membership brings out millions of us on small business saturday and every day to make shopping small huge. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. actually it's republicans who could pay the real price on the voting rights act. when it comes to riling up a conservative audience, one slab of red meat is especially possible, court dashing. those activists judges, activists courts, out there thumbing their noses at people undermining the constitution with their unchecked liberalism which is what makes what the five member conservative majority of the supreme court did this week so ironic. the way the court invalidated a crucial component of the voting

rights act is a classic example of exactly the kind of judicial activism the right loves to decry. it is also, and where things get ironic, an example of judicial activism that has backfire potential for conservative movement and for the republican party as a whole. let's start by pinpointing that activism. seven years ago in the summer of 2006 the united states congress, democrats, republicans, even socialists from vermont, all of them duly elected by the voters, took up reauthorization of the voting rights act. extensive, exhaustive hearings, testimony from witnesses and debates on the floor. and then the vote was taken. in the house it was 390-33. it's 198 democrats for it. in the senate, it was senate 98-0. but those 33 no votes in the house were mainly from republicans in the south, the deep south. deep south states with a history of discriminatory voting practices. the states that did or were

covered up the preclearance requirements. basically if they wanted to change their voting laws in any way, they first needed to run it by the justice department to make sure it was fair. this provision, the preclearance provision, was renewed in 2006 along with the rest of the vra. gave rise to a lawsuit from alabama county saying preclearance was unfair, and reached the supreme court for oral arguments in february. here is where judicial activism comes in. listen to how antonin scalia addressed bipartisan overwhelming reauthorization of the vra in 2006. >> i think it is attributive, very likely attributable to a phenomenon that is called per pet wags of racial entitlement. it's been written about. whenever a society adopts a racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. i don't think there is anything to be gained by any senator to

vote against continuation of this act. and i am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in p perpetuity, unless a court can say it does not comport with the constitution. >> so, translate, scalia said congress is too scared to vote against something called the voting rights act. so he dared the supreme court to do the dirty work for congress. four of scalia's legs, roberts, scalia, kennedy, joined him in doing just that. section 4 much the vra, the section that sets criteria for choosing which states and counties are subject to vra preclearance is gone. in a way this is an obvious win for the right, a republican party that more than ever before depends on the white votes. it will be easier for republican-controlled states to go forward with voting laws, another procedural twists that

c could suppress nonwhite turnout. now think about this for a minute. in a way we've seen this show before. last year republicans scram belged to past a host of voting restrictions across the country. some went into effect. some were blocked thanks to the preclearance requirements, even in pennsylvania where they put a hold on the vra before the election. it was not healthy for democracy but in the end the entire gop effort backfired. the laws fermented a backlash which produced astonishing turnout of black americans. in 2012 even after the state radically curtailed early voting, the black share of the electorate surged to 15%. president obama carried the state.

scalia and rest on the court may have put the national republican party in a tough spot. they didn't eliminate the vra, just left it up to congress to update the formula for preclearance. if they do this, vra could be back online. democrats and civil rights leaders are calling for, this no surprise there, but so are some republicans. jim sensenbrenner, from wisconsin, who led the house floor fight for vra in 2006 said this week, quote, the voting rights act is vital to america's commitment to never again permit racial prejudices in the electoral process. this is going to take time and will require members from both sides of the aisle to put partisan politics aside to ensure americans most sacred right is protected. from republican top leaders, conservatives who hold sway outside congress and southerners who put up a fight in 2006, looks like they don't to want

touch this at all. republican's biggest long-term challenge is to become more diverse, only made worse if the gop stands by now and refuses to save the voting rights act. yes, it is possible the new voter i.d. laws and restriction will help the gop in the midterms next year. that's no guarantee. remember, they were supposed to do the same thing in 2012. it may be antonin scalia thought he was handing the gop a big victory this week but he may have given them a major headache this week. want to bring in berman, contributing writer for "the nation," danita judge, staff judge at advancement, amanda turco, senior political reporter and managing reporter for huffington post, and mo cowen, being replaced by ed markey. a little more than a week on your term, senator, so thank you for spending time with us today.

i'll start with you, because it was striking to me. it's tough to imagine anything bipartisan happening in washington today. i'm skeptical the two parties will come together on a real vra fix. it was striking to see eric cantor, number two republican in the house, talked about his trip to selma, jim sensenbrenner, i remember watching him in 2006, seems like there might some divisions within the republican party maybe to address this and address that section 4 issue. >> there ought to be. if anyone in the congress right now who honestly believes in the founding principles in our founding documents, the fact there is still discrimination in voting rights and voting opportunities anywhere should be offensive. it's an opportunity for the national republican party to put the truth to the myth they spoke about after the national elections last year. they would be a more open, inclusive party. we just passed the bipartisan bill in the senate.

14 republicans who signed on. still a number of republican who is said no. this is another opportunity for republicans in congress to stand up for what they claim they believe in. and it should be offensive to anyone there is still racial discrimination in voting rights. even chief justice roberts acknowledged that. so, it's unbelievable to me that he then took the action of taking away the most effective tool we've ever had to prevent discrimination in voting. >> it's actually -- maybe we can back up. let's talk about and understand what is left of the voting rights act at this point after this ruling. section 4, which basically controls seconds 5, was invalidated. section 2, which allows people to initiate lawsuits, still stands. what exactly is left right now and how does it work at this moment? >> actually at this point what is left is we still have section 5. we still have the preclearance section. we also have section 3 which could be used to bail in. basically while we have lost section 4 it was a major

setback. it crippled the voting rights act but if, in fact, congress can come together and really develop another coverage formula, then we still have section 5. and we intend to make sure that we use every tool that we possibly have, including advocacy within the community, public policy in terms of pushing back on bad laws, section 2 where we can, and certainly justices can help us in that effort, but ultimately we're expecting congress to act. the supreme court was extremely clear racial discrimination still exists. because it still exists then we need to fix that. and fixing that would certainly start with a coverage formula to bring back section 5 and to give it the teeth we need. >> i want to talk about what that potential fix to the coverage formula would look like. ari, in the meantime, we know even if things happen in congress, they take a long time. in the meantime we'll be existing without section 4 and 5 because of that. functionally how will it work

with section 2 governing us at this point. >> i think a post-section 5 world will be a scary place. we're seeing that immediately, five of nine states fully covered by section 5 rushed to implement new voter i.d. laws. the ink was barely dry in the supreme court and they're saying we're going to implement these laws immediately. it shows how much they want to initiate voter suppression laws. if the chief justice looked at the record since 2006 he would see section 5 blocked 31 laws from going into effect after congress reauthorized it. six of the nine states in the south passed new voter restrictions. since the 2010 elections alone. there was this real cognitive dissidence reading the opinion. he says voting discrimination still exists but he didn't talk at all about the wide scope of voting subscription. since this was reauthorized there was a wave of voter suppression we haven't since since 1965. >> i want to see if you can explain this a little more. one of the cases who were

supportive of the supreme court decision is, well, the world has changed since the 1960s, '70s, the coverage, therefore, should be updated. you write the states and counties, jurisdictions covered, actually it's a pretty accurate reflection of what should be covered at this point. can you explain? >> it's not a perfect formula. if you look at states fully covered by section 5, two-thirds of them passed new voting restrictions since the 2010 election. a very highen in number. one-third of the noncovered states passed new voter restrictions. there is a problem with voter suppression but a problem across the country. what the supreme court could have done is could have said, we have this problem. it's not being sdraesed well enough by section 5. maybe we should expand it. that's the logical conclusion. instead they said we need to narrow or limit it instead. >> and what's being left out of a lot of these discussions is you can bail out. if you aren't discriminating for ten years, you can bail out. the justice democrat recently

bailed out someone -- i think about a week before the supreme court case. it's not like these jurisdictions were stuck from preclearance forever. if they're not discriminating, they can get out. i thought justice ginsberg had one of the best quotes, if its raining, you have an umbrella and you're dry, doesn't mean you throw out your umbrella. it means it's working. >> we're talking about a split on the republican side theoretically. if congress were to address this, any talk of what a fix might look like? what a section 4 fix might look like? >> not at all. i would be more confident if there were a fix if sensenbrenner were chairman as he was in 2006. now you have chairman bob goodlatte. we asked him for a comment on the day of the supreme court decision. he said that he will be looking at it but he did not give a lot of confidence that he would be working hard to get a fix. there are supposed to be

hearings. i hope congressman sensenbrenner will step in because he had so much experience with this in 2006 but he's no longer chairman. >> we're hearing noise from chairman of the senate judiciary committee, pat leahy, and that's the pearn, goes to senate and then reacts. i want to ask senator cowan who might happen. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.

we started talking about the senate a minute ago. democrats control the senate. the judiciary senate committee, pat leahy, talking about aggressive wli beginning hearings and a process of fixing it this summer. we also this this week -- this is a quote from what he'd be up against, jeff sessions republican from alabama responding to the ruling. he says, i'm just not aware of any discrimination of that kind. and if it happens i have no doubt the alabama attorney general would prosecute it or

the u.s. department of justice will. you don't need a voting rights act if there's not a systematic violations. that's a prevalent attitude among a lot of republicans, southern republicans in the house. senator cowan, i'm wondering how you're hearing they'll approach this. >> i think the democrats leahy and chris kuhns will be pushing hard for hearings 37 we're not going to sit idly by and let that happen. it's still very much a problem. with respect to senator sessions, my friend from alabama, i think one only need to look at the congressional record from 2006 or read justice ginsberg's dissent and you'll see we're still plagued by significant problems when it comes to voting rights and

access. whether we're talking about alabama or south carolina or my birth state of north carolina, wherever there is discrimination or effort to limit the ability of anyone, particularly those who have been sort of on the margins and been over the course of this history, been denied the right, we have to stand up. that's what congress has to do. i gave my farewell speech on the floor this week, and i said, quoting my predecessor, john kerry, who i believe was paraphrasing ronald reagan, there's nothing wrong with the senate or congress that can't be fixed by what's right with the congress. we've been sent there to move this nation forward. any time there's any effort anywhere to restrict anyone's right to vote, we have to do something about that. now, we have that obligation, but we've been sent there by the people. and i think the people need to rise up and make sure congress hears them on this issue. >> what would you say, though, if senator cowan, another member came to you and said, we want to

patch up in a way to be approved by the supreme court. what would you say the guidelines for fixing it would be? >> i would say we need to look at modern day voter suppression and look at things like the photo dasht proposed photo i.d. laws being passed throughout the country. the roll back of early voting. we need to look at those. where we find there is discrimination, then we need to basically challenge those under -- whatever we have at this point. but certainly i think congress really needs to look at the modern day record. we have a ton from 2006 but we have a lot from 2011 and 2012 where we show the voter suppression in this country, which we believe was really -- had to do a lot with the fact that president obama was elected, and certainly we look at 2008 and 2012. we had laws -- attempts to roll back voter suppression against voters we've never seen in this country in modern days. so, we don't need to go back to 2006. we only need to look back two years and really bring that record forward. >> i was just going to say,

senator sessions doesn't need to look any further than his home state to find evidence of discrimination because shelby county, alabama, which brought this challenge to the supreme court, was guilty of a section 5 violation as recently as 2008. so, this is very much -- >> can you -- explain for me, what was going on in shelby county that -- >> so, there was a city in shelby county, passed redistricting plan that eliminated the only black city council district. took it from 71% african-american to 29% african-american. he lost that election by a few votes under a map that was not precleared by the justice department. the justice department stepped in, said you need to change this law. you need to get approval for your voting change. they changed the way districts were allocated. that man was subsequently re-elected in the new district so now there is a black city council member. this is the kind of stuff we'll see without section 5. it's not just going to be on a statewide level. there will be all these very important local races that get no national coverage. this is where the biggest impact

is going to happen. these are where the gains under the voting rights act are the most fragile and can be taken away most critically without anyone knowing. there's an irony, of course, of alabama, the state that's the birthplace of the voting rights act, being the one -- >> you raise an interesting point there. one of the features of the voting rights act and preclearance is if you're changing the map, changing the congressional redistricting, a state that's under preclearance, would have to run this by the justice department. i found the republican party, when it comes to congress, has actually liked that -- has liked the voting rights act in that it calls for majority/minority district. what republican map makers in southern states and elsewhere have been able to do, pack minority voters into small districts and the population outside of those districts is more republican-friendly. what ari is saying is look beyond the congressional map, city councils, state legislature and that is where republicans can make serious gains under this. >> and as air rari was saying,

doesn't get as much media coverage, doesn't get covered nationally, you won't have the outcry from congress and the statewide voter i.d. laws are getting passed. this is how republicans have been so much better than democrats although at getting people in on the ground level and city council, school board and gradually having them rise up to congress, senate and so forth, the evangelical movement, for example, was really good at this. so i think the voting rights act dismantling it could certainly do this on the local level. it could be again because it's not going t get attention. >> that's right. in 2011 i worked in hondle, texas, a majority latino community now. the redistricts were redrawn to actually reverse the district that had the majority control for the hispanic community. interestingly, the community did sue on that issue. and actually came back with a map that was -- not only gave

them one district but gave them to. really, they were the majority. and to see what is happening on the local level and how really there are so many opportunities for people to tweak maps that appear to be fair but aren't fair. they were drawn with the intent to discrimination that group. so, starting at the local level and making sure that we are aware of the record, not only naturally but what's happening on the ground. what are the communities saying? they are the people that know what's going on in their communities. we need to listen because they know when actually discrimination is happening. >> let me say, this is a clarion call for the communities of colors and others impacted by this decision to be even more involved at a grass roots level in our governance process. this is a clarion call. we're talking about the city council level, the state level, the federal level. we must get more involved in the gain and make sure our representatives are speaking for us. i'd also say to those leaders of

those states who rushed out to impose laws that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to but for this ruling, if, in fact, you're changing voting laws not to discriminate but for some other so-called legitimate purpose, then notwithstanding this ruling, submit your plan to the department of justice anyway. put it to the test. and if you don't, i challenge -- i ask the question, why not? i suspect we all know the answer. >> i want to pick up that point and talk a little about what -- what the south, in particular, what these coverage states could look like. again, we're talking about the possibility of a fix. if there isn't a fix, i want to talk about the future in the next 10, 20 years. with the spark miles card from capital one,

bjorn earns unlimited rewards for his small business. take these bags to room 12 please. [ garth ] bjorn's small business earns double miles on every purchase every day. produce delivery. [ bjorn ] just put it on my spark card. [ garth ] why settle for less? ahh, oh! [ garth ] great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. here's your wake up call. [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase every day. what's in your wallet? [ crows ] now where's the snooze button?

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

[ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. [ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, all this produce from walmart and secretly served it up in the heart of peach country. it's a fresh-over. we want you to eat some peaches and tell us what you think. they're really juicy. it must have just come from the farm. this right here is ideal for me. walmart works directly with growers to get you the best quality produce they've ever had. what would you do if i told you all this produce is from walmart? wow! is it really? (laughter) find fresh peaches and all your quality produce. backed by our 100% money back guarantee. walmart. talking about the south and preclearance states, states that had been covered under the vra. when we look at election results, mississippi, alabama, it's how racially poerm ilarize

electorates are now. i think the number was among african-americans in mississippi it was like 96-4 for obama. among whites it was 90-10 for romney. it's completely polarized. there was an african-american candidate for governor of mississippi in 2011 and you had basically a very similar trend to that. where, you know, basically it's become in the deep south white equal republican, black equal democrat. and, you know, it just strikes me, what is the way besides having a majority/minority district to get representation foss americans if they don't have the numbers and voting is that polarized rashlgly? >> well, certainly, i mean, the korl courts have looked at the fact that initially there was some crossover. there's always been some crossover with majority/minority districts to help them along because people don't always vote in a bloc. sop people cross over. i think what we're seal is it is so polarized throughout those states. i am concerned individuals in

power make the rules. certainly they make the rules with regard to redistricting. while we won't redistrict on the congressional level for another eight or so years, local districts don't have those same rules. so, we have to all be concerned when we start to see these individuals drawing districts or doing things that really are going to disenfranchise and hurt, because it is very, very polarized there in the south. and i'm just not -- i'm concerned what will happen at this point. >> it starts to remind me when we talk about the immigration debate and we talk about -- right now it's passioned sena p senate, in the house. we say it's in the broad interest of house to passi immigration law. if you look at surviving republican primaries, there's a strong incentive for them to vote against it. i wonder if the same thing exists to fixing the voting rights act. clearly, the republican party, i think it's not been since 1960

they've gotten more than 20% of the black vote in the national election. clearly long overdue for the republican party to repair its relationship with the black vote. you look at individual republicans in the south and they're looking at this, preclearance states and saying, wow, this is a way to guarantee our party will stay in power. >> there's a short versus long-term tension here. in the short term it's true. not just in the south but areas where demographics are changes acutely, texas, west virginia, and where they are trending blue. you'll see republicans pass a whole slew of laws like north carolina is doing, cut earlile voting to try to tamp down early voting. in 30 years, can you be a party that's trying to suppress a majority/minority state. it will be difficult to pull off

in the long term for republicans. >> i agree with that. i think republicans are working against themselves right now. i think there's going to be some backlash from this ruling. we may see it as early as the elections next year, if not even earlier than that in local elections. i think republicans have to get right with the electorate and they're not right now. there's work to be done. if you look at the numbers behind the vote in 2006, as you indicated earlier, it was those southern republicans who fought hard against reauthorization. but the broader republican bloc, you know, with some rationalitity and reason got beyond that. we're although that pivotal point again. if the national party is serious about what they spoke about after the national elections last year, we need to see that right now. >> republicans they're in part doing immigration reform to show they care about people who don't look like themselves. that they are -- you know, they're not the party of just upper class white voters. now they have the voting rights

act. if they don't do anything about that, what they're doing on immigration reform will not be enough. i think that's something that eric cantor, who has been trying to go about and creating a warmer, fuzzier, republican image later, that's something he realizes. at the same time there's risks but i don't remember the name of the congressman but he and republicans don't want to say anything on this because they don't want to say something wrong like they've been doing on abortion and basically look racist. they're trying to figure out where the least amount of risk for us going forward on the voting rights act. >> it was amazing to listen to boehner and mcconnell be asked about this this week and they went out of thr way to say nothing. i want to pick up on the issue of 2006 and the reauthorization vote in the house. 390-33 overall. although it was interesting, sara binder who studied the votes. there were a bunch of amendments republicans offered designed to weaken the voting rights act.

republicans put them up for a vote. nothing actually passed. republican support for these amendments. all of these would have weakened vra in some way. there was fairly significant republican support for weakening the vra. none reached the majority threshold and when the full bill became before the house, most republicans voted for it. when you have republicans control the house, when you talk about fixing the vra, the question has to be asked, where exactly is the republican party on this? i wonder, you know, do you have a sense of this? have they moved significantly from 2006? 2006 maybe a good -- is that a good baseline of where republicans are? do you have a read on that at all? >> i don't have a read on it but i would say in 2006 we were pretty sure that the voting rights act was going to be reauthorized. right now we're at a point where we have nothing.

i can't read the tea leaves. i don't think any of us can. certainly we're at a point where we don't have anything. and so hopefully, i'm hopeful, that a bipartisan congress will look at this and say, you know what, we realize the discrimination still exists in voting. we need to stop it. none of us should be tolerant of it and that they will come together to work with us on a coverage formula. >> nancy pelosi this week said, and again we're talking about how this would -- if a fix would probably originate in the senate, but nancy pelosi said she envisioned introducing something in the house being called the john lewis voting rights act. if you had a bill called the john lewis voting rights act and every democrat lined up for, it you have republicans like sensenbrenner maybe lining up for it, what does it look like for a republican party to be saying no at that point? >> someone like john lewis with a moral stature who almost decide to pass the voting rights act in alabama f you have him on the floor every single day

making the case for voting rights act, that being covered on the national news, it will be hard for republicans to turn their back on someone like that. and i think there are people within the democratic caucus within the house who have the moral stature to get this done, to make it the legacy. to say 50 years we've made a lot of progress but we had 200 years of slavery, 100 years of jim crow. if we want to get to the post racial future we still need protections to go there. >> we have the issue of the supreme court which is what started all this this week. i want to talk about what sort of the game the supreme court is playing here, long term on this and other civil rights issues after this. 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. rescue workers have opened up a lot of dawn. ♪ they rely on it because it's tough on grease yet gentle. but even they'll tell you, dawn helps open... all: 3, 2, 1! [ male announcer ] ...something even bigger. this year, dawn is also donating $1 million to rescue efforts. go to facebook.com/dawnsaveswildlife. find out how the little things you do can make a big difference.

we had the vra decision from the supreme court this week. we talked about this last week, affirmative action ruling on monday, which got completely lost in all the news of the rest week. the common thread between them was you had the conservative majority on the court. they didn't outright kill affirmative action and they didn't outright kill the voting

rights act. they kicked affirmative action case back to the lower court and said, see if you can clarify, see if you can fix this. they kicked it back and said, see if you can fix this. i wonder, do you see some sort of strategic thinking or strategic or political thinking on the par of the conservative majority donita, when you see the two rulings this week? >> when i look at the two rulings, it seems to me that while the supreme court has said one thing in terms of that they understand that, you know, discrimination still exists, on the other hand they're saying, well, you know what, discrimination doesn't exist. i mean, we're -- you know, there's no reason for affirmative action. so, it seems to me there are cross-purposes there. it either exists or it doesn't. it exists in voting, exists in education, exists in housing, it exists in this country. we need to recognize that. the supreme court taking those two positions, depending on where we are, i think really -- it hurts. and it leaves us all questioning, where is the supreme court?

>> it was really kind of sickening to see the court release these decisions before the doma and prop 8 decisions knowing full well the gay marriages would overshadow. you had an issue where affirmative action got no coverage and doma was a one-day story. can you imagine eviscerating the most civil rights story and then we move on and. they had months to make these decisions and didn't need to release them in one week. >> the supreme court is an opaque institution. it's not just about issuing rulings, it's about when issuing them, the wording. it seems there may be calculation in terms of, we don't want to be the court that actually strikes down affirmative action. strikes down the vra, we'll technically leave it to

congress, leave it to a lower court. do you see that calculation? >> absolutely. i see it's one of the most activist court we've seen in some time. there's a human cry any time a court does something that seems to favor the liberal side of the ledger as that's a bad thing. this is a very conservative and activist court. i think the opinions we've seen this week, and you go back to citizens united, you look at the obama care decision, which came out favorably, but as i believe had a poison pill in there about the impact of the commerce clause. we have a court very politically astute. and they are very calculating in what they decide to do and how they do it. now, we're starting to get an insight into that because the court is beginning to speak more publicly, individually, the justices. i think justice scalia the last few years we've seen him speak his mind, be quite candid about how he views the constitution and certain of the past actions of the court, which have all been about ensuring equality for all americans. i think this court is being openly hostile right now to that

concept and believes the federal government shouldn't have a role and to ensuring equality written into our constitution, i think that's a problem. >> with scalia got passed over tore chief justice in 2005 it seems he's been freer and losing with how he's talked. it's been interesting in talking to him. i want to thank you senator cowan, and donita judge of the advancement project. i want to speak to historic figure about today's battles for equality. to accept less and less in the name of style and sophistication. but to us, less isn't more. more is more. abundant space, available leading-edge technology, impeccable design, and more than you've come to expect from a luxury vehicle. the lexus es350 and epa-estimated 40 mpg es hybrid. this is the pursuit of perfection.

and epa-estimated 40 mpg es hybrid. aren't always the most obvious. take the humble stevia plant, with a surprising secret to share: sweetness. truvia sweetener. zero-calorie sweetness, born from the stevia leaf. from nature, for sweetness. 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 the act of soaring across an ocean in a three-hundred-ton rocket doesn't raise as much as an eyebrow for these veterans of the sky. however, seeing this little beauty over international waters is enough to bring a traveler to tears.

we're putting the wonder back into air travel, one innovation at a time. the new american is arriving. remember the 1972 presidential elections as the worst ever for republican party. mcgovern couldn't track 40% in popular vote against nixon and carried only one state, massachusetts. became a point of pride when the whole world learned the grim details of watergate and massachusetts motorists took to driving around with bumper stickers that simply said, we told you so.

1972 there was just no touching nixon. that was especially true in colorado, which was then a lot more conservative than it is today. nixon's margin in colorado was 28 points that year. even in the hub of the state's liberalism, denver, mcgovern still lost by double digits. and yet in the congressional district that covered denver, in that awful year for democrats, there was a big election day surprise. the incumbent republican congressman, james mckevitt was knocked off by patricia schroeder, field attorney for national labor board. when she was sworn in in january 1973 she became one of just 14 women in the house. the only one raising small children at home. this is back when it was widely assumed that women who worked did so out of boredom. a newspaper story said schroeder looked, quote, more like a college co-ed than a professional politician. they had no idea. over the next generation, congresswoman schroeder would

emerge as leading advocate for working women, families, those who lacked a voice. it often pud her at odds for her own party. a majority in a minority. she changed the way people thought of women in power. americans will remember geraldi geraldine ferrara's run and hillary clinton. pat schroeder ran for the nation's highest office back in the 1988 cycle. she wanted a congress that looked more like america. on that front, the progress of the last 40 years is undeniable. nearly 100 women in the house today. for the first time ever, white men don't make up a majority of the democratic caucus. but there are also limits to that progress. when she retired in 1996 it was just after newt gingrich took

over the house. we'll talk to pat schroeder about what has changed for women, for politics for the country and what hasn't next. have a good night. here you go. you, too. i'm going to dream about that steak. i'm going to dream about that tiramisu. what a night, huh? but, um, can the test drive be over now? head back to the dealership? oh, yeah. [ male announcer ] it's practically yours. [ wife ] sorry. [ male announcer ] but we still need your signature. volkswagen sign then drive is back. and it's never been easier to get a passat. that's the power of german engineering. get $0 down, $0 due at signing, $0 deposit, and $0 first month's payment on any new volkswagen. visit vwdealer.com today.

it's not a candy bar. 130 calories 7 grams of protein the new fiber one caramel nut protein bar. [ 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.

now i want to welcome pat schroeder, former presidential candidate and a trail blazer for women in politics. great to have you here. >> thank you. i'm honored to be here. i love your show. so it's great to be here. >> excellent, excellent. you know, one thing that struck me as i was reading back some stories from your career this week before you came here is when you retired from the house in 1996-1997, two years after gingrich, the republican revolution, and the story was harsh confrontation between house republicans and bill clinton, lots of investigations,

lots of overheated rhetoric from republicans, lots of obstruction. and i think, you know, we're seeing the same thing today. it feels like -- has anything really changed in 16, 17 years? >> i think it's gotten worse. i mean, that's what's shocking to me. i must say is i finally did is, look, i'm 55 years old. i get dressed up every morning sdpi feel like i'm in a food fight every day. all i do, come home, go back to bad, another food fight. after two years of that i decided it's time to retire because my first 22 years were wonderful. we literally got things done. it was amazing. so, i really thought that gingrich was going to be around for a while because i thought there were a lot of democrats that didn't quite get it. they were so shocked by that '94 election. they didn't really understand that they were -- you know, they needed to organize and push back. i thought, it's going to be a long time we're in the weeds, so i think i'm not going to stay in the weeds and do food fights. well, i thought gingrich was

bad. then came tom delay, the tea party, all these people who don't believe in government at all. why are they there? all they want to do is disrupt. >> you watched that. you came to congress after the '72 election and you saw that growth, that development, that evolution on the right where back in the '60s and '70s you had pragmatic, who wanted to do something, the birth and rise of gingrichism, as you say, that philosophy still dictates. can you talk about watching that evolve and the origins of that? >> the way i can put it most personally because for a long time i was co-chair of the women's caucus. we had a republican woman and democratic woman so we worked together. olympia snowe and i were co-chairs together for a very long time. we would all meet, get together. it was the largest bipartisan caucus on the hill because we didn't let men be officers but we let them in if they voted

right. we did all of that. all of a sudden when gingrich came in, if i was talking to olympia or to connie morella, my friends on the republican side, we were very good friends and still are, somebody would come over and say, what are you doing for them? get over here. it was like, we were going to contaminate them. >> all partisan warfare all the time. >> all partisan warfare. it was almost -- they were policing it. literally. and i thought, boy, i never thought i'd see this day. and i just got more and more miserable. i can't imagine what it's like now. >> and i wonder, the experience of being a woman in congress. we set it up a little at the beginning when you first got there. the newspapers treated it almost like a novelty that, well, here's this woman and she has a family and she's in congress, too. we've obviously made a lot of progress there, but how much progress do we still have to make? >> oh, the whole thing was so funny. i remember my husband and i, after i won the primary, going back to meet with the democratic congressional campaign and they kind of said, you won? well, there's no hope, you know,

and that was the end of that. again, i had been at the labor board, as you said, so i knew a lot of the unions. i came back to met with the afl-cio and they said, no way. ours was grass roots, wonderful, terrific. then i got to washington and it was like, thank goodness i had gone to harvard law school before because i had always gone to de-sexigrated school and harvard, they said to me, we haven't sat next to a girl and we're not going to now and they went up up and changed their seelt. i was like, okay. congress was kind of like that. everybody -- i would try to come into the parking garage and they would say, look. how many times do we have to tell you? secretaries don't park here, or whatever. it was always -- it was always a test. well, you don't look like a congressman. i'd say, well, okay, i'm sorry,

i don't look like one but here's my credentials. so, it was a constant test. and i -- i'll never forget one of the older bulls asking me to coffee and i thought, this is good. i'm having a breakthrough. we're having a conversation. he sits down and says, i don't know why you're here. i said, i don't know what you mean. he said, this is about beautiful women regal, leer jets and thousand dollar bills. i thought, it's over for me. >> so much for the breakthrough. since you left the house we've had a female speaker of house, nancy pelosi, hillary clinton come very close in 2008. we only have about 30 seconds but i want to put you on the spot. when you think about 2016, hillary clinton, are you thinking, this is the year? >> absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. i think they is so experienced, so wonderful. i mean, i can't say enough good things about her. i think she's just a real

treasure. and we would be crazy not to have her. >> another ready for hillary endorsement. we're keeping track of these. we have another hour talking doma, prop 8, we'll have you here next hour. looking forward to. discriminatory law signed by a democratic president, overturned by a conserve ty court after this. [ male announcer ] a doctor running late for a medical convention

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.

[ male announcer ] call 1-800-lifelock and walmart's super summer savings event is here. this 5-piece dining set on clearance, save over $49! how bout all these bikes on rollback? like this mongoose adult bike, you save over $20! get more summer for your money at walmart's super summer savings event. i wanted to talk about the two other big supreme court rulings this week. the defense of marriage act ruling, supreme court invalidating the 17-year-old law, and prop 8 in california. we'll talk about prop 8 later. we want to start with the defense of marriage act. i want to bring back amen da terkle, reunion of congress,

richard so richard, gay liasoi for bill :ton. bill clinton's re-election year, 1986, signed it in september of that year, two months before the election. he signed it, the legend has it, in the dead of night when no one was looking but then he ran ads on christian radio stations say bill clinton signed this -- >> as they were pulled, very quickly. >> ads that ran, nevertheless. so it's a complicated legacy because in one way, there's this big victory this week the conservative supreme court has handed to gay rights movement. doma is gone now. caused so much havoc for so many people. the federal component is gone. it's only there in the first place because a democratic president, because bill clinton signed it. congressman, i'll start with you. you were there when it happened. can you tell us what you thought when bill clinton signed it? >> i was very disappointed when he signed it but not surprised

because he telegraphed he would sign it. i led the fight against it. there were a lot of people in the democratic party and the republican party, i assume, who voted for it just because they didn't -- just because of politics. they didn't think it was sustainable politically not to support it. >> i mean, you are right that it is extreatmently -- extremely complicated set of circumstances. it's hard to go back, even though it was 17 years ago, it's hard to go back and reimagine what the time was like then. but i think it's not completely -- doesn't give a full picture to say it was only enacted because bill clinton signed it. you have to think about it in terms of, this was six weeks out from president clinton's re-election. the republicans were trying to in a very die locabolical, reald

tough political way make gay rights an issue that they could be used -- used as a wedge issue against president clinton. this was an effort by bob dole, who was head of the republican party that year, to try to insert gay rights into the 1996 presidential election and to use it as a wedge issue against president clinton. >> right. so, the background on it was there was a case in hawaii that was suggesting that possibly hawaii would legalize same-sex marriage. a republican issue ated thing we'll have doma which says the federal government doesn't have to recognize hawaii's -- >> no, no, no. >> but also -- >> no, no. the entire debate, it's very interesting now. the entire debate, as my recollection is, all the debate was on section 2 of doma. that state one does not have to recognize gay marriage performed in state two. nobody discussed section 3 of doma, which is what the supreme court just overturned that says the -- >> right. states don't have to

recognize -- >> there was no discussion of that at all. the whole thing was, my god, if hawaii legalized same-sex marriage it's going to force arizona to recognize it and force this one. that was the whole debate on both sides. >> it was the fear of the full faith and credit, part of the constitution. literally. you remember when people would go to nevada to get a divorce and everybody had to recognize it. it was like, oh, my goodness, here comes hawaii and those crazy people out there are going to -- well, everyone will run and get married and come back. and it was really kind of an anti-court thing, too. this is going to come through the courts because i think they felt so secure that if it was on the ballot, they'd be safe. i was on the judiciary committee, too, with jerry. it was a very painful time. >> extremely painful. >> bob barr, married multiple times, our lead guy talking about how he was having to defend marriage. i remember many of us making catty stachlcat catty statements like, really? >> really, mr. barr?

>> causing you to have these divorces sequentially? >> you like marriage so much, you've had a few of them. >> the question with clinton is, i take your point, obviously, this was the republicans trying to trap him. it's an election year and that's what your opponents will try to do to you. i think the question when you talk about bill clinton's legacy and people grapple with this, this was not clinton, 48, dole, 47 elections. the most recent poll when he signed it, september 20, 1986, a cbs poll that day said 36-34. bob dole was calling the dodgers the brooklyn dodgers. i have a soft spot for bob dole, have i to say, but he was a hapless candidate and bill clinton was going to win this election. when you talk about his legacy, the criticism comes n how many people bill clinton really wanted to sign this? most people i talk to say they don't think he really wanted to sign it. maybe he's going to take a hit, instead of being 56-34.

>> that's why he's so successful politician. they don't take any election for granted. you're right. listen, president clinton recently wrote this op-ed in "the washington post" before the cases were argued at the supreme court. and he himself said, i signed a piece of legislation which i should have known at the time was unconstitutional. i mean, i can never remember in american history a president saying, you know, a living president, a president who's out of office but still alive, saying i signed a piece of legislation when i was your commander in chief that was unconstitutional. it was a very big moment. >> did you think he wanted to sign it back at the time in '86? >> i wrote a long piece for "the new yorker" about why this was happening. i did not believe he wanted to sign it. i believe in his signing statement he was saying, i don't to want sign this and don't anybody think this is an excuse to discrimination. and he went out of his the way to say, i don't believe in

discrimination. there was a -- quite a extensive argument going on in the white house at the time, key veto it? what would that mean? could he allow it to become law without signing it? because you don't have to veto -- it's not your only option. you can just let it sit, a pocket veto. what were the other options? but, you know, at the time you've got to remember, there were -- there were only 14 members of the u.s. senate who voted against this bill. a veto would have been overridden. there was no state in this country where same-sex marriage was allowed so it affected nobody. there was less than 30% of the american public who supported same-sex marriage six weeks out of a presidential re-election. that was the case. i made the case to him that, mr. president, your legacy -- think about your legacy. think about, do you want to be remembered for this? you will be remembered for this. same-sex marriage is possible.

it's going to happen. on the other side his advisers were saying, you are against same-sex marriage as are 70% of the american public. this bill will affect nobody. you're six weeks out of an election. we'll deal with it later if it comes to pass. >> can i just add, too? remember, when it was introduced in the senate there were only two co-sponsors, and bob dole was one of them. >> right. >> i don't think any of us -- i voted against it, as did jerry. >> profiles in courage, right here. i'm serious. it was very difficult to do, no matter where you were from. >> but it was like a brush fire. i mean, you know how slow congress is now? you can't get anything through. you can't name a post office, for crying out loud. this thing went at a thousand miles an hour because -- it must have been karl rove or somebody came up with this, saying if we do this, we can -- >> how does it affect his legacy? >> i mean, it's certainly a blemish on his legacy. he was on the wrong side of

history. while there may be some sort of political cost, it doesn't seem like it would have been that big, he wasn't lbj. he didn't stand on the right side of history. he was also concerned in his first two years in history he had to deal with don't ask, don't tell. i think he was -- that didn't go well at all. you know, he came up with this middle ground where gays could serve in the military but not openly. people weren't happy. i think he was ee luck tant to take on this issue again and what it would do to his legacy. there was this short-sightedness where this wouldn't affect anyone. vermont didn't have civil unions until 2000. for many people this was still abstract. >> it started to affect people within the first decade. something interesting happened, or reported to happen with bill clinton in 2004. hi, i'm terry and i have diabetic nerve pain. it's hard to describe, because you have a numbness, but yet you have the pain like thousands of needles sticking in your foot. it was progressively getting worse, and at that point i knew i had to do something.

once i started taking the lyrica the pain started subsiding. [ male announcer ] it's known that diabetes damages nerves. lyrica is fda approved to treat diabetic nerve pain. lyrica is not for everyone. it may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, changes in eyesight including blurry vision, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or skin sores from diabetes. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. ask your doctor about lyrica today. it's specific treatment for diabetic nerve pain. ask your doctor about lyrica today. 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 to fly home for the big family reunion. you must be garth's father? hello. mother. mother! traveling is easy with the venture card because you can fly any airline anytime. two words. double miles! this guy can act. wanna play dodge rock? oh, you guys! and with double miles you can actually use, you never miss the fun. beard growing contest and go! ♪ i win! what's in your wallet?

so it was this past march when bill clinton officially reversed his opinion on defense of marriage act. he wrote an op-ed in the washington post. it was unsatisfying for me because i don't think he fully grappled with why he signed it and all the political calculations. the one case he did make is that he thought it forced a more serious push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that would have been harder to get off the books. would have had more fallout long term. we're talking about what bill clinton did within the confines of 1996, when gay marriage was a fringe concept. nobody was talking about it. there's this anecdote that stuck with me from the 2004 campaign. rove and all these republicans got anti-gay initiatives on ballot. we talk about ohio, on the ballot there and passed. this was from "newsweek" aes -- "newsweek" would have imbedded reporters from campaigns and do

tell-alls at the end of the came pain. they said a phone conversation between clinton and kerry, in an earlier phone call clinton, ever the political triangular looking for ways to pick up swing voters by reaching into so-called red states, had hurnlged kerry to back local bans on gay marriage. kerry respectfully listened and then told his aides, i'm not going to ever do that. bob shrum told this story. i don't know if it's true. the clinton coming across here is the same clinton i see from 1996. i say in 2004 it's different from '96 because now you have gay marriage in massachusetts, civil unions in some states. to me that kind of complicates bill clinton's legacy on this even more. >> well, i mean, the first thing, important thing to note, is president clinton, you know, his staff has said, his staff has said recently when this was resurfaced he did -- this did not occur. and they say that it's a total fabrication, i think, is what his spokesperson said. so, we're talking about something that one side says,

mr. -- mr. shrum says it happened, mr. clinton's people said it didn't happen. we don't know if it really happens. it's tricky because it evokes this part of bill clinton we saw, as you saw, the triangulation of the '90s where you could find a little middle position and give a little on one side, give a little on the other side. so, we don't know if it happened. i tend to doubt it. i've stayed in touch with president clinton ever since he left office. he tend to call me on these things and, you know, as i'm sure he calls a number of other people. he doesn't just talk to one person, as we know. i would be surprised if that happened. >> what do you think of bill clinton legacy on gay rights overall? >> it's a mixed legacy. this makes it a mixed legacy. other than that he deserves credit. he's gotten a bat rap on don't ask, don't tell. people forget, he tried -- you

had a policy in the military that said no gays. he tried to stop that by executive order. he said, we're going to have gays in the military. and then sam nun and others had the vote in the senate and house to take that discriminatory policy and put it into law. and to prevent that, they came up with the compromise -- the not very good compromise, to put it mildly, of don't ask, don't tell. but he was forced into that pep tried to do the right thing there. and he issued executive ors on certain things and he appointed a gays and lee bsbians to high-profile positions. the big negative, obviously, is that he signed doma. that's hard to forget. >> through executive order he signed. remember, the most important -- two most important things on my mind on the clinton legacy on gay rights, he's the first president to say gay people had a right to be entitled to be open and be part of the political process by the appointments he made and so forth, and by seeking

supporters, first person running for president ever in 1992 to seek the support of the gay community. concretely he signed two executive orders. one that banned sexual orientation discrimination in the federal civilian workforce. another one that banned federal government from denying security clearances to people because they were gay. >> that's right. >> and this was -- this was, you know, unheard of at the time. if you think that it was a small thing, if you think it was a small thing, when he signed that executive order banning employment discrimination in the federal government, the republicans in congress tried to get -- tried to deny funding to its enforcement. they tried to override it. and they only missed by like 12 votes. >> that's right. that's true. >> the thing that daik i think the thing that comes back when i talk to specifically on the issue of gay rights but when i talk to people who were generally supportive of bill clinton, whatever their issue was, they say the common theme is they think his heart was in the right place. >> his actions were in the right place. >> well, and they understand that, you know, also he was an unusually smart politician there

terms of this is what have i to do to get elected, stay in office. the question with clinton, de compromise too much in the way of staying in office? >> i think have you to put one thing in context. de all these good things for gay rights. in an unprecedented manner and in a time when it's hard to remember what the time is like now. and on gay -- on gay marriage, he did this one bad thing. but you have to remember, i think, in putting that into context how fast things have changed. in 2009, 13 years after he signed that, and only, what is it, four years ago, when i introduced the respect for marriage act to repeal doma, i had members of congress, liberals, gay groups saying, don't do it. don't introduce a repeal doma bill. it's getting the wrong issue on table. we should concentrate on employment, nondiscrimination act, don't get into that we do bait, four years ago.

now it looks like a mild thing. look how fast this is changing. he couldn't have anticipated that. >> nothing worse than being a leader, getting out there and looking over your shoulder and finding no one behind you. that's kind of what he was seeing. also the heat of the campaign thing. i think the worst thing that happened -- i thought he showed his real commitment after he got elected and did these executive orders and tried to change the military. and he had been so active in the democratic leadership council. here it is, the democratic leadership council going after him at 100 miles an hour, trying to undo it. so, that -- i think he gets a little credit there. >> but you make a very important point. i mean, it is -- it is for sure a mixed record. it is a guy trying to do the right thing most of the time, sometimes giving into political expeed yhency. i don't mean mr. shrum made up that story. i think people remember it differently. happened a long time ago.

a footnote to history. i will say you have to view it in the context of the moment. and i think that, you know, president clinton, like most other americans, has evolved. what happened to him happened -- >> to everybody else. >> -- happened to everybody else. for those of us who have been involved in this a long time, it is an education campaign. it it is not about assigning blame -- >> i understand that. a lot of evolutions, the polls have evolved, too, so of course the politicians have evolved. >> you look at -- i mean, now he's great on lbgt issues. he's out there. he's an advocate. it would be nice to see him now do more to repair his legacy, for example, by pushing for employment nondiscrimination act, which when he signed doma he said, i would like to see congress push this as well. it failed by one vote. now 53 co-sponsors in the senate. it should be -- you know, harry reid expects it to get more time in the senate after the july 4th

recess. it would be nice to see president clinton push for that more. >> a politician who stood up for gay americans when it mattered then and now. g a payment. and you've got the it card, so we won't hike up your apr for paying late. that's great! it is great! thank you. at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card with late payment forgiveness. woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen.

aren't always the most obvious. take the humble stevia plant, with a surprising secret to share: sweetness. truvia sweetener. zero-calorie sweetness, born from the stevia leaf. from nature, for sweetness.

1978 was not supposed to be a good year for gay rights. in florida a high profile campaign led by anita bryant successfully overturned miami-dade county ordinance. a result that spurred gay rights opponents to think nationally. their next target became california where an initiative was placed on the ballot, brigz initiative, or proposition 6, it would ban gays from teaching in public schools and more. news reports from the time give us indication how vulnerable rights of gays were in that crucial pivotal moment as the vote on the initiative approached. >> unlike earlier gay rights questions in other parts of the country, it would not apply just to homosexuals. the law would empower school boards to require anyone for advocate, soliciting, promoting

of private or public homosexual activity directed at or likely to come to the attention of school children and/or other employees. >> in the middle of all of this was california's governor, jerry brown. brown was running for re-election in 1978. while the gay rights movement gained a foot hold in some urban areas it was a risky move for statewide politician, especially a politician like brown who wasn't married. the governor 39 years old and still a bachelor, one news story noted. it's impin whispered any man who's never been married must be homosexual. his highly private lifestyle has only fanned the rumors. jerry brown did not duck the issue of proposition 6. he opposed the referendum, and in the end so did a host of other political figures including ronald reagan. went down to defeat 59-40% on that november.

brown's stand against the briggs initiative was not an isolated effort. he issued an executive order to prohibit job discrimination by the state and spoke up for gay rights even as he ran for president in 1980. now to 2008. brown is making a political comeback. california's attorney general. same year voters narrowly approved pop significanceroposi gay marriage, making general attorney jerry brown a defendant. although he had no interested in being a defendant trying to justify the law in court. >> as we evaluated the law, that law, we believe, says that to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marriage, while you're giving 18,000 couples that right, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. >> in that decision by jerry brourngs much older, much

balder, then married version of the same jerry brown who fought the briggs initiative in the '70s paved the way for what the supreme court did this past week. the state of california refused to defend prop 8, anti-gay marriage activists stride to step in to make the case. the supreme court ruled wednesday they didn't have standing to do so. that meant lower court's ruling stood, which meant gay marriage became legal again in california. it meant that jerry brown, now once again governor jerry brown, could order his state to be allowed what happened on friday. >> by virtue of the power and authority vested in me, by the state of california, i now declare you spouses for life. >> you know, so congresswoman schroeder, we talked about bill clinton, the complicated legacy there. jerry brown ran against bill

clinton for president. i am struck by how consistent on this issue jerry brown has been going back to a time when issues such as goo gays teach in school? >> i think he came from california which is more progressive than arkansas and backgrounds of the south. i'm from the west, high altitude, maybe it's my brain, but i often wonder if we turned this argument around and if the gay and lesbian community had said, we're special people so don't come and ask us to serve in the military because we don't want to do that, and don't ask us to take responsibility because, no, we're not going to do this marriage stuff, i have -- i wonder if the right wing would then say, oh, no, you're going to -- you're going to have to come forward on this. so, i so often find we who are progressives are always on the defensive end. they're coming at us 100 miles an hour. they have framed it, oh, you people want something from us.

you're the takers. >> you have an agenda. >> the homosexual agenda, the takers. i don't know. but i salute jerry brown. he's been very consistent through all of this. and he has succeeded politically. >> what i'm curious, though, about there were so many different ways the court could have settled prop 8 this week. what they settled on was the state of california didn't defend it, therefore, didn't have standing. they could have made a much more sweeping declaration that gay marriage is legal across the country, states with legal union -- i guess, amanda, is there some issue with what jerry brown did was noble in a way and ended up getting gay marriage for his state but gave the court an aout to be less ambition than it did? >> the obama administration also decided not to defend doma which made house gop step in and perhaps led to defeat of doma because john boehner worked to defeat it. so it worked the other way on that case. there is the possibility,

though, the court could have said that states don't have to -- you know, that prop 8, you know, would have been upheld. it could have hurt the other way. so i think what jerry brown did was -- i think what he did was right. i think it was in line with what he has stood on. and when prop 8 was struck dourngs he immediately before the stay was lifted by the 9th circuit said, the state can start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples even before it was cleared. >> i loved it. >> it's very refreshing to see someone be -- like jerry brown be consistently progressive and consistently courageous. >> absolutely. >> there's no ifs, ands or buts. he's been excellent on this throughout. i think what the court did is very interesting. they ducked it on standing, although to be fair, chief justice roberts has been trying to narrow standing on a host of issues. so that was consistent for him. but beyond that, if you look at

justice kennedy, justice kennedy wrote the majority decision in the romer case in colorado, wrote the majority decision outlawing anti-sodomy statutes in the lawrence case ten years to the date before doma, wrote majority decision in doma. he was careful to not find doma unconstitutional on a straight equal protection argument because if you did that it would be impossible to distinguish the prop 8 case, it would be impossible to say a state could get away with it. he came up with this half federalism, half equal protection, violation of equal protection because you're upsetting the favorable thing the state wanted to do to the same group of people, which is a strange amalgam. justice scalia was right when he wrote in his dissent, it's impossible to see how the court can avoid a couple years from now, outlawing state marriage

statutes given justice kennedy's reason. he'll obviously go full steam in -- if he's at all consistent, in the next case. >> we were talking earlier about how the seeds were planted in the right when it comes to affirmative action, voting rights acts, these plays that play out in several acts and ultimately lead to -- it may play out the other way. >> justice scalia wrote in his dissent in the lawrence case that the rationale of the court would lead to saying that it's an equal -- that anti-marriage statutes -- anti-marriage equality are antiof my equal marriage. >> let's hope it's true. >> we have a couple of potential test cases coming. the first state where i think this might be next litigated is new jersey. we can talk about it next. ys stg is because i have to go to the bathroom. and when we're sitting in traffic, i worry i'll have an accident.

be right back. so today, i'm finally going to talk 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 cannot 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. [ susan ] today, i'm visiting my son without visiting every single bathroom. [ female announcer ] today, talk to your doctor about toviaz.

so gay marriage is legal again in california. we want to talk about where this

will happen next. we have a map. you can put that up. the blue states it's legal. california now has flipped. a few other states in recent months have flipped like minnesota, rhode island. green is what i want to focus on right now. you see a couple green. these are states that have civil unions, domestic partnerships, rights of marriage without calling it marriage. in new jersey, particularly interesting one there because the question is, the legislature, the democratic legislature in virginia -- excuse me, in new jersey, you have votes there for gay marriage. you have a republican govr governor, chris christie, who has vetoed it. the question, a, will the legislature now override chris christie? the second question in new jersey is the state supreme court a few years ago ruled you can't distinguish -- you can have civil unions, call them civil unions as long as you get everything you get in a marriage. with doma now being -- >> that's clearly not -- >> right. you have federal benefits for

heterosexual married couples in new jersey that will not apply to civil union couples. so new jersey will be the next test case. >> there are four scenarios presented to the people in new jersey. it matters if you live in new jersey and chris christie is your governor, you can't get married, but if you live in new york, across the way and andrew coup cuomo is your governor, you can get married. two scenarios, christie might change his mind. i haven't given up hope for that. >> i'm not sure i see that one. >> things are happening so quickly that he might actually change his mind. >> 2016 republican presidential prospect? >> it's possible. the other thing is this gets put on the ballot in new jersey. the latest polling shows over 60% of the voters in new jersey want their citizens to have the right to same-sex marriage. >> i think it would pass if it was on the ballot in new jersey. >> do you put rights on the

ballot? >> is that something you should be doing? >> you shouldn't have to be doing it. >> i don't think you should have to be doing it. in new jersey, the gay rights movement, which i'm a part, they say no way will we put our civil right on the ballot. that's made sense. in a place where new jersey where it looks like it would pass fairly easily and where governor christie, who also looks like he'll be governor for a good, long time, is going to block it. i think we might want to seriously consider accepting his invitation. this is an invitation he made. he said i'm going to veto it because i don't personally support it. go ahead, put it on the ballot. he said, i'll support your right to put it on the ballot. >> right now it doesn't seem like the legislature has the votes to necessarily override christie. it seems like the courts or referendum, i'm less optimistic christie will be changing the constitution. >> right. christie just denounced forcefully the doma ruling this week.

>> he did, although he did invite a referendum. he didn't telegraph which position he would take on a referendum, if any. >> he said he would be against it. >> it's interesting so watch the polling on new jersey because it's a progressive state. you look at maine last year, these things started passing in some blue states last year. i think it would pass in new jersey if they put it on the ballot. >> also new jersey, if the supreme court of new jersey said, you have to have something equivalent to marriage and civil unions may be that, now clearly civil unions is not equivalent to marriage because it doesn't come under the aegis of civil union. you go to -- >> jerry is right. here's what's going to happen next in these cases. in all of these states, all the purple states for sure, but even in some of the red states, plaintiffs, real people who want to get married, are going to take the supreme court decision in the windsor case, in the doma case, not prop 8, but doma,

they'll go into state court and say, here is this decision from the u.s. supreme court which says the united states constitution guarantees that i have a right to be treated equally. now, the whole -- >> state marriage statute. >> but i think that decision is so powerful reer toer ttoeer te. it stet out this blended equal protection, due process, federalism blend. a very new kind of very kennedy-esque approach to this. but i think a lot of people will be able to take this precedent and go into state court and going to get state courts and state supreme courts in all places in this country and going to get these state constitutional -- >> the other issue at the state level, and pat i want to ask you about this because ralph reed, christian conservative activist, after the rulings this week he said, yes, it's a win for the gay rights movement but he likened it to the equal rights amendme amendment. he had some states willing to

ratify and then it stalled. he said look at that map. the same thing is going to happen with gay marriage. a large number of states will never accept that. when you hear that comparison, what do you think? >> what he's thinking is he's going to raise a whole lot of money. no, don't you think? that's exactly -- i mean, he's thinking, whoa, this is great. because we saw the equal rights amendment do the same thing. but i honestly think it's different because i think the young people and a lot of people my age, they're just not there. and so, good luck, ralph. i can't -- i just can't believe that that's really going to happen. maybe in the south. i mean, he's going to win -- it's going to be very tough in the south. and i still don't know why we can't push full faith and credit a whole lot harder and say -- >> there's an issue -- well, when it comes back to the supreme court then, ruth bader ginsburg has made public comments about balance between public court and supreme court. and drop offs

begins with arthritis pain... and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪ 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, special financing-for one week 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. ... you thought wrong. seize the summer with up to 50% off hotels at travelocity.

i did? when visa signature asked everybody what upgraded experiences really mattered... you suggested luxury car service instead of "strength training with patrick willis." come on todd! flap them chicken wings. [ grunts ] well, i travel a lot and umm... [ male announcer ] at visa signature, every upgraded experience comes from listening to our cardholders. visa signature. your idea of what a card should be.

we were talking about ralph reed's comparison of gay marriage and equal rights amendment. another comparison i've heard from a more credible source is comparing public opinion on gay marriage with public opinion on abortion. ruth bader ginsburg made public opinions about the effect of the roe v. wade opinion on abortion. what you've seen for the last 30-plus years has been that -- is very stable. public opinion on abortion is very stable. she seemed to be saying the court made a broad national ruling. could have made a limited ruling like just for texas. instead made a broad, national ruling. she said that created a backlash and locked in polarization on abortion. this is how she said it. i'll let measure explain it instead of me. >> my judgment is court ruled -- not that the judgment was wrong,

it certainly was not. but it moved too far. my thinking and maybe we'll never know qul i'm right or wrong. >> a lot of people have connected that to the gay marriage question and they say the same thing -- we're on course for the same thing to happen with gay marriage where we're moving so fast, it will become like abortion, we'll reach a level of public opinion where acceptance will peak here and that will be that. >> i think it's like abortion in roe v. wade or more like interracial marriage. court said interracial marriage can go ahead. most people have no problem have problem with interracial marriage where abortion it's not becoming more and more popular like it once was. i understanding where she's coming from. i'm not sure same-sex marriage is coming from. with younger people it's more popular, as more people are out of the closet now. and it's simply, like with

interracial couples, they seem them, they know them, they're fine with them. with abortion, most people don't know somebody that's had an abortion. it's not in front of people every day. i see where she's coming from but i'm not sure if it's exactly the same. >> i think it's exactly different. i think loving is the proper example. when the supreme court came down with loving, 27% of americans approved of interracial marriage -- >> 1967. >> 1967. the difference is -- so it's even worse from that point of view. the difference is, two reasons why i think opinion is shifting so rapidly. number one, young people, young people even republicans, conservatives, have no problem. they don't understand what the issue is. that tells you where the issue is going. second of all, unlike with abortion, with abortion if people think a fetus from the time of conception is a person, they have that opinion for religious reasons, whatever reasons, you're not going to move that for those people who

firmly believe that. with gay marriage, when people see that people marry and nothing else changes, there's no harm. we've had gay marriage now in massachusetts for nine years. nothing happened. all the different predictions of doom, nothing happens. it's going to become very acceptable. >> a few seconds. first year in congress was the year roe v. wade happened. >> absolutely. i really feel one of the problems we've had is that they've been able to define it only about the fetus. no one ever looks at the mother. we're terrible on safe motherhood issues. people watching this wonderful pbs show dontown abby, people are tying of pre-eclampsia. they made this myth it's about wonderful women wanting to wear prom dresses sxand wanting to g

rid of a baby. the media is terrible. when you talk about gay marriage, you're talking about two individuals and people who want to support each other. a lot of people think that's a very good value in our system. >> what should we know today? my answers after this. be an e- and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.

so what should we know today? we should know because congress failed to act, student loan interest rates will double starting tomorrow. interest rates on subsidized loans will rise to 6.8, which means an added artturi unnecessary burden for 7 million americans. bills introduced by members of both parties to avoid the rate hike. nothing passed before the deadline. since the senate packed up for their nice long fourth of july holiday, nothing can happen until after the break. republicans were sending vaguely threatening letters to the heads of major sports league. mitch mcconnell artturi john

cornyn trying to warn them from partnering to promote awareness about obama care. kathleen sebelius said nfl had been interested in the new law. three days later thursday, before any partnership plan was set, mcconnell artturi cornyn encouraged the nfl artturi five other sports leagues against cozying up to obama care. their letter reads, quote, should the administration artturi allies suggest any policy consequence to the decision not to reach out to their efforts, we urge you to resist any such pressure to contact us immediately so we may conduct appropriate oversight. three years after her surprising loss to scott brown in the 2010 massachusetts senate election martha coakley is considering a run for governor. according to the boston globe, people close to her say she's considering a gubernatorial bid

in 2014. we know if she does decide to run artturi win the democratic state primary, they could have a martha coakley scott brown rematch. that's because the senator has said he's interested, he has also flirted for running for senate in massachusetts, running for the senate in 2014 in new hampshire artturi even running for president in 2016. while we don't know if coakley will get into the race for governor or how she performed this time around, we know we have not seen the last of scott brown artturi his truck. want to find out what my guests think we should know. >> a great turn with the supreme court. it took position, filed briefs in 18 cases artturi lost in just three of those. the roberts . >> we know we have to pass

respect for marriage act, people will get federal benefits wherever they live in the country, not just marriage recognizing states. what we should know by the end of the week is whether secretary of state kerry who extended his trip in the middle east to try to get peace talks going between israelis and arabs, he's canceled trips to other countries. we'll know bit end of the week whether he's successful or not. >> part of my childhood, i lived in dallas, texas. every morning we had to get up artturi sing "the eyes of texas are upon you." this week my eyes are on texas. wendy davis and tremendous -- i'm hoping rebirth of progressivism from the past. i'm hoping something wonderful would happen. >> they really made you sing that song. >> they really did.

i didn't even know there was a star spangled banner. >> the return of politics to texas. several big firms will fall on the issue of whether or not americans prove of the approach the supreme court has taken to same-sex marriage. i think you're going to see overwhelming support from americans everywhere for the approach the court took, and i think rather than deaccelerate the progress, you'll see an acceleration towards the approval of gay artturi lesbian americans are entitled to free rights across the board. start to see that next week in the results of these polls. >> i tend to agree. we had the discussion before. i see it, more two cents. jerry nadler, pat schroeder, former senior adviser to president clinton, thanks for getting up artturi thanks for joining us. back next week saturday artturi

sunday 8:00 a.m. eastern time. coming up next melissa harris-perry. on mhp, president obama's relationship with nelson mandela. why his trip to africa is oddly about china. the oddly timed speech. melissa harris-perry, she's coming up next. we'll see you next week here on "up." [ male announcer ] if you suffer from a dry mouth then you'll know how uncomfortable it can be. [ crickets chirping ] but did you know that the lack of saliva can also lead to tooth decay and bad breath?

[ exhales deeply ] [ male announcer ] well there is biotene. specially formulated with moisturizers and lubricants, biotene can provide soothing relief and it helps keep your mouth healthy, too. [ applause ] biotene -- for people who suffer from dry mouth. 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. 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. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. aren't always the most obvious. take the humble stevia plant, with a surprising secret to share: sweetness. truvia sweetener. zero-calorie sweetness, born from the stevia leaf. from nature, for sweetness.

just who was on trial in florida this week. plus the president's speech on the law enforcement. msnbc is coming to new orleans and we're bringing a free clinic with us. first, the first first black president and what he means to so many of us. good morning, i'm