this case unlike anyone else. today for the first time we hear how the jury went from deeply divided to a not guilty verdict. it started with a knock-knock joke and ended in an acquittal. has the game of law evolved into a game? and i'm steve kornacki. speaking of games, they're playing a new one in the senate right now. dodgeball. trust me, it's painful to watch. >> you've got to learn the five ds of dodgeball. dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge. if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. >> what? ow! and we're back. for weeks we have been speculating, what does the jury think? how are they making their decisions? we know about one of the

anonymous jurors who's now speaking out about the george zimmerman case. after 16 hours, the jury found that george zimmerman was not guilty of both second-degree murder and manslaughter. this juror explains that initially the jurors were split. here is some of her interview with cnn's anderson cooper. >> we had three not guilties, one second-degree murder, and two manslaughters. >> can you say -- do you want to say where you were? >> i was not guilty. >> how do you then go about deciding things? >> we started looking at the evidence. we listened to all the tapes. two, three, four, five times. we looked through pretty much everything. that's why it took us so long. >> do you think he's guilty of something? >> i think he's guilty of not using good judgment. >> so you believe that george zimmerman really felt his life was in danger? >> i do. i really do. >> do you think trayvon martin

threw the first punch? >> i think he did. >> do you feel you know truly what happened? >> i have a rendition of what i believe happened, and i think it's probably as close as anybody could come to what happened. but nobody is going to know what exactly happened except for george. >> now, juror b-37 explained how both sides tried to play to the jury. defense witness dr. vincent di maio was, quote, awe inspiring. he also said the knock-knock joke in it the opening remarks was horrible, nobody got it. that's a quote. everybody knows lawyers are supposed to be jealous advocates for their clients. yet, after watching the entirety of these proceedings, a lot of people are wondering whether justice was serving and if this is what lawyering is supposed to look like. let's open it up and ask our illustrious panel. we have seema ayer, a former

prosecutor and defense attorney. as well as our good friend prosecutor patrick murphy. thanks for being here, guys. seema, let me start with you. based on what we saw in this trial, was this fairly representative of what people should expect to see in criminal trials around the country? >> for the defense, it was fairly representative. there was zealous advocacy. there was tireless effort. for the prosecution, i've said it once, i've said it again, they fell way below the standard of what prosecutors normally perform like. they were not prepared enough. their presentation of evidence was faulty. they did not align with their victim. they didn't align with the community. they didn't fight hard enough. >> seema, when b-37 said that the jurors went back and said three of us voted for not guilty, two of us for manslaughter, one for murder two. now we know initially they listened to the evidence and were split. what does that make you think

about the presentation of the evidence? for three of the jurors, the prosecution didn't make a compelling case. >> first of all, let's not take everything she says as the truth. this is a woman who went on cnn 15 minutes after the trial ended and told anderson cooper all about her friend george. george said this, george said that. immediately she lost credibility with me. it's completely inappropriate to ever refer to either the victim or the defendant by the first name. were you going to ask me something? >> no, i'm not sure if i believe that we want to just throw out what she's saying. patrick, does it say anything to you about what the prosecution was able to do, that they convinced three of the jurors before they started deliberating? >> well, i think that just shows they did put forth a great effort. again, we said this from the beginning of the trial. this was a tough case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because that is the standard. that is the law. as i said earlier yesterday, the fact is that if the defense

wanted that jury to decide via the law, the prosecution wanted to decide via their emotions. if they decided via the emotions, they would have determined that george zimmerman was guilty and that would bring some sense of justice. but the law was stacked up against them. that's why these laws in florida are trouble for the rest of our country. >> and patrick, let me ask you, what about the impact of tv on this case? >> i think tv in a courtroom is a great thing. people don't understand what's behind closed curtains. they actually get to see it. i remember one of my first trials back in 1997. it was a murder case at the philadelphia d.a.'s office. sitting there with the victim's family and walking them through all the breaks in testimony. they think, is this a mistrial, et cetera. at least when they saw the trial on msnbc or other channels, we walked them through what exactly was going on. they got a better understanding of how the justice system works. >> you know, seema, you were

saying is a minute ago this is fairly representative in terms of what we can expect from a defense. i guess the question that raises for me is, if you draw a line between what we saw in the courtroom and what we saw after the verdict was announced saturday night like at the press conference, it seemed is like a lot of what the defense was saying, oh, you know, george zimmerman would have never been charged if he was black, it was very inflammatory. it offended a lot of people. i wonder if that's representative of what we can expect. is that a legal strategy in there still could be a civil suit here? are they trying to represent him in the court of public opinion somehow? what do you make of their conduct after the trial? >> there are two types of defense attorneys. ones that consistently seek out the media and ones that are respectful of the media but stay away from making statements. this outpouring of interviews by the defense, in my opinion, can only hurt zimmerman's future cases, whether it's a federal case, whether it is the civil case that they are pursuing. more and more statements are out there. that means more information is

divulged and it could be harmful to his case. i think these lawyers are taking advantage of this case for their own careers. that's the truth. nobody seems to want to hear that, but that is actually the truth. >> well, no, i think there's a lot to that. i wonder if they aren't slating the jury for the civil case, which is almost certainly going to come. probably sending a message to the doj, you don't want to come over here and try this civil rights case with us. also, yeah, it's a billboard. come and find me, mark o'mara, if you have a problem, and i can get you off too. >> but your point is actually completely accurate in that it's tainting the jury pool. this is what mark o'mara did before this case went to trial for months. he was putting out photographs, text messages, just so much hostile material about trayvon martin. so what you're saying completely has validity. at this point, do you really think that the united states department of justice is scared of mark o'mara and don west?

let's be serious. >> let me ask you this. the thing that jumped out most to me in this juror's comments -- again, we should emphasize this. this is one out of six. there may be some that started out it should be a guilty charge. they changed their mind. we don't have the entire benefit of all the jurors speaking out. putting that caveat on the table, you have to juror saying because of the heat of the moment and the stand your ground, they felt zimmerman was within his rights. i want to read again, he had a right to defend himself. if he felt threatened, that his life was going to be taken away from him or have bodily harm, he had a right. i wonder, seema, does that sound to you -- and patrick, jump in after -- does that sound to you like following the jury instruction closely, or is that a familiarity with stand your ground that came from somewhere else? >> i think it came from the media reports from before the trial and the fact that he asserted, george zimmerman, excuse me, asserted stand your grounds soon after he was

arrested. clearly, i heard that interview and what it told me was that she knew a lot more about this case and probably was not completely honest during jury selection. >> patrick, let's talk about stand your ground. some people are saying stand your ground doesn't have anything to do with this because he didn't assert that in an immunity sort of hearing. but stand your ground completely changed the nature of the jury instructions and the nature of the understanding of what self-defense means in this jurisdiction. >> that's correct. it was part of the trial. we put on his law professor at the local college to say that he got an a-minus in that course and he covered stand your ground. it was part of the trial. and i don't understand your question about whether or not somebody was lying or not. they're just giving you their honest opinion of the trial as they lived it. i will say that it does speak volumes that these shoot-first laws are egregious. there is absolutely no reason why if you were the aggressor like george zimmerman was, who

profiled trayvon martin, why you should be able to then claim stand your ground as self-defense. it's wrong. it will result in vigilante justice. in this case, it was the cause of a 17-year-old young boy being killed. >> well, that's an important debate that goes to policy and should stay with us long after an individual try is resolved. one we'll keep an eye on. seema and patrick, thank you. up next, we'll look at this entire debate through the lens of history. we do have steve kornacki here, after all. >> really? >> and we're going to look at the serious and the symbolic. will trayvon martin become a lasting racial symbol, a part of our civil rights history like rosa parks or the march on washington or travesties like the rodney king beating? we'll look at all of that straight ahead. [ mrs. hutchison ] friday night has always been all fun and games

here at the hutchison household. but one dark stormy evening... there were two things i could tell: she needed a good meal and a good family. so we gave her what our other cats love, purina cat chow complete. it's the best because it has something for all of our cats! and after a couple of weeks she was healthy, happy, and definitely part of the family. we're so lucky that lucy picked us. [ female announcer ] purina cat chow complete. always there for you.

it's day three of protests following the zimmerman verdict. 100 demonstrators are staging a sit-in at the florida governor's office demanding rick scott call a special session of his state's legislature to address laws they say harm black americans. protests turned violent in los angeles overnight. 14 people were arrested. in washington today, faith leaders including reverend al sharpton gathered outside the justice department to demand a federal investigation. sharpton is also calling for peaceful vigils and rallies in 100 cities this weekend. with nearly 15 black men killed every day in this country, what makes this case extend outside florida and across the country? looking back through history, there are several examples of individuals becoming a symbol of the larger civil rights

movement. there are images from single events we associate with national civil rights movements. pictures from birmingham from the 1960s of police sicking dogs on protesters and firemen dousing protesters with high-pressure hoses. the march on washington 50 years ago this summer where mlk delivered his "i have a dream" speech among many others. for a historical look at this t let's welcome back civil rights attorney mya wiley and lsu law professor raymond diamond, who's written extensively on race relations and legal history. one thing that jumped out at me immediately after the verdict on saturday night was the press conference that the attorneys for trayvon martin's family, the press conference they held. there was an explicit linkage of trayvon martin to emmett till and medgar evers. obviously two icons of the civil rights movement. what do you make of that? >> i think there are two things that are absolutely accurate about ben crump's analogy.

what emmet till's death represented was a black boy murdered for crossing the racial line. right, the racial line being he looked at a white woman in an inappropriate way for a black person to look at a white woman and was brutally beaten and murdered. his death became a symbol for the color line in the united states. so it wasn't just that he was killed. it was that he symbolized the fact the racial color line could not continue to exist. his mother actually said people stood up who had never stood up before. that's one of the things that we're seeing in response to trayvon martin's tragic killing. people are standing up now who were not standing up before. so it has become both an example of injustice and, you know, in the sense that he was innocent, he was not carrying a weapon, whatever you think of the jury verdict, there's no question

that he was innocent. he was unarmed. he was not committing any crime except walking in his own neighborhood. apparently he crossed a color line. >> raymond, let me bring you in here. we talk about trayvon martin and living on, his story living on, his example living on and the symbolic importance that will outlive him. i guess that can kind of apply in a way to george zimmerman, too. he, in a very, very different way, also could be a cultural symbol going forward. >> yes, i think george zimmerman is going to be an icon. an icon of what george zimmerman is going to be, the boogie man. what george zimmerman did was to attack this young man, for what many believe were reasons of race. george zimmerman represents the very worst in our unconscious and our unconscious as we have unconscious racism. he represents the worst of our experience. he is the boogie man in that so

many black parents and black people will see george zimmerman as what could happen to them. >> mya, the juror b-37 said in her interview that they did not consider race in their deliberations. let's take a look at her interview. >> so you don't believe race played a role in this case? >> i don't think it did. i think if there was another person, spanish, white, asian, if they came in the same situation where trayvon was, i think george would have reacted the exact same way. >> that was a common belief on the jury that race did not play a role in this? >> i think all of us thought race did not play a role. >> so nobody felt race played a role? >> i don't think so. >> what she's suggesting there is that race is only considered or is only activated in a situation when it is overtly mentioned and underlined when somebody says a certain word or these sorts of things.

but your work on implicit bias shows us over and over that race impacts situations even when it's not overtly mentioned. >> yeah, this is our brains on race. there were several things that juror b-37 said that indicated that race was a factor in how they were thinking about it but that they weren't conscious about how it was a factor. for example, she says that, you know, trayvon martin was acting suspicious. you know, he was looking in houses. the fact that there was no mention by her that one of the things that trayvon martin was doing was he was scared because somebody was stalking him, right. so that's a racialized but a subconscious racialized understanding of what is happening. so one person with subconscious bias can look at that and not recognize that they're putting a veneer of race over it and not

realizing they're doing that. so i think what -- and remember one other thing, because this was a big, big problem, i think, with how this trial happened. the judge would not let the prosecution say it was racial profiling. so just to be fair, you know, certainly that was a decision that was a systemic -- the judge did not have to make that decision, in my view. that was a decision that greatly distorted the actual facts of the case. >> let's look at how these civil rights symbols are so contested. many people nowadays think of martin luther king a hero, one of the new non-government officials to have a federal holiday. yet, martin luther king was hated during his time. sometimes we forget that. >> his house was bombed. >> yes. talk to us about the symbol of the hoodie. we saw it initially long before this case was resolved, the notion that this young person wearing a hoodie was indicia of

suspicion or was simply an outfit choice, fashion, a decision that has no greater consequence. talk to us about how contested the notion of the hoodie has been and whether you think this is something that will stay with us. >> i think it will stay with us. it represents implicit bias. in my view, it's a really great example of how people are standing up and saying we're going to challenge the symbols of racism and the symbols here are that subconsciously, you will think i'm a criminal because i'm wearing a hoodie, when it's a fashion issue. my two daughters wear hoodies all the time. i think most kids of this generation do. >> so does mark zuckerberg, as people pointed out. >> exactly, but mark zuckerberg is not trayvon martin wearing a

hoodie. because of the stereotypes and fears that are not always conscious. there's one other thing i think is really important to note here. there's a new tumblr that somebody put together that is i am not trayvon martin. so black folks are appropriating the hoodie to challenge the notion that we should be feared. but now white americans are standing up and saying, and i'm not trayvon martin, to say i don't have to walk through life being afraid. i've committed crimes and not actually been penalized for the crimes i've committed because i am white. and i think one of the things -- and this is true of emmett till as well. one of the things that this symbolizes is that america is starting to see that race indeed still is a factor. that's something that happened when emmett till was killed. the violence in mississippi. it's happening now. oh, we do still have to think about race in america. >> some are seeing that. some are not. professor diamond, do some of these stories become

intergenerational stories that last forever like rosa parks, perhaps trayvon martin? and some stories don't. there was a person who would not get up off her seat on the bus before rosa parks. jordan davis was shot right after trayvon martin. his name is not resonating. why is it that some stories go on and last forever and some don't? >> unknown. but one thing that we do know is that with trayvon martin we have the benefit of a media which is treating this matter. we have the benefit of the internet. we have the benefit of social media. it's worth our while to note that when emmett till died, it was at the beginning of a time when television was just beginning its strength. television helped to bring the images of that trial to us. on the other hand, when james bird was killed in a lynching about 15 years ago, 1998 in texas, the media carried that trial as well. i think very few of us remember james bird.

it's less clear to me that emmett till will remain an icon than it is that george zimmerman will. again, the boogie man is real. he doesn't live under your bed. he lives out in the street and his name is george zimmerman. >> all right. raymond and mya, thank you for joining us. there's a lot more ahead. we'll be right back after this. humans. even when we cross our "ts" and dot our "i's", we still run into problems.

that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness with our auto policies. if you qualify, your rates won't go up due to your first accident. because making mistakes is only human, and so are we. we also offer new car replacement, so if you total your new car, we'll give you the money for a new one. call liberty mutual insurance at... and ask us all about our auto features, like guaranteed repairs, where if you get into an accident and use one of our certified repair shops, the repairs are guaranteed for life. so call... to talk with an insurance expert about everything that comes standard with our base auto policy. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

and leading the news cycle, jodi arias was back in a phoenix courtroom this afternoon. she wants the judge to throw out a portion of the jury's finding that made her eligible for the death penalty. the jury that convicted her agreed the crime was especially cruel under arizona law, but it couldn't come to a decision on the punishment. the hottest week of the year has a huge stretch of the east coast sizzling today. that's with a capital "s." highs are expected to top out in the upper 90s with heat indices in the triple digits. it will be at least the weekend before cooler weather moves in. this picture explains how we're all feeling this week.

it was sent on facebook to wnbc meteorologist rafael miranda, who's probably not the most popular man in town today. temperatures will still be near 90 tonight for the opening pitch of the major league baseball's all-star game. that's something i follow very closely. it'll be played over at citi field, home of the new york mets. mets' ace matt harvey will start for the national league. last night he pitched himself out to jimmy fallon and some pretty unsuspecting fans. >> hey, i'm matt harvey, all-star pitcher for the new york mets. i'm here to find out what new yorkers think about matt harvey. what about matt harvey? >> he's a stud. >> thank you. who's your favorite player? >> dude, harvey, man. >> you think he'll start the all-star game? >> no. >> who do you think will start? >> is kershaw, i think. >> i'm matt harvey, by the way. >> wait, what? >> yeah. >> i'm matt harvey, by the way.

>> very low key. >> now, let's turn to some pretty important hearings happening on capitol hill this week. when the supreme court struck down a key part of the voting rights act last month, which many people remember, the word was that congress would do nothing to address the ruling. it looks like that was wrong. tomorrow, actually, senate democrats are holding their first hearing on renewing the voting rights act. as i first reported for msnbc.com, the republicans are now playing catch up. they will hold a hearing in the house on thursday. the politics it here suggest a split for the gop. some senior members are joining democrats to back a voting rights renewal that addresses the supreme court's ruling. but some house republicans, including the man chairing thursday's hearing, trent franks, one of just 33 lawmakers to vote against renewal in 2006, some of those republicans say there's not enough discrimination today to justify the supervision in the voting rights act. so we think there's at least two key questions facing the

hearings. on policy, how can congress update enforcement to satisfy the court? on the politics, what can actually be done to get congress to take action on this issue? well, for the policy piece, we've got a law professor and the author of "ghosts of jim crow." to talk about the politic, adam green, co-founder of the progressive change campaign committee. thank you, both, for being here. >> good to join you. >> michael, i want to start with you and look specifically at how you can react to what justice roberts held in this shelby decision. essentially, congress was using old data to conquer a modern problem. and it needs to update the data. one question here, and we'll put this occuup on the screen for y can congress, a, simply update some of the numbers and data in these sections? can they modernize what is accounted as a trigger?

number two, sort of a 2.0 approach, can congress look at a formula that says, okay, forget the literacy tests of the '60s. let's look at where discrimination is happening today and let's patrol that. if it's happening in the north, so be it. let's then supervise the north as well. what do you think of those approaches? >> candidly, i think congress needs to do both of those approaches given the makeup of the court and justice roberts' opinion in shelby. i think congress needs to, one, focus on updating the formula, which means that they need to look at what has transpired since 2006 when it was last updated. they need to look at voter i.d. laws. they need to look at restrictions on early voting. they need to look at racial gerrymandering. they need to, in fact, establish that these things are going on and also to tie them in with past practices, practices during jim crow such as literacy tests,

grandfather clauses and look at two aspects. one is the impact the same on minority voters? is there a negative impact? two, is the intent the same? is the purpose the same? i think what you're going to find is that they're very similar aspects to practices today as existed during jim crow. >> professor, i think we need congress to act here because if they don't, we're stuck with getting redressed through the courts. in terms of voting discrimination, justice only comes if it's addressed in advance. voting discrimination is hard for the courts to deal with because once the election is over, it's truly impossible to get real redress, isn't it? >> i think that's a good point. i think civil rights lawyers need to get a little creative now that the shelby decision has come down. they need to rely on other provisions aside from the section that was struck down by the supreme court such as section 3, which allows for

states that have been established to intentionally discriminate in recent years can become under preclearance, can be made to have to go under preclearance. so it's a bail-in option. i think civil rights lawyers need to take advantage of that aspect. >> you know, adam green, i guess what i'm stuck on here is we can talk about what a good fix would look like. my question is very practically, how can you get it through the republican-controlled house of representatives in an era when everything basically within the republican party now is a litmus test of tribal loyalty? if you fail the litmus test, it's ammunition to be used against you in a primary. we can show that basically you have every member, basically all by noun house republicans come from districts won by mitt romney last year. really, the only thing they have to worry about is the primary challenge. how can you get republicans to break with the conservative movement on this? >> right. well, republicans might be feeling some of the dynamic they're feeling in the immigration fight, which is

being handed a hot potato which might make them look like the party of intolerance. that would be their incentive to vote the right way. my advice to democrats would be if people like eric cantor are willing to operate in good faith and help forge ahead with bipartisan legislation, go for it. work with them. but democrats need to be very skeptical. they need to be willing to fight, and they can't repeat the errors of the past, which was allowing the elusive prospect of bipartisanship to delay full public engagement, which i predict will be democrats' best friend. >> when you say the democrats need to be ready to fight, i'm sort of stuck on the practical issue here. i think we're seeing something similar with immigration right now where we can make the case that broadly speaking we can acknowledge it's in the best interest of the republican party as an institution to embrace some kind of comprehensive immigration reform. then you try to filter that through the house. you're running into this basic primary challenge threat.

individual republicans are saying, well, maybe it's good for my party, but it isn't good for me. i see that same thing in the vra. sad to say, but i think that's where we are. >> we've had a few examples of sheer public pressure forcing even republicans in congress to schedule a vote and have a few republicans join with democrats to pass something. you know, one was raising taxes on the rich. another was the violence against women act. another was hurricane sandy relief. so the real question is, how can democrats actually generate the public pressure necessary to force republicans to go in that direction? again, my advice to them would be, first, be bold. you know, if you look at a parallel situation after citizens united, i think democrats took the wrong approach, which was to be tepid, to put their eggs in the basket of the disclose act, which was literally the least you can do. it's making fully transparent the utter corruption in our democracy as opposed to putting big, bold ideas on the table that will really excite the public and force republicans to schedule a vote. >> well, and i think -- >> the second step is operating as a real inside/outside

partnership with the grass roots. what we have right now is congressman keith ellison with a voting rights amendment, constitutional amendment partnering with tens of thousands of people across the country and really working as a partnership. that's how we're going to get real change done. >> i think that's an interesting point. i think it dove tails partly with what michael was saying, which is you're going to have to have a strong national approach. you're going to have to patrol this discrimination. if you can get republicans along, great. if not, then the senate hearing on wednesday, which is led by democrats, will be an interesting place to watch what the reform looks like. i wish we had more time. thank you, both, for being here. >> my pleasure. >> if you want to learn more about this topic, come check out the law of politics on msnbc.com. you can see some of my reporting and some discussions of ways to reform the voting rights act. on facebook, we asked whether you guys think the house will listen to the supreme court and try to come up with a new and fair voting rights law. the responses have been pretty short and sweet. brooke says, i seriously doubt

it. anna doesn't predict yes or no. she says, they better. of course, we will have full coverage of the developments out of the house on thursday on the show and online. stay with us on all of that. up next, you're not going to want to miss this. the senate is striking a deal on that famous filibuster talk, but harry reid should have looked a little more closely at the nuclear option. richard baker, one of the foremost experts on the american senate, right here to talk about that news. looked nice?

soft would be great, but we really just need "kid-proof." softsprings got both, let me show you. right over here. here, feel this. wow, that's nice. wow. the soft carpets have never been this durable. you know i think we'll take it. get kid-friendly toughness and feet-friendly softness, without walking all over your budget. he didn't tell us it would do this. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, get whole-home installation for just 37 bucks. the beach on your tv is much closer than it appears. seize the summer with up to 50% off hotels at travelocity.

♪ you like to keep your family healthy and fit. and now there's a new way to do the same for your dog. introducing new purina dog chow light & healthy. it's a no-sacrifices, calorie-light way to keep him trim, with a deliciously tender and crunchy kibble blend he'll love. and 22% fewer calories than dog chow. discover the lighter side of strong. new purina dog chow light & healthy. nine numbers. he's got the code. it's going to launch. >> get me a loaunch status report. major, get to the president. >> yes, sir.

>> just like in "war games," this week it looks like we were close to deploying the nuclear option. senate democrats frustrated to the breaking point by obstruction of republicans arguing that saving the senate required drastically reforming the filibuster. but today a deal was reached. republicans will allow senate nominees to be confirmed. the senate has been debating filibuster reform for decades. even though obstruction has paralyzed the body, the likelihood of reform remains low. as our next guest explains in his new book, the filibuster is an essential part of the soul of the senate, which was constructed to give equal states no matter their size and thus to give minority points of view, which is protected by the filibuster. without it, members say the senate would become the house. for more, we welcome richard baker to the guest spot.

he served as the senate's first historian, a position he held for three decades. he's co-author of "the american senate senate." richard, you and your team have done him proud. it's an excellent book. my sense is that filibuster reform will never happen. the members of the senate care deeply about the senate itself and changing the filibuster would change the senate itself. >> it goes back to the basic question, whom does the senate represent? the house represents the people. the senate represents the states. if you were to take the 26 small estates, which would provide a 52-vote majority, they add up to 16% of the nation's population. is that the kind of senate that we want?

i think over the years a number of senators have said, a number of powerful senators have said, no way, we're drawing a line here. on we go. the story continues. >> well, yes, so we've averted this so-called nuclear option again. we were here in 2005. we're here in 2013. my sense is we're going to be here again in the not-too-distant future. we're inevitably headed to a point where the senate will become like the house. i say that because we've sort of reached this point in history when the big ideological ideas between the two parties has made them basically parliamentary parties. if they're going to start acting like parliamentary parties, then these norms, traditions, and customs don't mean anything anymore. it seems there's indian inevitability the senate will become like the house at some point. >> in this book, we have two chapters on the evolution of the filibuster from the very earliest days of the senate.

the story, the takeaway is incremental change, slowly but surely in the face of enormous pressure. so there will probably be more change, but i think people in the senate, people in this nation would ultimately rue the day the senate decided to take all of its major actions by simple majority vote. the filibuster forces the majority to listen top t the minority. that doesn't happen in the house of representatives. >> do you think there was a certain period of time where the filibuster really did shift from a check on power like you're talking about to just being used to hold up everything and slow everything down? do you define a certain period for that? >> i do. i do, indeed. major changes in the senate in the 1970s -- from the 1970s, much as there have been major changes in the united states in terms of how we communicate and how information passes from the source to the public.

the senate has responded by lowering the number of votes to cut off debate from 67 to 60 in 1975. the same situation that we have today, a number of senators are saying we're going to go to majority vote, period. that's it. that's the way it should be. in order to short stall, circumvent that threat, the senate made adjustments. >> all right, richard baker. thank you so much for being here. thank you for this book. it's excellent. up next, royal baby watch. kornacki and babies, always a fun thing.

"stubborn love" by the lumineers did you get my email? i did. so what did you think of the house? did you see the school ratings? oh, you're right. hey babe, i got to go. bye daddy! have a good day at school, ok? ...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.

"that starts with one of the world's most advancedy," distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember

the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart" welcome back, indeed. a vintage sitcom theme song for our friend steve kornacki. >> '75 to '82. >> he'll be here with us all week long. good to see you back, steve. and in the back spin, the world is ready and waiting for a royal welcome such as we've given to steve. if tabloids are to be believed, the due date for prince william and kate's little one has already come and gone. according the stepmother, we may not have to wait much longer. >> we're all waiting for the telephone. >> bets on the date of birth, name, and gender of the future monarch are making records for

non-sporting event betting in engla england. thanks to a slip of the tongue by kate months ago, odds seem to favor a royal nursery decked out in pink. alexandra is the favorite name for a future future process. the top name for a future prince is james. of course, nobody knows anything. the thing that i'm sort of fixated on within this is they're about to have their first child which is amazing time in your life. it's a time of joy, a time of terror. your focus on the world narrows and you move from being sort of egotistical and self-focused to focused on another person, which is an amazing sort of transformation in life. i think you become a better person just because you're not totally focusing on yourself. you're focusing on somebody else. >> i think this story has everything. i think it has baby, i think it has monarchy. and i think it has patriotism. when i was in london for the royal wedding, you heard plenty of grits in bars saying we're

not that into this. it's old and we should be beyond this. then the day of the royal wedding, it was like the most amazing gigantic celebration. young and old, black and white. everyone everywhere in the streets, street parties, bar parties, restaurant. and it went on, you know, well into the evening as a huge party day. so you saw people love this, even if they recognize that obsessing over one family this much is a bit old school. >> i'm reminded of frank from the naked gun movie as the queen was coming to l.a. and he gave a toast, no matter how foolish we think the idea of having a queen is, it's our duty to protect her. i want to just get might thought on the names in here. i can't believe they left out the most conscious shall king in british history. the name doesn't show up here, ralph. king ralph. 1991 movie with john good man. ralph is not on the list. >> you know what this conversation calls for, gentlemen?

cupcakes. you got to have cupcakes. sprinkles has made the special cupcakes to celebrate the royal baby. since nobody knows the gender, there's a tasty twist. will it be a e cupcake or a she cupcake? i he baby or she baby? don't be shy, guys. >> the coloring inside tells you what it's going to be. >> i'm going to looking into this one. >> what is the rule here? >> it's the color inside the cupcake. >> green. >> it's like aqua. >> look, i got a pink cupcake. >> can be i just say, steve, somewhere i hope that up pastry plate is smiling. >> i got a blue one and a shoutout to our favorite twitter handle. >> cupcakes have spoken. we've seen pink, blue. >> what did you get, stevie. >> i'd wear it was green. i don't know what that means. >> i don't want to do a split decision but have i pink and blue. >> we'll be right back with a monologue from stevie.

huh...fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. mmmhmmm...everybody knows that. well, did you know that old macdonald was a really bad speller? your word is...cow. cow. cow. c...o...w... ...e...i...e...i...o. [buzzer] dangnabbit. geico. fifteen minutes could save you...well, you know. congestion, for it's smog. but there are a lot of people that do ride the bus. and now that the busses are running on natural gas, they don't throw out as much pollution to the earth. so i feel good. i feel like i'm doing my part to help out the environment.

do you mind grabbing my phone and opening the capital one purchase eraser? i need to redeem some venture miles before my demise. okay. it's easy to erase any recent travel expense i want. just pick that flight right there. mmm hmmm. give it a few taps, and...it's taken care of. this is pretty easy, and i see it works on hotels too. you bet. now if you like that, press the red button on top. ♪ how did he not see that coming? what's in your wallet?

humans. even when we cross our "ts" and dot our "i's", we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness with our auto policies. if you qualify, your rates won't go up due to your first accident. because making mistakes is only human, and so are we. we also offer new car replacement, so if you total your new car, we'll give you the money for a new one. call liberty mutual insurance at... and ask us all about our auto features, like guaranteed repairs, where if you get into an accident and use one of our certified repair shops, the repairs are guaranteed for life. so call... to talk with an insurance expert about everything that comes standard with our base auto policy. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

extremism in the defense of liberty is no advice. moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> barry goldwater was never going to win the 1964 presidential election. the country was still mourning jfk's murder, the economy was humming along and johns's approval ratings were sky high. with that line in that speech, goldwater pretty much guaranteed

he wouldn't just lose to lbj, he would lose in a landslide. it was exactly 49 years ago tonight, july 16th, 1964, the final night of the republican convention at the old cow palace in san francisco when he delivered it. his nomination was the product of a well organized uprising by a growing conservative movement, one that wasn't just skeptical of government but hostile to it there were moderate and pragmatic and liberal republicans back then. they were afraid that goldwater's embrace of far right ideology would scare off voters in droves. with that will acceptance speech with, that one line goldwater made it clear had he no interest in toning down his message, to instinct to soften his edges. if his platform made voters uneasy, that was their problem and not his. so the result that november was hardly a surprise. a massacre for the ages. more than 60% of the national popular vote for lbj, 486 electoral votes, a 44-state

romp. what no one would have guessed whether he that campaign ended was a half century later we would end up looking back on it not as a disastrous detour by the republican party but as the fundamental turning point in the modern party's evolution when it veered hard to the right and never looked back. you can draw a straight line from 1964 to today to rand bawl paul, ted cruz and the tea party. there ended up being a backlash against the expensive editions to the social safety net lbj enacted in his term as president. 1965 saw the enactment of medicare, can higher education act, expansion of food stamps. 1966 saw massive midterm gains for the gop, 47 seats in the house, three in the senate. the new governor in california named reagan. middle of 1964 massacre, goldwater carried five southern states. since the end of reconstruction, the south had been the most

staunchly democratic region in the country. but '65 was a fateful year, a democratic president pushed through the civil rights act and enraged white southerners is while the republican nominee joined the south's effort to kill the civil rights bill by filibuster. 49 years later, the south is now synonymous was republican politics. the receiptment of government that goldwater channelled in 1964 continues to animate the party today. by now though, the liberals in the party are all gone. so are just about all the moderates and pragmatists, too. 49 years ago tonight, the political world listened to gaerld water and dismissed him as a hopeless crack pot. no one realized he was just ahead of his time. martin bashir, take it away. >> 3:00 and 4:00 in the afternoon. good afternoon. it's tuesday, july 16th. now we know what the george zimmerman jury was thinking.

>> what do you say to people who are demanding vengeance? >> there's nothing i can tell them but it's something that i can do. i can pray for them. >> the martin family was very clear. the best way to honor their son is in a nonviolent manner. >> he was a calm, chill, loving. ern. >> george zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place. >> at some point, trayvon became aware of the gun and was backing up and george zimmerman shot him. >> spannish, white, asian, if they came in the same situation where trayvon was, is i think george would have reacted the same way. >> the it was racial to be honest. >> trayvon martin had the civil right to go home. >> the verdict isn't what they wanted so now they're calling on the department of justice. >> we pray for trayvon. >> the justice department shares your concern. i share your concern.