>> jessica valente gets tonight's "last word." the supreme court strikes again. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm joy reid 234 new york filling in for chris matthews. in a case that could have implications for other states around the country, the court sided today with the state of michigan whose voters amended their constitution in 2006 to ban affirmative action. a lower court of appeals had overturned the state's action, saying the majority could not place unique burdens on minorities. but today in a 6-2 decision, with justice kagan recusing herself, the supreme court disagreed.

while not taking a position on the constitutionality of affirmative action itself, the court says states have a right to vote on whether or not to ban it. justice anthony kennedy wrote for the majority saying quote, there is no authority in the constitution of the united states or in this court's precedence for the judiciary to set aside michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters. deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor, but that does not justify removing certain court determined issues from the voters' reach. democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate. in other words, the majority of the voters in michigan should decide whether or not affirmative action is right for that states. seven other states ban affirmative action, including california and florida. today's ruling could embolden more states to do the same. and for more on this heated case, i'm joaned by eugene

robinson, a columnist for "the washington post" and msnbc political analyst and horace cooper, co-chairman of project 21, the national leadership network of black conservatives. horace, i want to start with you on this decision. why should a majority in this state who presumably are not minorities be be able to decide, we no longer want to assist raushl minorities who have suffered past discrimination. why should they be able to do that? >> luptly the question is a framing problem. it's not the case that a decision was made. in fact, when the referendum itly passed, there were blacks, browns, whites, a number of people on both sides of the issue. and the court makes this clear. we can't assume for litigation purposes that a policy is pro black or pro white by assuming all parties in that group support or oppose. in this particular case, a

community can decide that this technique is a divisive one, one that is not effective and they would rather pursue others. i think that's what they did. >> the actual practical impact of that decision was that in michigan, minority enrollment, blk enrollment specifically went down by 30% so the practical impact of it was that minorities have less access to higher education in michigan. you can't say to me that you think the majority of african-americans in michigan assented to and affirmed that decision. >> i didn't say a majority did. but you also can't see the minority of blacks who supported this policy shouldn't have the right to participate in this political process. >> 30% less enrollment? >> you should be able to say if black americans are 15% of the population, that 6% of that 15% ought to be able to drive all of the public policy. and the court flatly rejected that, including justice briar.

the truth of the matter is the policy is looked upon skeptically by a majority of the population and as justice briar and the rest of the 6-2 majority made clear, there was no showing that michigan went out of their way segregation or any form of discrimination. plaintiffs said i tried to go to this school and i wasn't let in because of my race. >> southern states didn't want to have the voting rights act imposed on them either. >> well, exactly. this is essentially a states rights decision. or that's the way the court has framed it. states rights in the context of race in this country has a very specific meaning. states rights meant we have the

right to continue legal segregation in south carolina. that's not what we're talking about here in michigan, but i think given brown versus board of education, given the landmark civil rights legislation of the '60s and given the long run of history, there should be a special burden on states in regard to issues of race. as a remedy that helps redress those years of american history, then i don't think the ruling is justified. i don't think the court was justified in saying michigan can void that. but obviously this court disagrees. >> this case was contentious and also personal. justice clarence thomas has long opposed affirmative action. in the past he's reflected on it

personally. back in 1982, he told "the new york times," i watched the operation of such affirmative action policies when i was in college, and i watched the destruction of many kids as a result. justice sotomayor wrote a scathing dissent that she read from the bench today. she wrote the sentiment of some of her colleagues was oit of touch with reality. race matters that cannot be discussed in i other way and it cannot be wished away. race matters to a young man's view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes. no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. race matters to a woman's sense of self when she states her hometown and hears no, where are you really from? race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts, i do not belong here.

this refusal to express the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. i note clarence thomas made those observations from inside of a college where those students were attending, including at yale. horace? >> well, my organization actually put forward an amicus brief asking the court not only to take up this case but issue a ruling similar to the one that it did, precisely because we're trying to embark upon what martin luther king said 50 years ago, we shouldn't let the race or gender be a deciding factor on whether they get to go to school. segregation as a policy actually sought to use gender and race as the tals man for whether people

got to go to school. it was wrong then, it is wrong today. but it's important to understand, six people on this court agreed that there was no claim that michigan was engaging in a remedy. you have to have an identified violation in order for the remedy to be justified. even justice breyer disagreed with that. >> are you saying that dr. martin luther king in chicago would have assented to the idea of having illinois voters vote on whether or not they preferred to keep housing anti-discrimination laws in housing? or he would have preferred to let mississippi voters vote on whether or not they wanted to have the voting rights act? >> we can try to pretend to opine about what dr. martin luther king would have done or thought. today's ruling moves us closer

in being judged not on the color of your skin but the content of your character. there isn't showing in the state of michigan that in fact this remedy is a response to some past injustice. when you have jurisdictions that simply say diversity is its own goal, the court said today clearly that's something for any community to be able to decide how they would like to handle -- >> eugene, let's let eugene talk. >> there is a context here. there's a context here in michigan. for well over a decade now, administrators have been trying their best to keep a policy of affirmative action in order to have a diverse campus, because they believe that's important. they believe that's important,

not only for the education of black students but for the education of all students. they believe it makes the university of michigan a better environment. the president of the university of michigan has followed it up. this is something the university wants to be able to do and believes is justified, not only on the grounds of what it means for vote, but on the grounds of what it means for their cam with us and what it means for that school. >> quickly, horace. >> my point is just simply, the court said that that kind of determination is open for all of society to participate. and it doesn't implicate any constitutional concern. >> horace, let me ask you what message do you think is being sent by the majority on this court. first you had a case of eviscerating the vote rights

act, the statement from justice roberts that essentially hey, discrimination is over. you don't have to worry about that anymore. and this notion from justice scalia of racial entitlements. when you combine that with this judgment, which essentially says the majority can decide whether or not the minority in its midst can have the protection of affirmative action law, what is the message being sent to african-americans and other minorities by this court? >> that's been the problem all along. that's why so many of these cases are losing. instead of following the appropriate predicates, bringing forward prosecutions for voting rights discrimination, bringing forth plaintiffs who said i wasn't allowed in, we have created institutional racism. no federal court has ever accepted that. left, right, middle. >> we're out of time. >> is the idea of racial discrimination is chimera? >> it's very real. find me the academic study, find

me the evidence that racism is gone and no longer plays a factor in american life. i challenge you. i can't find it. i can find lots of evidence to the contrary. and as long as we can find lots of evidence to the contrary, i believe these kinds of remedies are needed. and i think the federal government has an interest in making sure that they are applied and they are used to the extent they ought to be used throughout the country. >> chief justice roberts says it's over. and he says it's over because he says it's over. >> i didn't get the memo. >> big developments in the bridgegate investigation. the new jersey legislative panel look into the scandal has issued four new subpoenas in the case,en colluding to the no head

of the port authority. we'll have the latest. also, the crisis in ukraine started with benghazi? the iranian nuke deal happened because of obama care? sounds like tea party madness, but these gems are from establishment republicans fighting off tea party challengers. tonight, how the tea party may be winning even when they're losing. and some of the political ads this season are brutal. some are charming. some are a little bit of both. here's a taste of one from tea partier matt bevin, challenging mitch mcconnell. >> mitch mcconnell is telling a bunch of lies about my dad. don't be fooled. >> let me finish tonight with the cost of cheerleading for the side that's already won.

>> it's earth day today, but you wouldn't know it from listening to republicans in congress. according to the league of

conservation voters, not one republican has uttered the words earth day on the house floor or the senate floor since 2010. in contrast, democrats mentioned earth day 150 times in april of 2010. so who made the republicans last stand? it was tennessee senator lamar alexander who used the occasion to support, of all things, nuclear energy. we'll be right back.

>> well skom back. the legislative committee was readying a new batch of subpoenas in the christie bridge scandal. late this afternoon, they pulled the trigger. the committee has handed down a total of four subpoenas, for testimony. and they include some of the most critical figures in this investigation. if they comply, the committee will hear the testimony during two separate hearings on may 6 and another one a week later on the 13th. pat foye, the new york appointee to the authority.

michael drewniak, christina renna, a staffer in christie's office who served under kelly. pat foye appears to be the only high-level official at the port authority who actually sounded the alarm during the lane closure and it was his scathing letter to port authority officials about the lane closures which leaked to the wall street journal and which christie himself read that said the move likely broke state and federal laws and could have caused deaths because of snarled traffic. michael drewniak was within of the most colorful people in christie's inner circumstance. for instance in a message to a colleague, he called pat foye, quote, a piece of the excrement. and when the bridge scandal exploded he said this about david wildstein, quote, i could claw his, david wildstein's,

eyes out, poor gasolines in his sockets and light him up. and he was known to hold a grudge or two with the reporters. at one point, telling a colleague that he was upset with a reporter at the "star ledger." expletive him and the star ledger. then there's christina renna. she worked in bridget kelly's office, in the office known as iga. it was renna's interview with christie administration lawyers that provided evidence of christie's campaign manager, bill stepien giving orders to christie's team in trenton to send a message to certain mayors. this is how they summarized renna's interviews. christina renna believed bill stel yen kept track of mayors not in favor with iga. do not rush to return this mayor's phone call which was enough to send a message to the elected local official. a whistleblower, christie's top communication guy and bridget

kelly's colleague, there's sure to be plenty of questions. not just about them, but what about their boss chris christie and how he was running things. this is the legislative committee obviously, but of the four people that i mentioned, if to you're the u.s. attorney, which of their pieces of testimony, assuming they comply, would you be most interested in? >> i would actually be interested in christina renna. i say that because we know what foye is going to say. foye is going to say he found out the about the lane closings, he was furious, he writes a scathing e-mails. he has an opinion federal and state laws are violated. but i think u.s. attorneys are going to have their own opinion and don't need him to say what the law is. and i think we can also expect that drewniak is probably going to be pretty protective of chris christie, notwithstanding his fascinating language at times which, of course, is something that paints a picture of a mean spirit that could be relevant at some date as the dots are connected. i think what's important is

christina renna. esh said some things that i think i have prosecutors absolutely intrigued. she talked about a town being mayorless. several towns perhaps based on voting data. she apparently indicated there was a role the campaign had in certain decisions that were happening in the governor's office. what they would like to do is see not only what more she could tell them to follow those areas, but see very aggressive questioning of christina renna could take it even farther than the direction that was managed by the attorneys appointed by chris christie. >> just to take it up to the -- this idea of having these kinds of communications between the campaign, the christie

re-election campaign and his office, even though it doesn't directly implicate christie in bridgegate itself, it does paint a picture of a campaign operation that was certainly infiltrating the political, the day to day operations of his office. >> with any governor running for reelection it's going to have this kind of interaction. the rocks are being turned over. all four of these people are interesting as potential witnesses to that question of the politicization of the governor's office and the port authority. pretty political place. we don't have any reason to believe any of these four are targets of the criminal investigation. we don't know for sure that they're going to comply with these subpoenas. we've not had very much live testimony. what's interesting about all four of them, and i agree with the counselor that renna is the most interesting potentially. all four of them have nothing to lose in terms of legal jeopardy except if they perjure themselves. they don't have any threat that we know of. if they do testify, if the questions are good, it puts the story in a different place in terms of politics and also in terms of the legislationive investigation.

which is still a threat, not as big as the criminal. >> christina renna, what makes her interesting is that her boss was bridget kelly. we do have two subpoenas both of which were thrown out by the court. but if her second in command does comply, does that in a sense increase the likelihood that kelly gets imcommunity? -- immunity? and what would that do to the criminal investigation? >> the legislative committee can only give immunity for limited purposes. such as their own purposes. what they can't do -- they're a state political body. they can't give immunity that has applicability to the feds. and that's the giant gorilla in the room that everyone is deeply concerned about right now. so if you get immunity from the legislative committee and their powers or even state immunity, that's not what you need right now.

you need -- the only immunity you deeply care about is from the federal authorities. and i don't think they're anywhere close to making decisions about giving immune tiff to david wildstein or bridget kelly or any of the key players. when they have an immunity discussion they're going to want those kinds of folks to plead guilty to something. >> if you're bridgel kelly and your underling is going to testify, aren't you making a phone call every hour to try to get that availability and testify if necessary against other people pop i'm in touch all the time. i'm trying to work that deal. david wildstein was practically in the newspapers begging for immunities. so those folks with bull's eyes on their backs are deeply trying to get it.

the feds are not a rush. they want to see what exactly is the kind of information that bridget kelly is going to provide that's of great interest. they want to go as high up the ladder of implication and potential expose sure as they possibly can. >> if we're just using the words immunity in this context, isn't this really just another nail in the coffin of christie's political viability. we're having a conversation about top aides getting immunity or snot. >> it ain't great for him politically, i'm through say that. but we don't even know if the federal prosecutor has a theory of the case about what crimes would be. that's why we're so far apart. w45 crime did wildstein commit? until we know where someone can be charged, see what kind of plea agreements or trials there are, it's hard to say that this is politically deadly for governor christie. but it's not good. and it shows it's going to go on for a while.

my suspicion is there is coordination more than we're seeing between the two investigations. and there's a little bit of a ballet. why were these four people chose ton go first? none of these four are going to be good witnesses for governor christie. >> thank you both for being here. >> thank you. up next, jon stewart takes on the welfare cowboy. and one particularly hypocrite call supporter.

you have time to shop for car insurance today? yeah. i heard about progressive's "name your price" tool? i guess you can tell them how much you want to pay and it gives you a range of options to choose from. huh? i'm looking at it right now. oh, yeah? yeah. what's the... guest room situation? the "name your price" tool, making the world a little more progressive.

>> doesn't vladimir understand that there's nothing that could do more more politically than be sanctioned by vladimir putin? duh. >> back to "hardball" and time for the side show.

that was seth myers with senator john mccain who is still clearly enjoying the honor of being sanctioned by russian vladimir putin. is a last year, cliven bundy got a lot of media attention after confronting federal officials with a ban of armed gunmen in nevada, otherwise known as the welfare cowboy. while he was illegally grazing his cattle on federal land in inform -- nevada for 20 years at taxpayer expense. however, many on the right feel he should be able to use public land for free. take a look at what jon stewart had to say about that. >> that land is going to stay vacant whether your cattle are on it or not. when your cattle graze there, that keeps the price of meat down for every american consumer. >> yeah, most goods are cheaper when you steal the raw materials to produce it. have you seen the prices at fell off a truck mart?

>> he says his family has been raising cattle on the property since 1877, before the bureau of land management existed. but new reporting shows that the bundy family purchased the ranch in 1948. next up, conspiracy theorists on the right were hard at work last week with the news of chelsea clinton's pregnancy. hillary birthers like radio talk show hosts actually think chelsea decided to have a baby to help her mother win the white house in 2016. it didn't stop stephen colbert from jump on the hillary birther bland wagon. >> clearly, folks, hillary clinton has engineered the birth of her grandchild in a craven political poi to seem endeering. not even barack obama ever stooped to becoming a grandmother. it's so obvious, folks, bill and hillary sat down with their

daughter and synced up chelsea's ovulation cycle with hillary's campaign calendar. there's no other reason for a couple in their 60s to want their daughter to give them a grandchild. and finally, alabama state representative steve hearst is turning a lot of heads with a handgun campaign. it's a grill in the shape of a revolver. and up next, the tea party is losing all its battles with the gop establishment and still may be winning the war. >> here's what's happening. president obama is in washington [ male announcer ] identity theft ... it's one of the fastest growing crimes in america. in fact, there's a new victim of identity theft every...three...seconds.

so you have to ask yourself, am i next? one weak password could be all it takes. or trusting someone you shouldn't. over 100 million consumers had their personal information stolen in recent retail store and online security breaches. you think simply checking last month's credit score can stop identity thieves now? that alone just isn't enough. but lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. as soon as the patented lifelock identity alert system detects a threat, you'll be notified by text, phone or email. ♪ your response helps stop thieves before they do damage to your identity... helping to keep you safe... with three powerful layers of protection. detecting threats to your finances, credit, and good name 24/7. alerting you to potential danger. and if anything is found, your resolution expert will help restore your identity. so you can get back to enjoying your life. ♪ lifelock watches out for you in ways banks and credit card companies alone just can't.

plus, it's backed by a $1 million service guarantee. if your identity is ever compromised, lifelock will spend up to $1 million on experts to help restore it. try lifelock membership risk free for 60 days with promo code easy. that's 2 months of proactive protection to help keep your identity safe, risk free. act now and get this multi-device charger. charge all your devices at once to save you time... a $30 value, free! call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com/easy. try the most comprehensive identity theft protection available risk free for 60 days plus get a $30 multi-device charger, free. enrollment takes just minutes. your protection starts immediately. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com/easy. ♪ trwith secure wifie for your business. it also comes with public wifi for your customers. not so with internet from the phone company.

i would email the phone company to inquire as to why they have shortchanged these customers. but that would require wifi. switch to comcast business internet and get two wifi networks included. comcast business built for business.

>> welcome back to "hardball." all across the country, it appears as if the mainstream forces within the republican party are successfully beating back the more radical wing of tea party. just look at the map. in texas, john cornyn trounced the tea party challenger in last month's primary.

senator lindsey graham has a comfortable lead in h south carolina. according to republican polling, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has a commanding lead over tea party challenger matt bevin in kentucky. and establishment candidates have the early advantage in states like georgia and north carolina. but if you think the tea party is lose, think again. accomplishment republicans are doing just about everything they can to kiss up to the tea party base. sometimes shamelessly. case in point, mitch mcconnell took the stage at the conservative cpac conference last month, holding a shotgun over his head, which he followed up with a speech chalk full of zingers aimed squarely at the right heart, many of which completely died in the room. >> the president of the united states is treating our constitution worse than a placemat at denny's. i spent so much time over in the

supreme court trying to stop these guys i'm practically on a first name basis with the bailiff. >> that was awkward. also last month, lindsey graham sounded the tea party bugel horn by blaming russia's invasion of ukraine on benghazi. >> when you kill americans and nobody pays a price, you i viet this type of aggression. and jon cornyn with this epic tweet after the administration truck a deal to halt iran's nuclear deal last fall. amazing what the white house will do to distract attention from obamacare. he will tell his constituents, i think the current administration has taken lying to a new level. in each case, it isn't hard to see what's happening. while the tea party might lose primary battles, they're clearly losing the battle for the soul of the gop. how much further to the right can the republican party continue to bend until at some point something inevitably snaps? jonathan capehart is an opinion writer with "the washington

post" and rick tiler is a republican strategist. is it a case that having benefitted from the energy of the tea party, now in order to survive the tea party, republicans essentially have to become the tea party. >> no, i don't think so. i think the tea party as you know is not one thing. the tea party here in southwest florida is different than the tea party two coupties over. has loose affiliation with the state. but i think overall, the tea party has really mostly in large part, the last several years has assimilated into the republican party. and that is, they have made it more conservative. and they have educated themselves and they have taken positions and recruited candidates. and gotten good candidates elected. with mcconnell, graham and cornyn. those are well established candidates. you're not likely to draw credible candidates against those guys anyway. but i think overall, the tea

party has done phenomenal things for the republican party. because we can't be like the democratic party and expect people will vote for republicans if they can just vote for the real thing. >> you make them sound like rotarians. the party to the right means tea party candidates have kind of gone off the reservations. i want to play you three tea party candidates. the first up is mitch mcconnell's challenger matt bevin who found himself standing up for the principle of free speech by deefending cock fighting. >> i'm not going to disparage people for exercising their first amendment rights. it's interesting when you look at cock fighting and dog fighting as well. this isn't something new. it wasn't invented in kentucky, for example. the founding fathers were all, many of them very actively involved in this and always has been. >> mother jones unearthed audio of greg brannon from north carolina sympathizing with 9/11 truthers.

he's fielding a question from a caller on his radio show back in 2012. >> my purpose is i want to know if he's a 9/11 truther and then he can continue on. >> i still believe lee hamilton, he wants more investigation. the details are not there. not everything in that commission is supposed to be there. i want everything exposed. everything. >> and martin wolf, the tea party challenger in kansas loves gun to truly disturbing levels. some of his social media clippings when he was a radiologist. what kind of gun blows somebody's head completely off? i've got to get one of those. and then when he was confronted with those posts, he basically defended them. is this the standard issue republican party? or is this something that joe the butcher turns into the gop? >> i think it's the latter there, joy. the republican party has moved

so far to the right. and i pinpoint that to be whenever utah had its republican convention in may of 2010 when senator bob bennett, a tried and true conservative, no one questioned his republican bona fides. he went down in defeat seeking to run for a fourth term. that was a shot across the bow of the republican party. and the establishment of the republican party that this tea party, that these folks out there within the party base who are riled up and willing to take them on could take them out. anticipate so that's why you see not only mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham, jon cornyn moving even further to the right, you then made it possible for candidates such as the ones you just showed who actually think it's possible for them to run and be a member of congress.

what they've said, what they've done in their past isn't wholly disqualifying. and that person who put up the facebook postings there, i would dare say ten years ago, even 20 years ago, someone like him wouldn't even be considered plausible as someone representing -- running for congress and certainly representing the republican party. >> and rick, isn't it true that now in order to survive as a republican, you really have to begin to sound like the far right. you have to be willing to shut the government down. you have to do the benghazi conspiracy theorys. if you don't do it, if you don't buy the blue plate special on the far right, you will be a rino. >> look, there are two different views. and we can debate about benghazi and tax cuts. there's a debate about the keystone oil pipeline, which i assume is not being opened because barack obama is responding to the radicals on his left. you see, we could get three radical leftists --

>> do you really believe that the president responds to the left of the -- really? because i don't think they think that snp. >> that's exactly right. >> lower prices, that's the function of manufacturing and yet he's not opening it. even though his own state department says there's nothing wrong with it. and we've got tens of thousands of pipeline all over the place. yet we can't have this pipeline because for some reason everyone says it's safe. >> you're talking a lot about the keystone pipeline. that's standard issue sort of republican fair on tax cuts. your party is talking about irs benghazi conspiracy theories about 9/11. that's not what your party is by and large talking about. >> dog fights conspiracy theer ris, those comments are nutty. and i would agree with you they're nutty. but we can find nutty comments on the left. >> tell me about three, find me three. >> t.w. shannon in oklahoma. >> who's that?

>> running for u.s. senate. he's supported by the tea party. >> here in southwest florida, who will be the next congressman because he's also supported by the tea party. mike lee, rand paul. it goes on and on and on. there are great candidates supported by the tea party. you found three who said nutty things. >> an entire party that actually shut down the federal government in order to show how conservative they are. that wasn't three people. quickly to you, last word, jonathan. is this the future of the republican party? >> until the republican party starts sending people to washington who are interested in the lost art of governing, the party is going to be in a bad way. and that snapping point that you tack talked about in your intro, i bet you that snapping point will be election night 2016 when the entire nation goes to vote and the republican nominee on the ballot, that person has the future of the party in its hands on that day.

>> thanks to both of you for being here. up next, why watching political ads this year could be dangerous to your health. this is "hardball." those little things still get you. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment is right. cialis is also the only daily ed tablet approved to treat symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any allergic reactions like rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial.

[ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.

they don't know it yet, but they're gonna fall in love, get married, have a couple of kids, [ children laughing ] move to the country, and live a long, happy life together where they almost never fight about money. [ dog barks ] because right after they get married, they'll find some financial folks who will talk to them about preparing early for retirement

and be able to focus on other things, like each other, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. welcome back to "hardball." today two new ads in a pair and high profile senate races show that 2014 candidates are hitting all the emotional buttons to answer critics and set their candidates apart. it has been full of standout ads like these that reflect both the state of the race and the candidates themselves. i'm joined by "washington post" columnist dana milbank. and ryan grim who's also an msnbc contributor. we'll start be you, ryan. the first is from matt bevin who's challenging mitch mcconnell in the kentucky republican primary. the ad features all nine, yes, all nine of bevin's children. >> mitch mcconnell is telling a bunch of lies about my dad.

don't be fooled. >> matt bevin's my dad. >> my dad was an officer in the army. >> my dad loves god. >> and he leads by example. >> he plays with us. >> and he prays with us. >> he loves our mom. >> matt bevin is my dad. he'd make a great u.s. senator. and i should know. i've known him my whole life. >> my dad's awesome. >> i'm matt bevin and i approve this message these messengers too. >> you wouldn't believe that was the same cockfighting guy. >> sure, it is. and it also kind of goes to, you know, to his evangelical side. there's a strain of the movement that really believes in -- michele bachmann has had more than 20 foster children. there's something about expanding the circle of love in the family and spreading the word of god that way. and i think that, you know, this reminds tea party voters that he is part of that christian evangelical movement.

but, you know, the trouble for him is much deeper than that. mitch mcconnell has a lot of favors he can call in over decades of experience in kentucky. and, you know, republican primary voters also know that because democrats have such a formidable challenger in grimes that if bevin wins, very good chance that republicans would lose in the general whereas mcconnell has a slight edge over grimes right now. >> the republican governors association just dropped a brutal ad on the democratic challenger to republican governor nikki haley. it's so rough it makes you wonder whether republicans are concerned that haley isn't a slam dunk to win in november. >> it's a fact. vincent shaheen dechded a child abuser and representing others charged with violent acts. threatening to kill, punched in the face.

shaheen defended violent criminals who abused women and went to work setting them free. >> this is willie horton-esque. why do that with somebody who's a virtual unknown? >> it's an attack on our system of criminal justice as well. it's not a character flaw to uphold the justice system by representing the accused. i think it has developed there in south carolina. there's an independent, a former republican in the race. that haley's people are worried that will split the vote there. potentially giving some more momentum to the democrats. so, yeah, it's a little surprising that the rga sees the need to assault the criminal justice system in south carolina of all places. >> indeed. let's go over to michigan. in that senate race, terry lynn land faced criticism from democrats from comments she made in 2010 that women prefer work flexibility compared to higher pay.

today she took on critics and her democratic opponent. >> i'm terri land. congressman peters want you to believe i'm waging a war on women. really? think about that for a moment. ♪ i'm terri land. i approve this message because as a woman i might know a little bit more about women than gary peters. >> your thoughts on this? >> it shows there's real value in republicans successfully recruiting women to run for office. they've had a very difficult time doing it, but this is what they can do if they can actually pull that off. >> and dana? >> there's no question she has a biological advantage refuting the war on women challenge here. but it's going to take more for them to defeat that accusation

nationally. >> all right. ryan grim and dana mil bank, thanks to both of you. >> thanks to you. >> we'll be right back. if i told you that a free ten-second test

could mean less waiting for things like security backups and file downloads you'd take that test, right? what are you waiting for? you could literally be done with the test by now. now you could have done it twice. this is awkward. go to comcastbusiness.com/ checkyourspeed. if we can't offer faster speeds or save you money we'll give you $150. comcast business built for business. let me finish tonight with the supreme court and affirmative action. the roberts court decided today that states have the right to end affirmative action if the voters wish to do so. if this court has a central narrative, it could be that those who have held the advantage for most of this

country's history deserve to have it back if they could find the legislative means to take it back. if they do, the court won't stand in the way. in states that were once blocked from passing restrictive voting rules from the voting rights act are now free to do so. from the rich where free to spend unlimited sums of money. or states whose voting majorities have had enough of affirmative action but don't mind a few legacies getting a leg up at their family alma mater. the roberts court has had moments of siding with the victims of discrimination. they struck down the defense of marriage act and let the affordable care act in place. but even those decisions left some people behind. and the obamacare decision left millions of americans vulnerable to a refusal by their state's leadership to expand coverage to the poor. and the courts with conservative majority have a novel means of saying with the haves and have mores.

and unless discrimination is violent and obvious and in your face, it's gone. that's something only the privileged could believe. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. the 44th earth day is being celebrated here in the u.s. today. because it's earth day, i want to talk this evening for a second about money. because the things we know about earth in this current moment and the things we know about what earth might look like in the future all comes back to money. here's what i mean. the inter-governmental panel on climate change, united nations body, basically says we really, really have to try to not warm the planet in this century more than 2 degrees celsius. if that sounds like not that