry. he talked about their longing,

edie and thea's longing to marry, and that their dignity was assaulted by the exclusion from marriage. he talked about the federal government having a standard of discrimination being unacceptable, both under the constitution and in violation of these people who he recognized as people, rounded human beings who seek the freedom to marry for the same reasons of love and commitment and aspirations and connectedness and deserve the same safety net as every other merp. so the language and the opinion itself are very, very strong and we shouldn't undervalue that. we want to have that. we want that moral weight of the supreme court. and we've seen it reverberate already. but in addition, in addition, the immediate impact of the ruling we have begun putting into effect. and i want to give a great shout-out to president obama and attorney general holder and the administration, because they immediately took steps to say the court's mandate is that the federal government will no longer discriminate against married couples, no matter where they are. and couples across the country

will now access important protections that are touching their lives immediately. >> the level of enthusiasm from the president's twitter feed was pretty intense. i don't know if it's because he was on air force one, but, first, it was, "today's doma ruling is an historic step forward for #marriageequality and #loveislove, and then a third one." the notion that this path was this enthusiastic does suggest there's also more weight in the administration. let me ask, though, we still have the problem of, if you get married in california and move to louisiana, you don't have the same protections that opposite sex couples do. that hasn't changed, is that correct? >> that's right, but also let me add in, there's a wrinkle there. >> well, it is true that couples in louisiana are not protected in the same way couples in new york are, because we are denied the freedom to marry in louisiana.

>> yeah. >> but what the president and the attorney general have said, fulfilling the court's command, is that though the states may discriminate, the federal government will no longer discriminate. >> on your federal tax return. >> so couples in louisiana who are illegally married in new york or iowa may be discriminated by louisiana until we finish our job, but the federal government won't discriminate. so they will receive access to the important federal safety net. that's part of the tangible protections that are so important. this is a national rule. >> is this as big as it could have been? >> obviously, if they would have done a 50-state solution, but i don't think any of us were expecting that. but i think to piggyback off of what evan was saying, if you look at the doma opinion and the scalia dissent, he actually does a mad lib, essentially, where we strikes out words from passages referring to doma and subs in the state. and he says, if you do this man lib of subbing out a state ban on marriage for doma, the analysis reads in such a way

that it inevitably requires a court to strike down bans on same-sex marriage by the state. so, you know, he helped us in lawrence by saying lawrence in 2003, the sodomy case means that same-sex marriage is on its way. i think he's helping us again in the doma case and the windsor case by saying the logic of this inexorably leaves to the states. >> i think this was a profoundly important decision. and it is especially gratifying to know that it springs from the same civil war amendments that had advanced african-american equality nationwide, but also, obviously, the same amendments that were denied their foremeaning in the voting rights case. obviously, none of us really expected the prop 8 case to extend marriage equality nationwide. i think the court wanted to avoid what they perceived as the problems with the abortion cases, in part by allowing states to work as experiment, sources of experiment in advancing the law.

but what we hope this will mean is that states will take their role really importantly and help to advance the goals that the court helped to set out by withdrawing federal opposition to marriage equality. >> stay with us. we've got more on the supreme court. i do want to point out, though, if you look again at that thing i was reading to you, the louisiana literacy test, i actually would not be able to vote in my state if this existed, because i read to you, "paris in the spring," in that triangle. look again, it says "paris in the spring." if you want to know how serious it is, i would not have been able to vote. i'm sure some of the haters would be thrilled about that. all right, more when we get back. i'll just press this, and you'll save on both. ding! ladies and gentlemen,

boys and girls, llllet's get ready to bundlllllle... [ holding final syllable ] oh, yeah, sorry! let's get ready to bundle and save. now, that's progressive. oh, i think i broke my spleen! home insurance provided and serviced by third party insurers.

we're back. and talking about this historic week in supreme court rulings, i want to go back to a point i tried to make around affirmative action. we've just got so much. but part of what we heard in response to the doma and prop 8 was this notion that we've gotten to know one another. particularly because of the courage of lesbian, gay, transgendered people coming out to their friends, their family, their coworkers, we've gotten to know one another and that's been part of what's pushed marriage forward. but now it feels that given how residentially segregated our communities are, and without affirmative action, how will we get to know each other around race? >> it only works as we get to know one another as equals. and i think one of the principles that came up in the affirmative action case, the fisher case, is that diversity as a goal was upheld. but the truth is, the court created a barrier that says, okay, in theory, we can do that, but in fact, it may be more difficult than you think. and they may, in fact, have laid a foundation for striking the very texas program that tried

to, in fact, avoid the use of race, only used it as one of the several criteria to evaluate how to have a program going forward. and instead, have laid traps that will make it harder in the future. so, as paula deen tried to raise this past week, you know, the south is a great place, we've gotten to know each other, but that racism that is residual and that is deep-seated only can be resolved if you get to know one another on an equal basis. >> is that an appropriate goal, in part, for the court? i guess, part of what's been my question is, is the court acting with judicial restraint, by sending things back to the states, by sending them back to the universities, basically, by sending them back to congress, or are they actually acting in a way of activism, or should they be acting to say, here are the things that matter. equality at the ballot box, diversity in the classroom? >> i think that's a very, very illuminating question. because i think it's very right. adam liptack in "the new york times" this week had a really

good piece where he talks about how chief justice roberts has very carefully planted the bombs in earlier decisions that then blow up later. we've seen that with the area case, the voting rights case where he said, you know, we're going to send this back, but serious constitutional concerns. and then it blows up in the shelby county case. and we've seen that in citizens united, dealing with campaign finance reform. but now the real worry is, has he planted the bomb here, so that, sure, we've reaffirmed gruter, was those little -- the dangerous language in those decisions that allows challenges going forward that could bring the case back to the court and lead to the demise of amptive action. i think that's the big worry, even though, you know, at the end of the day, the outcome was the one we all hoped for, which is that that diversity was affirmed. >> i would agree with what carolyn is saying, but i would

also just add there that while we're praising justice ginsburg, she's the only one who dissents in the fisher case. and i think she dissents precisely because, she's like, you're not going to catch me again. she went along with that case and it blew up in her face. and roberts keeps using that against the left. she says, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. >> the notorious -- we've got one more block. i've got to say, i kept asking how i could get a four-hour show today, and we're packing in as much as we can, i promise. it's simply a huge "newsweenews. we had a lot of debate about how to send the letter to, but ultimately, there was one person who had to get my letter. my mother made the best toffee in the world. 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. ♪ the middle of this special moment and i need to run off to the bathroom. ♪ i'm fed up with always having to put my bladder's needs ahead of my daughter. ♪ so today, i'm finally talking to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz. one toviaz pill a day significantly reduces sudden urges and accidents, for 24 hours. if you have certain stomach problems or glaucoma, or can not empty your bladder, you should not take toviaz.

get emergency medical help right away if your face, lips, throat or tongue swells. toviaz can cause blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness and decreased sweating. do not drive, operate machinery or do unsafe tasks until you know how toviaz affects you. the most common side effects are dry mouth and constipation. talk to your doctor about toviaz.

the success of the latest

superman reboot left me wondering, can a sister get a super heroine for a change. instead of a man of steel, we got a woman with backbone when texas state senator wendy davis used the powers endowed to her not by the yellow sun, but by the citizens of texas to save the day. but, of course, every great superhero must save off against an equally evil arch enemy. and while senator davis is full qui capable of taking on her nemesis on her own, i thought i'd play sidekick and give him a few kicks with my letter. dear governor rick perry, it's me, melissa. you, sir, have taken the timber adding insult to injury to an all-new low this week. it was bad enough that you forced a texas legislature to extend its legislative session for an additional 30 days, for the express purpose of adding legislation to restrict reproductive choice. two dozen anti-abortion bills that all failed to reach the floor of either chamber after your fellow party members in the

legislature figured out what you seem to have trouble comprehending. texans don't like it when you try to erect barriers against women's health care, but you just couldn't stand to leave well enough alone, could you? you just had to give the legislature another shot at banning abortion after 20 weeks and passing laws to force 37 of texas' 42 abortion providers to shut down. governor, you are so hell bennebent on pushing your agenda of banning all abortion that i'm sure it came as somewhat of a surprise to you when the people pushed back. since you clearly have a problem hearing what they want, texans literally raised their voices, shouting to be heard, and led by a champion of the people, whose message was clearing, preserving the right to women's reproductive choice is the only choice. well, i guess that hearing problem of yours was acting up again, because when wendy davis spoke, you apparently heard something entirely different. >> she's the daughter of a

single woman. she was a teenage mother herself. she managed to veeshl graduate from harvard law school and serve in the texas senate. it's just unfortunate that she hasn't learned from her own kpamp that every life must be given a chance to raze its full potential and that every life matters. >> oh, yeah? now, let's put aside, for the moment, the irony of you holding forth on the sanctity of every life right before you oversaw texas' 500th death by execution. because what's really unfortunate is that you haven't learned from wendy davis' example. she recognizes that all she has been able to accomplish was thanks in part to having what senator davis called the privilege of making a choice. you, on the other hand, have chosen to use your privilege to hurt instead of help women and families. and yet, another special session to resurrect the bill that

senator davis and her pro-choice ally succeeded in killing, to restore what you called, quote, the breakdown of decorum and decency. okay, spare me the decency talk. because, really, what would you know about decency? what's decent about refusing a medicaid expansion, leaving 1.5 million poor, elderly, and disabled texases without health coverage. there was nothing decent about defunding your state's family planning, leaving 140,000 texas women without health services and forced to carry 30,000 unintended pregnancies to term. and punctuating all that this week by saying, the louder they scream, the more we know we are getting something done. be careful, governor, you're looking a lot like the villain who twirls his mustache and laughs while a speeding train is headed toward the woman you've tied to the tracks. although you might want to take a closer look at that train, because senator davis has been hinting that she might be interested in your job, and

right now there's a lot of momentum behind the wendy davis express. and it's headed right for you. sincerely, melissa. [ larry ] you know throughout history, folks have suffered from frequent heartburn but now, thanks to treating with prilosec otc, we don't have to suffer like they used to. [ bell dings ] ♪ [ horse whinnies ] getting heartburn 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. we've sure come a long way. ♪ [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. loses his computer, exposing thousands of patient records to identity theft. data breaches can happen that easily. we don't believe you should be a victim of someone else's mistake. we're lifelock. we constantly monitor the web so if any of your personal information is misused, we're on it. ♪ ow. [ male announcer ] call 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today.

the focus this week has been on the supreme court's landmark rulings on the voting rightings sacramento, affirmtive action, but the court made rulings in other cases that may also have a lasting impact on the quest for justice. in the series of rulings this term, the court made it harder to bring class action lawsuits against big corporations. the decisions in both vance v. ball state university and the university of texas southwestern medical center versus nassau raised the bar for workers to prove workplace discrimination. the court struck a hard blow against sovereignty when it comes to a native american's parent's parental rights. and the cases that the court

will hearing during its next term, which include the president's recess appointments, buffer zones to abortion clinics, and power plant pollution. so there were other things that happened this week. barbara, what's at the top for you of things people should know about the other cases? >> well, i am very concerned about the maryland versus keene case, i'm very concerned about the salinas versus texas case. these are cases involving criminal justice. they made some serious backward motions on dna collection and on when you are able to invoke miranda and when you should, you know, when you should know that you are putting more affirmative obligations on criminal defendants. and i think that was really an undermining of our constitution and an undermining, when we have all this mass incarceration already going on, doing serious damage to african-american and latino populations. it's absolutely outrageous. and i hated the amex case. i also want to add that to the list of infamy, here, that we're

doing, bad cases. this is a internshterm where th just said straight up, we're about employers only. >> and not workers and not the communities. >> that's right. >> the decision on local land jurisdictions and land development, this idea that you no longer have to meet the burden of localities to say that the land use that you want to put it to use for is, in fact, environmentally sound. this sort of thing, ow dangerous can this be? i mean, we know the big cases, but i think sometimes we miss the smaller case law, kenji? >> i actually want to go back to the baby veronica case, if i may. that was a really tragic case, the indian child welfare act. so you have an adoptive couple that has baby veronica and then her biological father, you know, is part of a tribe, the cherokee tribe, and she is 1.2% -- the baby is 1.2% native american, so under the indian tribal welfare act, there's a tussle about

whether or not in order to restore tribal sovereignty, she needs to be returned to her biological father. the court says, no, she doesn't. it's actually a fascinating case, because at the very end, justice alito, who's writing for the majority says, you know, there may be some equal protection issues here. so it looks really bad -- it's really much along the vein of the affirm ative action cases, o i don't want to let go of it. it's another one of these time bombs that i think is being planted by the right. >> and it's a painful one, because there's the case of these families and their love for this child, and then there's the large legal question, right? and i just kept feeling like, did no one read solomon? like, you're not supposed to divide the baby, and yet that's exactly what we see happening. >> i just want to, i think barbara raised some really important cases. the american express case, certainly, is one in which this court has recognized yet again that corporations win. and we've seen that statistically, right? the constitutional

accountability center did a study that showed the center of commerce, something like 88% of its cases in the supreme court for the last several terms. and that means on the losing side, our workers are employees who are victims of discrimination or consumers, and i think what we can essentially say is that the roberts court has closed the doors to the courthouse for real people. and really, this access to justice, it's a whole set of cases involving class actions and can people come together when you can't litigate a case by yourself and only by joining with others. is it economically feasible to go after some major wrongdoer. but there are a whole other series of cases that have been slowly but surely making it harder and harder for people to vindicate their rights. >> and now, if you can't vote, to bring in the president, who will get to appoint the next -- because even if this president gets to appoint another justice, it's the liberals on the court

that are old, right? the conservatives are all quite young, right? it's actually after the next election cycle, 2016, when we'd have any opportunity to see a reconstitution of this court. >> that's absolutely right. and these cases also underscore the importance of judicial nominations and confirmations. so this fight that's been going on throughout the obama terms, about whether we will have the ability to appoint justices and have them confirmed is a huge issue. he now has three nominees who are pending for the d.c. circuit court of appeals. the most important court, second only to the supreme court. >> and a feeder -- >> and a feeder for the supreme court appointments. and yet he's having great challenge, great difficulty confirming three imminently qualified individuals. >> i mean, he can't even get his, basically, the folks who are going to work for him directly in the administration, right, through senate confirmation. and, of course, this brings us back to the fact that the court sent it back to the house, where the level of gridlock keeps making us feel like, are you serious? how can we expect the 113th be

our savior on this? kenji? >> the point i love to hammer home here is we keep fighting over justice kennedy. everybody knows we're arguing justice kennedy, but we would about have justice kennedy if robert bork would have went down. we have the luxury of fighting over justice kennedy. we would not have had the luxury of fighting over bjork. that should send a shot across the bow of how importantly these next replacements are going to be. >> if anyone wants to have a horror moment, just keep thinking, what if it were bjork! when we come back, the man hiding out in a moscow airport, y'all are glad i am not the president, because i would not be having this snowden situation going on like this. there is more nerdland at the top of the hour. people join angie's list for all kinds of reasons. i go to angie's list to gauge whether or not the projects will be done in a timely fashion and within budget. angie's list members can tell you which provider is the best in town. you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare.

now that we're expecting, i like the fact i can go onto angie's list and look for pediatricians. the service providers that i've found on angie's list actually have blown me away. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our history matter to you? because for more than two centuries, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. ♪ and the next great idea could be yours. ♪ welcome back. i'm melissa harris-perry. the latest news on nsa leaker

edward snowden that he's holed up in an airport in moscow, with the united states eager to bring him home to face charges. snowden's flight has strained u.s. relationships with china and russia, which both have so far refused to send him back. even though president obama said he's not about to scramble jets to go after a, quote, 29-year-old hacker, he is determined to get snowden back. >> my continued expectation is that russia or other countries that have talked about potentially providing mr. snowden asylum recognize that they are part of an international community and that they should be abiding by international law. and we'll continue to press them as hard as we can to make sure that they do so. >> and good luck with that. we can't even get putin to give back a super bowl ring. and the tensions aren't just with world powers like russia

and china. the obama administration is also having issues with ecuador, yes, ecuador, population 15.5 million. ecuador is openly and pretty gleefully tweaking the united states. snowden may seek asylum from ecuador, which is also protecting wikileaks founder julian assange at its embassy in london. members of congress who lead international trade committees have warned ecuador that if it takes snowden in, it can say good-bye to its preferential trade deal with the states. ecuador said it didn't need no trade deal and offered them the value of the trade deal to fund human rights training for the government. no one can say ecuador ain't plucky. now, snowden and his defenders say he is a whistle-blower, a hero that has done something brave in the public interest. >> if you realize that that's the world that you helped create and it's going to get worse with the next generation and the next generation, who exthe end the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, you

realize that you might be willing to accept any risk and it doesn't matter what the outcome is, so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that's applied. >> let me just say how i feel about this. i understand the value of whistle blowing, the knowledge of how our government conducts its business. here's my beef with ed snowden. once you've decided to be a defender of those ideals, you have to be prepared to face the consequences. that is the whole point of civil disobedience, to show that you are willing to risk your own freedom, your own body, in order to bring attention to something that needs to be done. martin luther king jr. was arrested, attacked, smeared. nelson mandela within the to prison for 27 years. protesters right now, today, in the north carolina statehouse are being arrested every monday. this week, a state senator in texas fought against devastating restrictions on abortion rights by filibustering for 11 hours without food, bathroom breaks, or sitting or leaning for even a moment. edward snowden on the other hand has gone on the run to countries with truly totalitarian regimes.

china has imprisoned dozens of journalists on charges of revealing state secrets. russia has a brutal record of discrediting, harassing, and beating journalists and anti-government activists as well as stealing super bowl rings. ecuador's president has intimidated critics by pressing criminal libel charges against him. snowden is giving any country he hides in more leverage in their dealings with the u.s. when it comes to russia, those dealings include trying to find a way out of the civil war in syria. look, snowden reportedly has more information with him. u.s. state secrets that he says are even more significant than what he's already released. that russia and china authorities will be measure happy to get their hands on, if they haven't already, and if he wasn't intending to spy on the u.s. for foreign governments, he's as good as doing it now. i can see the merit and the knowledge of the nsa programs, but edward snowden is risking a lot to save his own skin. that's not something i call heroic. at the table, john nichols, barbara armwine, attorney raul

reyes of nbc latino, and caroline fredericson, the american institution society for law and policy. all right, john, me and ed this week, i mean, tell me i'm wrong, give me the progressive line on why he's a great hero. >> let me start with this. have you seen the place he's staying in? oh, my gosh, the picture -- no, i have been stuck in airports and that is a -- i had no idea, because i've been through that moscow airport. it has been upgraded. they have an irish pub! they do! >> it used to be a dump. >> here's the bottom line. i am absolutely in the camp that we're talking too much about edward snowden, because a whistle-blower, a real whistle-blower is supposed to get that information out and then step back. and we're supposed to look at it and have a debate about it. and we are having all over right now, huge debates about edward snowden, very little debate about this important information

that's come out, which isn't just the government, it's also the private sector. and here's where it gets troublesome. one moif great heroes and daniel ellsberg. i have immense respect for daniel ellsberg. one of the most powerful things that daniel ellsberg did was provide those pentagon papers and then say, i'm taking the hit. whatever comes my way -- >> right. this is -- >> now, snowden will make the case that things have gotten worse in america, that there is a tougher line on whistle-blowers and i think there is concern there. real concern that our government does crack down too much on whistle-blowers. but, i will argue this -- >> but, come on, come on, come on. in the south, when first graders break school rules, we arrest them. in this country, there are women giving birth who are shackled to their beds, because the law they broke was coming across the border. there is a serious public safety issue here. i don't know how serious it is, because i don't know what snowden's got --

>> melissa, i have to say that i agree with john in i think that there is far too much attention being paid to snowden and whether he got a high school diploma or whether he didn't, how long he'd been dating his girlfriend -- >> okay, not that -- >> but i would say that there were -- these concerns about section 215 of the patriot act and the amendments act of 2008 were all brought to congress when it was being debated. it was so clear that the language had enormous potential to do a drag net of americans communications and the bush administration and the leaders in congress said, no, no, no, trust us, it'll be fine. and then we find out, and when this, through snowden's leak, we actually see the fisa court order and we see that they're getting all of american's phone records. and it gets very -- i just -- i mean, again, i think we can have an argument about whether that's right or not, but the fact that it's a secret court order that

we don't know how the privacy the, theoretical privacy requirements in the law are being implemented, and when you have 26 members of the senate, a bipartisan group, writing to say they have serious concerns that the nsa has gone beyond the bounds of the law. and when you have congress sens sensenbrenner saying this is way beyond what we ever could have conceived of, i think we need to have a discussion about going back and understanding what the law is. >> yes. now, i partially agree with you. don't yell at me. but you are right. however, we cannot have this debate, as long as he's continuing to do what he is doing, we get further and further away. >> yes. that was the point i was making about ellsberg. >> he is not playing by the rules of civil disobedience. he does have to risk something personally. that's how it goes. and you know, it was just reported this week that he was

cleared through an outside contractor, which is now being investigated. and that also raises the question, why are we outsourcing the vetting of this intensely classified information. why isn't that being done by the federal workforce? again, we don't talk about all those things as long as we have this geopolitical movie spy thing going on. which is his fault. >> that's part of the point. and for him to claim that this is, oh, i'm so -- no one's talking about waterboarding him. we're talking about arresting him, in a country where we arrest folks, and peep who are much more vulnerable, and arresting them under circumstances where they would have much less public -- at this point, if he's arrested, it's with all the public view on him. and likely something particularly bad is going to happen to him is very low. and it does keep us from having a conversation. although, i still, i don't know, we gave a lot of this information to google and to other sort of organizations that

have no democratic elect -- i mean, i get the fear of big government, i truly do, but i guess i don't quite understand why we're so pissed that our democratically elected government, for which we assume there's at least some sort of check, have information that we willingly gave away to private corporations that we know have no check. >> i am more angry, i am more angry at what is happening in the private sector and what our political class does. we are data mined by political parties and political candidates all the time to get us to give them money, to get us to vote. so the bottom line is, we need to have a great big whomping discussion in this country about the status of the fourth amendment, about, you know, where our privacy rights are, and the fact of the matter is, the brief opening we had to have has turned into this lousy spy novel. >> and i was at the senate hearing the day after all this broke, when eric holder was testifying and lindsey graham was, of course, one of his biggest defenders at the

hearing. and i just want to remind people that the source -- let's go to the source of this problem. that's called the patriot act. >> there you go! >> and we really need to be looking at this act that's going to -- it has this potential for abuse, the way it was passed, what's in it. it will continue to be a problem president after president after president. so let's be honest. that's where the root is. >> and barbara, part of what's useful, when you say, it's going to be a problem, president after president, i do feel like there's this odd sort of emotion that progressives are having about the fact that president obama has extended certain policies that also existed under president bush. and that that's part of what heightens this, when, in fact, presidents act like presidents, right? there are some differences for democrats and republicans, but if you extend executive power, the executive is going to use that power. >> absolutely! >> and think about it this way. when jurors chopped down that tree, if they used the wood-burn thing, they would have made a box and gave the powers to the president. that box is now bigger than this

table and we would love it if each new president takes things out, but it isn't in the nature of the game. >> even those who want to drown government in their bathtub. >> but what i would say, what progressives do need to do is rise above that and at times say, whether it's a guy we like or a gal we don't like, that we need to raise these issues. i do think it's vital to talk about what's in that toolbox. >> sure. >> and one more thing to -- we do trust this administration, this is a popular president, but also one thing to consider, especially on this show, talking about the supreme court, he was exposing not necessarily illegal activity, these were illegal acts, this was -- but the people on that fisa court, those people who are currently on there, every one of them was ape pointed by chief justice john roberts. so just saying, maybe it's not necessarily a cross section of our judiciary, but that's where it came from. >> a little correction, raul, because i don't know that we know that he was providing

information about illegal activities. i think there are many -- >> no, that's correct. >> -- the four corners of the statute they voted. >> my solution, ever since finding this out, you know your e-mail tag where it says your name, i write little pss to susan rice, hey, what's going on? i want it to be nice. hey, glad to see you. up next, talk about standing and fighting. the political warrior that could really teach edward snowden a few things. [ male announcer ] this is bob, 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. for more information including cost support options, foour 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. a political star emerged this week and she emerged in a pair of killer running shoes.

with her now-famous epic filibuster on tuesday, texas state senator wendy davis drew the nation's attention to austin by taking on governor rick perry's prized omnibus reproduction rights bill that would have banned all abortions after 20 weeks and opponents say in the immediate closing of 37 of texas' 42 facilities providing the procedure. republicans had ended davis' filibuster after more than ten hours, but democrats in the texas senate helped run out the clock some more. as midnight approached, davis' colleague, senator latisha van der put set off the chamber full of protesters when she said this. >> mr. president, parliamentary inquiry. >> state your inquiry. >> at what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room. >> the pro-choice protesters went pro-voice, using their cheering and chanting to prevent

the senate from coming to order and placing a vote before the deadline of midnight central time. a few hours later, it was all sorted out. the vote that took place did so after midnight. the bill failed. yes, governor perry, the very next day, called for a second 30-day special session starting on monday. and davis would need to filibuster a bill for two weeks to stop it this time. but the people have been and will continue to be heard in texas. also in ohio this week, 17,000 signatures were delivered to the office of republican governor john kasich on thursday, all in protest of a new harsh state restrictions on abortion rights. the budget which contains those restrictions now awaits governor kasich's signature until he has 11:59 p.m. on sunday to use his line item veto power. and continuing to speak their mip minds, the thousands of moral monday protesters in north carolina this week, protesting the state government's radical right-wing agenda. one of those protesters,

92-year-old rosanell eaton, who in her early 20s was required to recite the preamble to the constitution just so she was eligible to vote. she was willing to get arrested this past monday to protest against new voter restrictions. so as we continue to see the repressive action at state level, so too are we witnessing the waking of a sleeping giant in the form of the people's fight. rejoining the table are kenji owe seeno and wade henderson. barbara, the people are fighting back! how do they win? >> well, listen, we win when we fight. that's one guarantee. you'll never win if you don't fight. >> that's certainly true. >> and one thing we knew about the supreme court, was even if they would have upheld, we would still have to fight. fight to enforce it. we've got to fight now with the legislature. listen, i'm asking people everywhere, rise up. rise up for justice. this is a fight about the new america. american is in a transitional stage. people right now want to go to the old america, the 1950s, that

america was unequal it was unfair, it excluded too many people. we want a new america that's just, that gives people their individual freedoms, that's respectful of our human dig any and that accords to all of us equal rights. so this is a fight, everyone, and we have to stand up. this is our moment to carve a new constitutional reality for americans, to make it real that we are all in this fight together. this is our common destiny. this is our manifesto. and if we don't stand up and fight, make our voices heard, take it directly to our legislature and have one thing enshrined on our mind, 2014. >> yeah, yeah. and we saw this in wisconsin, right? they led the way. >> can i, as a wisconsinite, no one's ever prouder in my state, all right? and i like to think that wisconsin responds to nap remember that depressing moment

after 2010, when people really did feel they had been put in a corner. in those cold days in 2011, wisconsin rose up. and i love wisconsin, but i think there is a sense of wisconsin got this incredible play. everybody paid attention. and then an awful lot of people thought it went away. like, one state did its thing. the fact of the matter is, over the last two years in state after state, often alone, often unnoticed, people have risen up. in maine, they have done incredible things to fight against paul lepage. and i love what happened in texas this week. i think it means as much as wisconsin. and i think that miss davis should run for governor. i'm very excited by that prospect. what a race to cover. but let me also say this. it was not about her. >> yes, yes, yes. >> they cape -- legislators rise up all the time. they say -- they speak truth to power all the time, and then to they have to sit down because nobody came. they stormed into that capital -- >> those images -- >> that was a wisconsin moment.

that was an occupy moment. >> it's a north carolina moment. they're going every single monday, they're going. >> i love that. >> activism is alive and well, across the country. and what we're seeing in north carolina, being led, in fact, by the naacp state conference, but many other organizations joining together to make their voice s heard and to link arms with activists in texas, ohio, maine and other states, making clear that if we both fight back, as barbara has suggested, but also organize our efforts in ways that we connect the dots, that's how we're going to win. so we have a website, www.restorevotingrights.org and lots of other efforts are underway to collect data, to have that data connected to the activism on the ground and to aim for the political changes that will occur in 2014. >> you know, the point about the moral monday folks, that they come every single monday. and now they're having witness wednesdays too. i mean, so that feels to me very

much like a montgomery bus boycott, where people staid off the buses for an entire year. but also your point about wendy -- davis, i'm sorry, i feel like she and i are running buddies. but the fact that she wasn't just speaking herself, she was reading all those testimonies of the people's filibuster who had come. they had come to filibuster and then been silenced. and she was reading their stories. and yet, right, and yet perry can call another 30-day session. and apparently can do so forever, right, repeatedly. although it's very expensive to do so. and so maybe texans will be irritated by that eventually. but i thought about the rules, you know, it's easy for me to feel in my core like they've done something wrong here. the peep are pushing back. but the people were also pushing back in the tea party. so, you know, how do we on the one hand have the rules but also respect that the vote is too blunt an instrument? that we have to be able to speak

in between elections as well? >> so it's a great, great question and i'm so glad you raised the tea party issue. when i think about this, i'm so conflicted. because prop 8 itself was like the people rising up and speaking. >> exactly! >> so there what we need, i think the supreme court did the right thing when it said, originally populist was used to cabin special interests in society, now it's being used to sort of whale on minorities. so therefore we need some more filtration in the process. i think what i'm for is just dialogue, right? which is to say, you know, constant dialogue between elected representatives and the people at the large. i think that when we get tilted over one wing or the other, it gets very dangerous in either way. >> right, right, right. so for me, i'm always reminding my students that the ku klux klan was also a community-based organization. so we just have to be careful. on the one hand, i want the people to fight back, but i also want to think about, the terms you were fighting back were controversial. we've got much more on the people's fight, because there's

a little bit more of the people's fight. remember, we've been talking to you about the struggle that continues about those everyday low wages at walmart? that fight continues too, when we get back. [ female announcer ] it's simple physics... a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits

with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion.

visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk. 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'. the people already taking on the world's largest retailer were also making their voices heard this weekend at internet giant yahoo!. protesting walmart workers took their case to yahoo!'s headquarters on monday, where five of them were arrested for their actions. but that didn't deter the moouc movement. on thursday, protesters were also at yahoo!'s annual shareholder meeting, demanding answers from marissa mayer, the yahoo! ceo who is on walmart's board of directors. one woman who said she was illegally fired from walmart and denied freedom of speech asked mayer, quote, are you going to bring yahoo! values to walmart or walmart values to yahoo! and then asked to meet with mayer, who reportedly replied, i'm sorry, because what we're here

to do is yahoo!'s business. here to discuss is dan slaterman, campaign director for making change at walmart. nice to see you, dan. >> good morning. thank you. >> so we've been talking about sort of the people pushing back in any of a variety of ways. what did the protesters hope to accomplish by going to yahoo! and confronting mayer? >> well, i think, you know, the beginning of this is that walmart workers just went out on strike again, responding to illegal retaliation at walmart in june and they took those strikes and put them on national caravans across the country to walmart shareholders meeting, where they really had their voices heard, and they were really, again, the questions about walmart's business model and walmart's illegal retaliation was front and center during walmart's big show at their annual meeting. and walmart feels threatened by that, and unfortunately, has responded by illegally firing and disciplining scores of leaders of walmart workers who were part of this strike. as of just this week, it's up to

over 40 workers who have either been fired or disciplined. so the reason why people went to yahoo! was because marissa mayer, along with a lot of other folks, who were on walmart's board of directors, really has a responsibility. right, they are supposed to be the independent voice to be able to say to this company, you're breaking the law, you're making bad decisions, this is not good for the company. and so they went there, they first went to yahoo!'s headquarters and tried to meet with marissa mayer, and unfortunately they were arrested. and then they also went to yahoo!'s shareholder's meeting, where they were able to talk to her directly, but unfortunately, she chose silence other than dealing with this really egregious act by walmart. >> so, dan, let me ask you a question, because when it comes to protests, for example, in north carolina, at moral mondays or in texas, people know what they can do to be supportive, right? they can show up. they can sign the petitions, they can vote. it's a little tougher when you're talking about an employee strike, particularly at a

retailer as enormous as walmart. so, you know, we've covered this a couple of times, but it may be less clear to folks, how are they supportive? y'all aren't calling for a boycott of walmart, right? what are the things thconsumers can do, because it feels like walmart might also respond to consumer pressure. >> sure, i think the question about consumers is, i mean, they're incredibly supportive. whenever we're out talking to consumers, we get an incredible amount of support here. i mean, they understand what walmart is doing is violating basic american values, you know, the values of free speech, values of freedom of association. they understand that those are important to them as well as to walmart workers. and so, i mean, right now what we're really asking them to do is to go to changewalmart.org, sign up on that website to gain more information. because there are regular events and regular can i have thes where they can participate a. and that doesn't mean coming out to a store and doing a demonstration, although that's a lot of what we're doing, there's a lot of online actions that people can do and a lot of other ways that people can support

these workers. and it's been exciting to see the level of support that's out there and the kind of support that we saw on black friday and the kind of support that we're seeing as people are learning about these egregious firings that walmart has just committed. and, you know, so i think we're really excited about what's about to happen. >> dan, i want to bring in john nichols here for a second. i keep feeling like in texas and north carolina, even in wisconsin, that maybe those who are in power have overreached. that part of what we're seeing is a tipping point, that's like, too much. but is walmart simply so wealthy they're just impervious to this sort of action? >> no, they're not. they have tried quite rapidly to remake their image. and they argue quite often. but i think that what dan's doing here is really powerful. if walmart itself is resistant to change, this sort of corporate campaign, where you go to the board members. remember, we right now watch and pray for nelson mandela. in the 1980s, when this country wasn't paying any attention,

what did you have? the sanctions movement. and you had people looking at corporate money from very responsible, very lovely american companies investing in south africa. similarly i, with the thing we just had, they exposed this american legislative exchange council, but not a lot changed until pressure came on the corporations that were part of it. these walmart workers who went to yahoo! they did exactly the right thing to change walmart. >> i'm so glad you said that about mandela. we are going to be talking about nelson mandela tomorrow on exactly that concept. for so must have us that were born post-civil rights, the antiapartheid movement was the first piece of political activism we were part of. thanks to dan slaterman in chicago and kenji here in the studio. we still have more nerdland, because up next we made huge progress this week for millions and millions of people. but house republicans are saying, who cares? whatever! immigration, when we come back.

ok s o i' 've been having ok s an affair of sorts o i' with greek nonfat yogurt, loaded with protein 0% fat that thick creamy texture, i was in trouble. look i'm in a committed relationship with activia and i've been happy and so has my digestive system. now i'm even happier since activia greek showed up because now i get to have my first love and my greek passion together, what i call a healthy marriage. activia greek. the feel good greek. ♪ dannon

much of our focus today has been on this week's ruling from the supreme court and congress has had a news making week as well. as a monumental step towards immigration reform was finally taken. the senate finally in genuine bipartisan fashion passed the gang of eight bill with a vote of 68-32. a key element in the bill that helped garner the level of support was the border security surge provision, which will require more electronic surveillance, double the size of the border patrol, and mandate 700 miles of border fencing. but because it's washington and nothing's easy, house republican leadership is already on the record, saying they will not take up the senate's version of the bill. still, just this morning, even while traveling in south africa, president obama urged the house to act now. >> now the ball is in the house's court. i've called both speaker boehner and leader pelosi and encouraged

them to find a path to get this done. and the framework that the senate has set up is a sound framework. it doesn't reflect everything that i would like. nobody is going to get 100% of what they want, not labor, not business, not the advocates, not me. but the time is right. >> so, what happens next? joining our discussion, attorney raul reyes of nbc latino and caroline fredericson, the american constitution policy for law and policy. so is there any chance we'll get immigration reform out of the 113th congress? >> possible. however, the key words that the president said there is that the ball is in their court. and he -- >> god help us. >> yeah. but i actually think, you know, the senate, we have to just acknowledge that this congress doesn't get anything done. so the fact that we've gotten to this point, it is extraordinary. we have to acknowledge that, and that the gak of eight stuck in there and hung together.

we're seeing tremendous democrat unity that we didn't have the last time we did immigration reform. >> but the thing is, i'm not necessarily sure that it would be a good idea to have the house come up with their own bill anyway. because, of course, theirs would be very heavy on border security, probably would not have the path to citizenship. but you have to remember, the senate bill, as we have it now, it is already so far to the right, to appease republicans. if the house, in the unlikely event they came up with something, the compromise would be in between those two, and that would be something that democrats and progressives would just say, no, this is too far. so everything, i think, is up to speaker boehner. is he going to allow the vote? that's the best way for it to go forward. >> this is such an important point about sort of how far to the right the bill already is. wade, i wanted to ask you, because it does feel like there are these conflicting political realities that the republicans realize they're facing. one is the growing latino population and the recognition that the president got something like two-thirds of the latino vote last time. or maybe even three quarters of

the latino vote, 71% versus 27, to mitt romney. but there's also this weird thing i wanted to show you on these two charts. they asked american, pew research in june asked americans on whether or not illegal immigration is higher, whether or not there's more illegal immigration in the country. and 55% of americans say, yes, it is higher. there are more illegal immigrants in this country now. but when we look at the empirical evidence also from pew, it actually shows that illegal border crossings peak in 2007, and then as you might expect, start coming down, right, because in part of the economic crisis. so how do republicans thread that needle? they so effectively convinced people that there's a big problem than there actually is. >> well, they've been working overtime. but let me just say, this was such an extraordinary week. first of all, to have the senate agree on a bill that provides a road map to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people is something we have to celebrate. but chuck schumer and the

democratic and republican support in the senate recognize that this issue of border security was so important, they've larded the bill with as much enforcement as you could possibly ask for. they've militaryized the border. i have to say, they've done that to the detriment of border communities who know the reality of how difficult this will be to function. the bill now moves to the house. that debate will continue. the real question is whether john boehner will put aside that so-called hastert rule, which requires him to have a majority of the majority. >> he had his whole term, pretty much. >> and it is. obviously, leadership is the issue. so convincing people that, in fact, it is not necessary to go to the extreme that the senate bill has done, in order to security the borders, is something that we hope republican and democratic leaders are try to achieve. i fear, however, that there will be additional efforts to move the bill further to the right by adding additional enforcement measures. and that's when leadership comes in, and that's where republicans and democrats have to resist the

effort. >> i think this was a very interesting moment, where the house is going to be of central importance, both on immigration, but also on voting. so on addressing the voting rights act. so i think it's a moment where i i i'm hoping, at least, the republican party is taking stock. are we going to exist in the future and do we allow for opportunity? this is so interesting, because this is a moment -- it's almost a redemption moment for -- and i want to say, for the 113th congress, not just so much for the republican party, but the idea that the house, whose public opinion polls have bottomed out, everybody hates the congress at this point, but they could redeem themselves. >> but it comes down to boehner. he has abandoned the hastert rule. and when he has done so, we have had action and movement in america. i saw a fascinating thing over these last couple of days. there's some very, very anti-immigration reform republicans who say, if boehner abandons the hastert rule, is

leadership in question? they're literally threatening to overturn it. and they were saying that america chose republicans. america didn't choose republicans to run the house. it's a gerrymanders house. the fact of the matter is, more people voted to have a democratic congress than a republican one. and if john boehner has a smidgen of regard for that post-election responsibility to governor, he should abandon the hastert rule on this and let the house vote. >> and not just that, but his choice, i think, it's not that complicated. he could lack to two models for the future of his party. the romney model of self-deportation and alienating latinos, which really didn't work out so well, or the george w. bush model back in the day, when he got 40-some percent of the latino vote. that's his choice. >> i think there's a marco rubio model and that's exactly what i want to talk about as soon as we get back. if you harm marco rubio now, do you end the possibility of having him as a candidate in 2016, as soon as we get back.

♪ i'm your venus [ female announcer ] what does beauty feel like? ♪ and where does it begin? ♪ it begins with your skin. venus embrace. every five-bladed stroke gives you 360 degrees of smooth revealing goddess skin you can feel and feel. only from venus embrace. also in disposables.

for their family. that's why i created the honest company. i was just a concerned mom, with a crazy dream. a wish that there was a company that i could rely on, that did all of the hard work for me. i'm jessica alba, and the honest company was my dream. [ male announcer ] legalzoom has helped a million businesses successfully get started, including jessica's. launch your dream at legalzoom today. call us. we're here to help. launch your dream at legalzoom today.

wait a sec! i found our colors. we've made a decision. great, let's go get you set up... we 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 the home depot. right now get $5 off one-gallon cans and $20 off five-gallon buckets of select paints and stains

go to the cafeterias in this very capital, and there you will find that the miracle of america is still alive. because here in america, those who once had no hope will give their kids a chance at a life they always wanted for themselves. here in america, generations of unfulfilled dreams will finally come to pass. and that's why i support this reform. not just because i believe in immigrants, but because i believe in america even more. >> that was florida senator marco rubio on thursday making an impassioned and sometimes a little corny, but deeply impassioned speech ahead of the immigration debate. mr. rubio, whatever you think of his politics, certainly embodies the gop's struggle over the

issue of immigration reform, and he put himself front and center, in which 14 democratic senators joined the entire caucus to vote in favor of the bill. that cost him the ability to be the republican nominee for president in 2016. >> not necessarily. >> okay. >> some of the early polling from iowa shows that he is still ranked very well as a front runner, but that a majority of iowans, this is the heartland, they are cool with immigration reform, including the path to citizenship. so some of that has has been overbloub by that small but very, very vocal anti-immigrant minority. so he has really, some of his posturing during this process, i will say, you know, has been mystifying or even annoying. but he owns it now. he's gone the distance and i think it remains to be seen. but right now the momentum is still there. it all is on mr. boehner. >> and the thing is, we saw sarah palin tweeting on friday, god help me, i'm so sorry i'm reporting this, we saw sarah palin tweeting on friday, obama

never president, but prp prm called rubio to congratulate him on immigration reform. hope it was worth 30 pieces of silver. yeah, was it is sarah palin. we could go with the nancy pelosi, who cares, but it does feel like there's clearly going to be a right that's going to flank around. on the other hand, he's actually better positioned to then win the presidency if we can win the gop nomination, given this kind of position. >> the irony is, she ran on the ticket with john mccain, who was a big proponent of immigration reform when he was running for president. until he started running for president, really. i think it's a very interesting, how the republicans are setting themselves up to have this interparty fight, with really the ones who actually see a future for their party recognizing that they have to recognize the dignity and humanity of all people and provide some path to citizenship. if they don't, there'll be consequences. >> the polls have shown that the

person people support comprehensive immigration reform. they really do, and in fact, the support is building. and voters like success. i think there is a real sense that the gang of eight has done a service for the country by producing a bill, even though it has its flaws. now the issue moves to the house. and obviously, mr. boehner has some decisions to make. but i thought your point earlier about this being a redemption moment for the 113th congress needs to be lifted up. because it is both immigration reform and a fix for the voting rights act that will determine how this congress is viewed going forward. i'm optimistic that the congress will eventually do immigration reform and i'm increasingly optimistic that there is growing bipartisan support for a fix of the voting rights act. >> two things to put in the mix here. number one, anybody talks about 2016 now is way ahead of the curve. there's a lot happening in between. and if you look at a three-year arc, a lot can happen. i don't think actions on this are necessarily going to disqualify. but the second thing -- >> i've been sitting next to

steve kornacki. he makes you think like two elections a day. >> in great britain, after margaret thatcher, the tory party lost and lost and lost and lost. and they kept doing things that reinforced their bad lost and lost. i'm not the biggest fan of this guy. david cameron said wee been losing for a long time. we've got to change. the only question with the republican party is the day somebody comes along and actually successfully organizes them to do that. that's the critical moment. will they do it this year? i don't know. i think it may be a early for them. but they'll come to a point where all of this no, no, no is going to confront them so much a someone will be a yes. and i would say rubio this week, and you called it corny. i thought he sounded kind of nice. >> you're like oh, oh, yeah, marco? this has been such a fun day. in just a moment, the next step

in the saga of little cheerio's. it's now a mixed girl's best friend. it's the cereal of choice for a all biracial gals. let's play: [ all ] who's new in the fridge! i help support bones... [ ding! ] ...the immune system... [ ding! ] ...heart health... [ ding! ] ...and muscles. [ ding! ] that can only be ensure complete! [ female announcer ] the four-in-one nutrition of ensure complete. a simple choice to help you eat right. [ major nutrition ] nutrition in charge.

a simple choice to help you eat right. 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 it's not a candy bar. 130 calories 7 grams of protein the new fiber one caramel nut protein bar.

for our foot soldiers this week, we have to start with that cheerio's ad that's been all over the internet and tv. you know, the now famous commercial featuring an interracial couple and their adorable taughter and the infamous response it received. so many hateful messages that youtube had to disable its comments section under the video. since then, the backlash to that backlash has grown stronger as people across the country show their support for both cheerio's and interracial families. that brings us to our foot shou soldiers of the week.

this interracial couple has created a website that is combatting the hate without saying a word. showing the reality that beautiful, loving, interracial families don't exist only in commercials. we are the 15% is a plblock thas gathered 2,000 photos of mixed race couples around the u.s. nearly 15% of new u.s. marriages are interracial. allison, a web developer and her husband michael, a program manager at a photography company and their 1-year-old daughter alexandra started the site with their own snapshot of the new normal in america. it's a snapshot i can relate to myself since my own mother is white and my father is african-americ african-american. since we are the 15% launched on june 5, photos from different communities all over the country have come pouring in and the conversation is expanding beyond

the black-white paradigm. some of the pictures amusing. some are touching. all reflect the changing face of the american family. allison and her husband say they're doing their part to elevate america's conversation about race and to make sure families like theirs are part of the conversation. they hope that this site helps their daughter understand she's a global citizen. and this is a simple affirmation that race does not determine family. for teaching all of us that valuable lesson. for showing us the many colors of love, allison west and michael david murphy are our foot soldiers of the week. that's our show for today. thanks for watching. we're going to take a look at the president's relationship with nelson mandela and explain why this presidential trip to the african continent is largely about china. coming up, alex witt. what makes a sleep number store different?

what makes a sleep number you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you wanted a firm bed you can lie on one of those. if you want a soft bed you can lie on one of those." we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. welcome to the sleep number summer closeout. where you'll find great savings on the extraordinary sleep number bed, as we make room for our latest sleep innovations. this is your body there. you can see a little more pressure in the hips. take it up one notch. you get that moment where you go, "oh yeah" ...oh, yeah! and it's perfect. they had no idea that when they came to a sleep number store, we were going to diagnose their problems and help them sleep better. and now, save $500 to $800 on the closeout of our memory foam and iseries bed sets. plus, free shipping-for five days only! once you experience it, there's no going back. don't invest in a mattress until you find your sleep number setting. but you won't find the sleep number bed in an

ordinary mattress store. only at the sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $699. sleep number. comfort individualized. 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. [ 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. ♪

we have a live report in a few minutes. plus life threatening heat across the country. jesse jackson joins me to discuss his take on the voting right decisions. and my conversation with nick wallinda. he told me his strategy if his he falls from that high wire. president obama is scheduled to meet with the chairwoman of the african union. he met with family members of the former south african president president obama talked about the former leader while holding a news conference with current south african