second amendment are to them to having guns everywhere. some stays are committed to lethal injection. whatever's in the syringe. and why some critics in a new book about gay marriage are committed to slamming its author. is that fair? also, i am committed to you. for the next hour. >> critics are calling it the guns everywhere bill, but it's the safe carry protection act. >> to say i'm allowed to bring a gun to church, a gun to an unsecured government building, if that isn't extreme, i don't know what is. it is the most aggressive show of force from the u.s. since the crisis began. >> the pentagon is sending 600 u.s. soldiers starting in poland. followed by lithuania, latvia and estonia. so far, 11 crew members have been arrested or detained. >> the equipment wouldn't work, says this crew man.

>> the captain needs to be sentenced to death. he is not worth being fed in prison out of our tax dollars. why were there so many different opinions on this case? >> the chief justice primarily was responding to the comments by justice sotomayor. >> is this still what people do? >> no. this is actually very retro now. can we do one? >> let's do it. >> all right. >> there it is! thanks, dave. >> thank you. >> thank you. churches, schools, not necessarily the places you associate with carrying guns. minutes ago the governor of georgia signed an unprecedented new bill that fundamentally changes where guns are allowed.

and the defense you can give if you fire one. its official name is the safe carry protection act. critics call it the guns everywhere bill. the nra labeled it a victory. whatever you want to call it, here's what it does. schools, the law authorizes school districts to appoint staffers to carry firearms. churches. they can opt in and allow weapons en masse. airports, you want to bring a gun to a security checkpoint, you can pick it up with no criminal penalty. the georgia legislature insists house bill 60 is about restoring second amendment rights and georgians protecting georgians. >> i'll explain the reasons why someone might seek to take the life of another, i believe wholeheartedly that georgians should they wish to take responsibility for the safety of themselves and their family, they should have that option. >> opponents, on the other hand, argue it promotes a gun culture in this country.

americans for responsible solutions, founded by congressman gabrielle giffords called it the most extreme gun bill in america. gape gutierrez is in georgia where the governor just signed the bill. at a time where there is this fierce national debate in strengthening gun control, what's the reaction in georgia to a new law that seems to do just the opposite? >> reporter: hi there, ronan. the gun bill signing ceremony just wrapped up. at least here, in this part of georgia, this is the home district of the georgia house speaker, very politically conservative, there was quite a large turnout here. several hundred people. the speaker highlighted the provisions he just mentioned and lesser known provisions, including this bill prevents the state from creating and maintaining a database of licensed weapons carriers, and the bill also eliminates the fingerprinting requirement for renewing gun licenses. now, since newtown, the gun debate has escalated.

according to the law center, to prevent gun violence, more than 1,500 gun related bills were introduced last year. only 123 of them became law. and so far this year, ten states have enacted laws strengthening gun regulations. georgia becomes the ninth state to pass laws weakening them. one of the most controversial parts of the bill getting a lot of attention, not just here in georgia, but around the world, is the implications for georgia's stand your ground law. that is still being debated. the bill's critics say this law now expands "stand your ground" defense for felons. they cite a georgia senate research council analysis saying as much. however, the bill's backers say not so fast. they say that analysis is misinterpreting the bill and says there's really nothing new when it comes to "stand your ground" in this bill, and that just because a felon can ask for immunity, does not mean a judge can actually grant that immunicipal ti. the debate rages on here. now that the governor has signed

it, this law takes effect july 1st. >> what kind of repercussions this has around the country. gabe, thank you so much for that. as we just heard from gabe, supporters of this bill say it defends the second amendment. according to the wishes of ordinary georgians. it matters that players close to this issue are actually fighting the bill and saying it's going to cost lives. that includes the law enforcement community, the guys actually dealing with the consequences of gun violence. the executive director of the georgia association of police chiefs said, quote, police officers do not want more people carrying guns on the street. particularly police officers in inner city areas. it also extends to religious leadership. the pastors whose churches this bill will allow guns into. 65 religious leaders fought against this bill becoming law. among them, the reverend who leads atlanta's ebenezer baptist church, where martin luther king jr. wants preached.

in a church where mourners lined up by the hundreds to walk past his casket when his life was cut short by a quun. gun. senior pastor of ebenezer baptist church joins me today from atlanta. thank you, sir, for taking the time to talk about this issue. i wanted to ask you, given your church's powerful and personal connection to this long debate, what was the church community's reaction when you first learned guns would be allowed at mass? >> thank you so much, ronan. it's good to be here with you. yes, we have felt this in a particular way at ebenezer baptist church. people will know dr. king, of course, was a victim of gun violence. but so was his mother in 1974, while she was playing and singing the lord's prayer in our sanctuary. tragically a young man who needed mental health care and had access to a gun, but not mental health care, came into our church, killed her, and one of our deacons. and here we are, some 40 years later, and in the state of

georgia, and across our country, tragically people have more access to guns than they do to mental health care. we're very concerned. not only about our churches, we're concerned about our young people. one of the things that really needs to be lifted up in this debate is that most gun deaths in the united states are suicide. and so on our college campuses, where now you get a little more than a slap on the wrist because of this terrible bill, which the governor signed today, i'm worried that tragically we're going to see more suicides on college campuses, and universities. i hope i'm wrong, but i think the governor needs to think about that, even as he's enjoying a barbecue now in georgia, complements of the gun lobby. >> and you obviously have had this personal link to the issue. is that what motivated you to come out in such a public way against this particular bill? >> well, i mean, if you look at the data, if the pervasiveness

of the firearms would make a nation safer, united states of america in terms of gun violence should be one of the safest countries in the world, and it's not. we certainly need to be in a much better place than we are today. and as you look at this law here in georgia, i'm concerned about this issue. but i'm also concerned about the larger implications, as was indicated in the lead-up to my interview. law enforcement officers think this is a bad idea. faith leaders think it's a bad idea. we didn't ask for guns in our churches. i know of no denominational churches that lobbied for this legislation. the university presidents oppose it. it begs the question, at whose behest is this legislation coming. i submit to you that we have the best politicians that money can buy, and our politicians on both sides of the aisle are increasingly owned by the gun lobby. and after newtown and all of the

violence that happens in inner cities, in atlanta, in los angeles, and chicago, and other places, we have to stand up and make it clear that we will remember this come november. >> reverend, are you going to apply this law and ban guns in your own church? >> oh, absolutely. we will not allow firearms in our churches. i should say to you that the gun lobby actually wanted this gun law in terms of churches, it's now opt in. they wanted it to be opt out. which would have meant we would have had to have a sign on our church saying no guns allowed. in this case, we indicate that we don't intend to opt in. but i still think it's a bad idea. i'm baptist, so our churches operate by congressional policy. so this introduces a kind of dissension in our churches where boards will have to vote whether to allow guns or not in their churches. we didn't have this problem.

we didn't ask for it. georgia has a number of issues that we need to deal with. we have the fifth highest number of these individuals in georgia. the governor could have taken that same pen and agreed to give some 600,000 georgians medicaid through the medicaid expansion of the affordable care act. yet we've chosen guns over health care. it's the wrong set of values. and most georgians, even republicans, agree with us. and yet here we are today. >> all right. thank you so much, reverend. you make this argument in the face of a lot of impassioned defenders of the second amendment in your state. it will be interesting to see how this continues to play out. but you highlight in a vivid way some of the negative consequences. >> thank you so much. up next, we are going to move on to a ferocious debate, pulitzer prize-winning writer talks about her controversial new book on the gay rights movement. it's up next. salesperson #1: the real deal is the passat tdi clean diesel

gets up to 795 highway miles per tank. salesperson #2: actually, we're throwing in a $1,000 fuel reward card. we've never done that. that's why there's never been a better time to buy a passat tdi clean diesel. husband: so it's like two deals in one? salesperson #2: exactly. avo: during the first ever volkswagen tdi clean diesel event, get a great deal on a passat tdi, that gets up to 795 highway miles per tank. and get a $1,000 fuel reward card. it's like two deals in one. hurry in and get a $1,000 fuel reward card and 0.9% apr for 60 months on tdi models.

oh, there's a prize, all right. [ male announcer ] inside every box of cheerios are those great-tasting little o's made from carefully selected oats that can help lower cholesterol. is it a superhero? kinda. ♪

welcome back to the show. big news today on the battle over marriage equality across the country. in oregon this afternoon, a federal judge will hear arguments about the state's ban on same-sex marriage. interestingly, no one will even be in court to defend the law, which four gay and lesbian couples are challenging because the national organization for marriages' last-ditch effort to get in on the court action was rejected. seven people in georgia challenged that state. shelton and chris from atlanta say, quote, it's really hurtful and offensive that the state of georgia is refusing to treat our families fairly. a lot going on in the same-sex marriage movement today. there's also a new book out about that movement that is ruffling a lot of feathers.

inside the fight for marriage equality by joe becker. presents an unprecedented behind-the-scenes look at all of the players involved in the 2013 fight to overturn proposition 8 in the supreme court. however, some pioneers of the gay rights movement have been critical of that movement. andrea sullivan wrote, for becker, the movement for marriage equality was a cause that for years had been largely languishing in obscurity. i don't know how to address that statement because it is so wrong, and so ignorant, it begs a belief that a respectful journalist could actually put it in print. gay activist andrew, joe becker tried. harsh words. joining me to talk about the book and respond to some of the claims is jo becker. thank you for sitting through a very withering intro. i do want to focus on some of the important substance that is the backbone of this book. this fight to overturn prop 8.

you talk about the holingsworth case. they ended up with somewhat of a failure on their hands. there was a technical ruling that kicked this back to california. do you consider this a story of a failure? >> no. i think i was in san francisco on the day that marriages were allowed to resume in california. the bottom line is, there were people lining up to get married. pushing strollers, pushing wheelchairs, crying, pressing flowers at one point into the plaintiff's hands, thanking them, crying. one-fifth of the country was able to resume full marriage equality. and i remember flying out with a plaintiff to california, and they crossed into california air space, and one of them said, it was very quiet, because it wasn't the victory they wanted, of course, but they said, you know, we've now crossed into california where we're now finally full and equal citizens. >> it's certainly a meaningful fight.

one of the ways in which you claim it's meaningful is a new argument i haven't seen anywhere else before, you claim that the argument in the successful overturning of doma, the windsor case, was actually influenced by the failed case in the prop 8 fight. i talked to a lot of people involved in both of these cases involved in the drafting of the windsor briefs, who really took issue with that characterization. they said, actually the reasoning in the two cases was very different, but the olson case laid out a very different logic on olson's side. in fact, the reasoning in the windsor case came from the windsor briefs. how do you respond to that? >> robby caplan is a wonderful lawyer. i talk about her in the book, her and edie. they were in the case, asking for a limited -- you know, it was a limited decision. it was a decision to say, you don't have to recognize -- you don't have to overturn bans

across the nation. but you do have to recognize legally married couples and give them federal benefits. of course, olson and the perry case was asking for much more. they wanted a 50-state ruling which would allow gays and lesbians to marry. i talk a lot about the tension, but i think in the end what happened was that they actually benefited from each other. you know, if you look at justice kennedy's decision, the joke a little bit in edie windsor's legal team was, edie's already married, already gay. they didn't talk about -- they didn't stress -- they wanted to make it this low-key kind of, this is just a tax case. i think that on the other hand -- >> but actually looking at the briefs in windsor, they lay out the emotional stakes. >> it's really a love story. >> not just a love story for giggles, it's a love story because this dignity argument,

they were saying it rests on that. you have to understand it's a love story like a heterosexual. >> what was interesting in the kennedy brief, and i've talked to lawyers -- a lot of different lawyers. what was interesting in the kennedy decision is how he kept coming back and back and back to the importance of marriage. and that, the importance of marriage, it was a blending of these two -- >> and the argument from the people involved, and windsor came so vividly from the windsor briefs. >> robbie said, if the prop 8 case hadn't been next to her, they might not have ruled as broadly as they do. >> even your staunchest critics have said it raises awareness. one thing people do take issue, though, is the beginning of this book. you write, quote, this is how a revolution begins. you're talking about an election of a party in 2008, with the number of activists that people like andrew sullivan.

saying we're somewhat fringe that came into the game late. first of all, do you regret characterizing it as, this is the beginning of the movement? >> no, not at all. because that's not how -- that's not what it says. if you look at -- >> this is how the revolution begins. >> sure, but if you look at how we sort of describe this book, the book is about -- there's not a lot of talk about what the book isn't about. it's not a history of the entire gay movement event. and not a history of the marriage equality movement. the flap jacket when you describe a book -- >> look, the cover says inside the fight for marriage equality. once you get inside, you say this is about the hollingsworth case. >> so when i say, and in this story, you know, it begins with this guy chad griffin, that's true. look, this was a -- >> but you don't say this story of this case begins with chad griffin. i think what people are taking issue with, at the start of this book, you say this is how the revolution begins. and you point to 2008.

then you compare him to rosa parks. do you regret that comparison? do you think that holds up to scrutiny? >> look, i'd like to answer the first question first. >> sure. >> when i say this is how a revolution begins. it's an insurrection. the entire legal establishment was opposed to taking a case to federal court. and for good reason that i describe. they were worried, they were scared there wasn't five votes. so this was absolutely a revolutionary step to take. and one that was very controversial at the time. and i think you're sort of seeing that play out now. >> but isn't it also fair to say when you describe this as languishing in obscurity, that flies in the face of stonewall going back to the late '60s, and the hawaii case in the '90s, do you think it's fair to say you downplay it too much? >> no, look, the book is about this case. that is what this book is about. that's how we sold the book.

and i think that there are many, many people who deserve a ton of credit for getting the country to the place that -- where we're at now. but the truth is, that this case garnered huge headlines. the pairing up of this kind of marquee lawyers attracted mainstream press in a way that it really hadn't before. this cause had not. everybody was writing about this case. maureen dowd was there. there were tv crews there. there was a documentary on cnn about this case. i think the newsworthiness of the case and the decision that i made, spending the four years writing about it, is absolutely, you know, that that news judgment is held up by -- take a look at nexus. >> there are important stories in here that all of that access provided. and they're moving and they're certainly educational. but one of the things that the critics take issue is how you define the old guard. they're making a cost benefit

analysis. you criticize that, but also criticize them, saying there's a generational gap, saying they're out of touch. do you think you went too far in criticizing -- >> i didn't describe them that way. >> did you use the phrase generational gap? >> actually, it's a character -- one of the characters in the book talks about that. look, the scene that you're describing was a scene in which they had decided to kind of lift the tent a little bit and let people know what they were thinking about doing. they knew how controversial it would be. the controversy surrounding this book, it was -- you know, this was a controversy playing out at the time, when this case was first -- people first learned about it in this movement. yes, there was a group of people who felt that the movement had slowed down. people like cleave jones, who was the creator of the eighth quilt. and that younger people could see a future, you know, in a clearer way, and could ask for more. >> clearly some of that presents

not feeling included in the narrative. we talked to andrew sullivan earlier, and he said, why didn't she call me. why did you not feel the need to contact 4i78, for instance? >> i did contact evan olson. i spent two different sitdowns with him. i spoke to mark solomon. this was a book about a specific group of people. i wanted to write about what i saw and heard. and what i saw and heard was a group of people who went to court who, you know, who had these great hopes for the supreme court, who told their story. and that's a really interesting point. because when people tell their stories, it moves people. in this book, it's actually fascinating, the story of these plaintiffs so moved chuck cooper, the lawyer who fought them all the way to the supreme court, and when he saw them -- >> the personal story on this? >> when he saw them getting married, he said i couldn't help but rejoice in their happiness. >> whatever the controversy about this, and i think there are valid points being thrown at you, these are moving stories.

and within the context of this case, what you chronicle is very valuable. thank you for that, and thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. up next on the show, find out which of these head-turners has won the coveted title of "people" magazine's most beautiful person. you, my friend are a master of diversification. who would have thought three cheese lasagna would go with chocolate cake and ceviche? the same guy who thought that small caps and bond funds would go with a merging markets. it's a masterpiece. thanks. clearly you are type e. you made it phil. welcome home. now what's our strategy with the fondue? diversifying your portfolio? e*trade gives you the tools and resources to get it right. are you type e*? carsthey're why we innovate. they're who we protect. they're why we make life less complicated. it's about people.

we are volvo of sweden.

welcome back, everybody. "people" magazine's most beautiful woman in the world is, drum roll, lupita. full disclosure, we have a bit of a show crush on miss nyong'o. we'll go on, but props to lupita. that magazine hits newsstands on friday. stay with us, because just ahead, our call to action, when

drill, baby drill, turned into spill, baby spill. one presidential historian rang the alarm. i'll talk to that historian, douglas brinkley, coming up next.

cadmium, mercury, lead. all on the periodic table. all inside these, too. now the last thing we want is for all that to mix with water. so recycle. you'll keep your planet clean, t-m-y-k. there was a boy who traveled to a faraway place where castles were houses and valiant knights stood watch for the kingdom was vast and monsters lurked in the deep and the good queen showed the boy it could all be real

avo: all of great britain, all in one place book on expedia before april 30th and save up to thirty percent. the coast guard and the oil companies are trying to prevent an environmental tragedy. today a sheen of oil, up to 100 square miles, floats over the gulf. as crews work to contain the damage, environmentalists worry about sperm whales that feed near the sunken rig and the possibility the oil could harm the official fishing areas and the wetlands. >> that was nbc news chief environmental affairs correspondent ann thompson, four years ago this very day, reporting on the environmental impact when bp's oil rig exploded. killing 11 people and spewing some 200 million gallons of oil into the gulf of mexico for 87 days. just last week, bp announced the

cleanup operations are over. in that cleanup, thousands of gallons of chemical dispersants were used to break down oil into to tiny droplets. they're still trying to figure out the effect to the environment. it may be years before the effects are known. bp was supposed to be a never again moment, it is happening again, over and over. in indiana, up to 1,600 gallons of crude oil leaked into lake michigan from a bp refinery. in texas a ship and barge collided spilling up to 168,000 gallons into the port of houston. that left hundreds of birds covered in oil. you see some of them there. those that remain alive have little chances of survival. one research scientist saying, quote, when a bird has oil coating its eyes and bill, it's not capable of getting rid of it. watching this is like watching them die in slow motion. with an economy that is still

fueled by oil, is this unavoidable, or something that we all have a responsibility to fix? joining me now is presidential historian douglas brinkley, a professor of history at rice university. he spoke extensively on how our presidents have dealt with the environment. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> we've seen in michigan and texas the recent stories, oil spilling into our water over and over and over again. is this something that could be prevented or changed with the right policies, or does it have to be a recurring cycle? >> it's not inevitable. but we have to wake up about things, like the santa barbara spill, and led to richard nixon creating the environmental protection agency and endangered species and clean air and water acts. we had a lot of outrage with the bp spill for about six months, then the news cycles forgot about it. meanwhile, its "in ot just dolphins being killed or sea turtles, the gulf of mexico is dying. we're using it as sort of an

industrial canal or something, and it needs a lot more love and attention. and bp has reneged on numerous promises that they are going to do for the region. they still can't get the right stat on how many gallons of oil spilled into the gulf. there's constantly -- they're constantly trying to find loopholes about paying into a conservation fund. they haven't given a nickel to plaquemine's parrish there in the gulf. >> do you think that the government has followed up with any meaningful action? have we learned anything on a policy level since the deepwater horizon explosion? >> no, not enough. it's a longer conversation about the mississippi delta, and the channelizing of the mississippi river and the way we need to rebuild the wetlands. but i think the obama administration has an opportunity right now, second term, to at least say, what are some zones that we're not going

to allow offshore drilling. i think the chesapeake bay needs to be off-limits, and certainly the technology is not available to go drilling off of the arctic national wildlife refuge in alaska. it's going to be a disaster in waiting. so we've got to put treasured landscapes above quick dollars for the energy petro dollars. and we as americans need to do that. and some places are just too sacred. we need to create them as sanctionwea arys. >> you've actually written a book about that, a lot of presidential history books. i want to ask you about this particular one detailing president they oh door roosevelt's environmental policies. when you look at the presidents and their work on the environment, first of all, who's caused the most damage? >> the most damage in recent time, i would say -- well, two of them, warren harding and ronald reagan. both of them had a kind of

anti-environmental attitude. both were about let business have a run on the land. i say that with a lot of admiration for ronald reagan in foreign policy, incidentally, and i edited his diaries. but when he put someone like james watt in to try to create situations like you have in nevada, of turning citizens and the blm at war with each other, it's a ridiculous run there. but the greats that we need to honor are theodore roosevelt. fdr, and the drought, we're having drought now, of the dust bowl of the 1930s, he had the ccc, civilian conservation corps, plant 1 billion trees around the country. you know, just aggressive action. because if you love america, and you say america the beautiful, and you say this land is your land, then we have to take care of it. we all need to do a better job of being custodians, and we can't count on corporate america to do it, we need the help with the federal and state

governments to protect our waterways, air and public lands. >> quick question as we part ways. how do you rank our current president? >> hard to rank right now. he's behind, certainly, the roosevelts, kennedy, johnson, carter, and clinton. but he could do something quickly. right now, tomorrow, sign a national monument creating the oregon mountains, desert peaks national monument near las cruces, new mexico. half a million acres. it would play right into the eco-tourism of the region where you had guadalupe national parks and carlsbad caverns. the great conservation center tom udall thinks the president should sign that. it would be his biggest national monument to date. >> thank you, doug brinkley, appreciate your stand on this. there are regulations on what animals are counted after oil spills, which is highlighted in

this whitehouse.gov petition, which asks all wildlife, not just oiled animals retrieved after a spill. we're asking you to sign that petition and tweet your support using #wildlife counts. make sure to let us know on twitter, facebook and e-mail. up next, as the clock ticks down, and the numbers tick up, we look at what's behind the recent surge in executions with two lawyers who have been in the trenches on this debate. stay with us. [ aniston ] when people ask me what i'm wearing, i tell them aveeno®.

[ female announcer ] aveeno® daily moisturizing lotion has active naturals® oat with five vital nutrients. [ aniston ] because beautiful skin goes with everything. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results™. [ female announcer ] f provokes lust. ♪ it elicits pride... incites envy... ♪ ...and unleashes wrath. ♪ temptation comes in many heart-pounding forms. but only one letter. "f". the performance marque from lexus. but only one letter. intercourse that's painfulit... due to menopausal changes. the problem isn't likely to go away... ...on its own. so it's time we do something about it. and there's help. premarin vaginal cream.

a prescription that does what no over-the-counter product was designed to do. it provides estrogens to help rebuild vaginal tissue and make intercourse more comfortable. premarin vaginal cream treats vaginal changes due to menopause and moderate-to-severe painful intercourse caused by these changes. don't use premarin vaginal cream if you've had unusual bleeding, breast or uterine cancer, blood clots, liver problems, stroke or heart attack, are allergic to any of its ingredients or think you're pregnant. side effects may include headache, pelvic pain, breast pain, vaginal bleeding and vaginitis. estrogen may increase your chances of getting cancer of the uterus, strokes, blood clots or dementia, so use it for the shortest time based on goals and risks. estrogen should not be used to prevent heart disease, heart attack, stroke or dementia. ask your doctor about premarin vaginal cream. and go to premarinvaginalcream.com this is worth talking about.

we're back. in missouri today, a drug cocktail, a secret, and an execution. attorneys for convicted murderer william rasong tried and failed to stay his execution by lethal injection. because the contents of the drugs to be used, and their preparation, was completely unknown. as we've seen in recent executions like one in ohio, in these unknown drugs, it can

result in agonizingly protracted gasping, convulsing deaths. in oklahoma, on monday, the supreme court stayed the executions of two inmates over the very same concerns. lawyers in at least four other states have raised this issue. what is inside these drugs or drug cocktails? and is the secrecy surrounding them constitutional? to answer that question, let's bring in criminal defense attorney, representing celebrities like michael jackson. he's successfully defended one capital murder death case per year in the deep south. owl pro bono. also joining us is lisa bloom, legal analyst. lisa, let's start with you. explain the growing battle over the secrecy involved in these execution drugs. >> well, i think it's important not only for the person who's about to be executed, but for all of us to have transparency

in our criminal justice system, and to know what we are doing in the name of our criminal justice system, what drugs we're putting into the bodies of people. when we have secrecy, i think that indicates a sense of shame. that we don't want to admit what we're really doing when it comes to the death penalty. and to the larger issues of why we still have capital punishment in america, when almost every other developed country has abolished it. >> should the states should be obligated to disclose the contents? >> they absolutely should. you've got a double secrecy going on in execution, and it's completely improper. we don't know who's providing these drugs, we don't know what the drugs are. there is a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in america. if you keep these drugs secret and the pharmacies that compound the drugs and produce the drugs secret, you're violating the cons execution. i agree with lisa, the death penalty is unevenly

administered. a serial killer in one state gets life, in another state they get death. it rarely brings about the closure that victims' families want. they want a sense of justice and closure, but rarely receive it. it doesn't deter crime at all. killers don't think of the death penalty before they kill. it doesn't have any deterrent value at all. >> on this specific issue of drug secrecy, how would you argue it, if you had a client right now facing this? >> well, i would argue that first of all, there is a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. it's a congress stugs al principle. it pervades our history. you cannot just decide you're going to execute someone with a secret drug from a secret pharmacy with a secret compounding process with secret ingredients. that is absolutely unconstitutional. they should not execute anyone in that situation. >> lisa, the oklahoma's attorneys argued, to date no certifications, testing data, medical opinions or any other

evidence to support the state's insistence that the drugs are safe or required legally. in oklahoma district court last month, they did declare the secrecy unconstitutional. they're really fighting it out to divulge the sources. what's at stake here? >> i think because they're probably embarrassed to reveal the exact information. why does anyone hide information in any context? because revealing that information would not look good for them. that's why they're trying to keep it secret. there's really nothing good about the death pep at. we used to have the electric chair, two people flipping the switches so nobody could sure which one it was. when we had firing squads, we had multiple people shooting guns so nobody would feel bad later about being the one. everything that tom said is absolutely true. i would add that we know that innocent people have been put to death. innocent people on death row have been exonerated. once they're put to death, we can never reverse it.

all of this is systematic of a larger problem with the death penalty itself. >> the supporters of the death penalty say the whole point is to inflict some level of pain, it is a punishment. but at what point does that become cruel and unusual? >> we're supposed to be a civilized society. the death penalty as far as i'm concerned is nothing but legislated revenge. quite honestly, i don't think it's the best form of revenge. someone with a life without parole sentence, particularly in a federal system, lives underground in colorado, isolated from everyone else, under 4-hour surveillance, 24-hour lighting. they never see daylight, but for a short period of time each day. that to me is a much more serious form of punishment than simply executing someone. if you do it in a painless way, which it should be, because the state is supposed to be a civilized entity. we're not supposed to just execute people in a criminal way that defies civilized norms. that's what's going on with

secret drugs. >> it can't last forever, there is a lot of public outcry on this. stick around, because we're doing our heroes and zeroes next, looking at the controversial supreme court decision yesterday. and the impassioned opinions on both sides. stay with us. really... so our business can be on at&t's network for $175 dollars a month? yup. all five of you for $175. our clients need a lot of attention. there's unlimited talk and text. we're working deals all day. you get 10 gigabytes of data to share. what about expansion potential? add a line anytime for 15 bucks a month. low dues... great terms... let's close. new at&t mobile share value plans. our best value plans ever for business. ♪ i ♪ and i got the tools ira ♪ to do it my way ♪ i got a lock on equities ♪ that's why i'm type e ♪ ♪ that's why i'm tyyyyype eeeee, ♪

♪ i can do it all from my mobile phone ♪ ♪ that's why i'm tyyyyype eeeee, ♪ ♪ if i need some help i'm not alone ♪ ♪ we're all tyyyyype eeeee, ♪ ♪ we've got a place that we call home ♪ ♪ we're all type e ♪

(mom) when our little girl was we got a subaru. it's where she said her first word. (little girl) no! saw her first day of school. (little girl) bye bye! made a best friend forever.

the back seat of my subaru is where she grew up. what? (announcer) the 2015 subaru forester (girl) what? (announcer) built to be there for your family. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. time now for our heroes and zeros today. this is one is contentious. sonia sotomayor, go on with your bad self. she wrote an eloquent impassioned 58-page dissent to the court's ruling upholding a michigan ban on affirmative action arguing "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race and apply the constitution with the eyes open effect of the effects of racial discrimination. we ought not sit back and wish

away, rather than confront the racial inequality that exists in our society." the reality, she wrote, is that race matters. chief justice john roberts wrote "to disagree with the dissent's views is not to wish away rather than confront racial inequality. people can disagree but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate." look, the affirmative action question is a complex one and justice roberts is correct saying good faith debate shouldn't be quashed. that's not really what sotomayor is doing. what she's doing is sticking out her neck to remind us all of a harsh reality. racial discrimination is still a problem. in fact, at the ann arbor campus at the university of michigan, african-american enrollment dropped 30% in the three years following that afermive action ban. last hour eric holder slammed the decision in some stark

personal terms. >> i know it may be tempting for some when they look at the accomplished professionals in this room or the lawyer who works in the oval office or consider the fact that i have the privilege of serving as the attorney general of the united states to feel this country's long struggle to overcome disparity and discrimination has ended but as justice sonia sotomayor said just yesterday in her courageous and personal didissent in the michigan college ed missions case we ought not wish away rather than confront the racial inequality that exists in our society. >> how to confront racial discrimination is a question that will appear before our courts again and again, several states now banning affirmative action, as this one did. but for reminding us that discrimination is indeed still a problem and with considerable force and elegance i'm going

with sotomayor on this one. lisa, the interesting thing about this was so many women on my team as we were debating this were taken aback by the concurrence from justice roberts, felt he was being condescendi condescending. what do you think? >> yes, justice sotomayor was making a good faith argument, a very brilliant argument by the way. i've read her entire dissent, tweeted it for anybody who wants to take a look. on the gender issue the entire majority were male and third dissenter were female. justice sotomayor is making the very important point that racism is not over in america and i think once you understand the depth and breadth of racism that goes on in america especially in schools, and i write about that a lot in my book "suspicion nation" you understand how far we have to go and why affirmative action is still necessary. >> thomas, do you agree with the majority ruling here? >> i agree with justice sotomayor.

first of all it depends on your view of race. i mean, do you think racism is going to end or do you think racism is going to be pervasive and continual? i think human beings have an inherent desire to look down on somebody. it can be subconscious or it can be conscious but we're never going to end racism, and we're a diverse society where everyone is supposed to have equal clout but minorities don't have equal clout and if you think racism is something that we have to continually monitor, continually examine and continually react to, then certainly this decision is not an appropriate one. >> that's always the question, the jurisprudence on this, right, either it's a necessary evil in the short term or a forever problem like you're saying. >> justice roberts has a my opi view on race. many white people have not had to deal with race in their upbringing or any of the obstacles they've dealt with in life. minority is very different. they've had to confront it from an early age.

they've been raised to be sensitive to it. you have a different type of consciousness when it comes to race between the majority and the minorities. racism is here to stay. it will always exist. we will always have to deal with it and i'm for affirmative action. >> i think justice sotomayor speaks to that personal legacy of it very eloquently. lisa bloom, thomas me is he row always a pleasure. >> thank you ronan. >> that wraps it up for today's editio edition. "the reid report" is up next. download the expedia app text expedia to 75309 expedia, find yours the was a truly amazing day. without angie's list, i don't know if we could have found all the services we needed for our riley. for over 18 years we've helped people take care of the things that matter most. join today at angieslist.com a man who doesn't stand still. but jim has afib, atrial fibrillation,

an irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. that puts jim at a greater risk of stroke. for years, jim's medicine tied him to a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but now, with once-a-day xarelto jim's on the move. jim's doctor recommended xarelto. like warfarin, xarelto is proven effective to reduce afib-related stroke risk. but xarelto is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. so jim's not tied to that monitoring routine. [ gps ] proceed to the designated route. not today. [ male announcer ] for patients currently well managed on warfarin there is limited information on how xarelto and warfarin compare in reducing the risk of stroke. xarelto is just one pill a day taken with the evening meal. plus, with no known dietary restrictions, jim can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto, rivaroxaban, without talking to the doctor who prescribes it

as this may increase the risk of having a stroke. get help right away if you develop any symptoms like bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto with aspirin products, nsaids, or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto if you have abnormal bleeding. xarelto can cause bleeding, which can be serious and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto, tell your doctor about any conditions such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. xarelto is not for patients with artificial heart valves. jim changed his routine. ask your doctor about xarelto. once-a-day xarelto means no regular blood monitoring -- no known dietary restrictions. for more information and savings options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com.

good afternoon readers. this is "ed reid report." i'm joy reid. the most extreme gun bill in america is now law. >> what a great day to reaffirm our liberties. >> it's a law the national rifle association calls the most

comprehensive gun bill in recent state history and that some are calling part of a re-election strategy for georgia's republican governor. it will allow guns in airport n churches, in bars and of course silencers for hunting. is this the future for our already gun saturated culture or a case of second amendment overreach? later in the hour the latest round of subpoenas in the bridgegate controversy and that means more heat on chris christie in a scandal he can't get away from. we'll talk western states and keystone with former montana governor brian schweikert. but we start in georgia where hours ago the state's governor signed the country's most extreme gun bill into law. it's pretty tough record to break and yet that's exactly what nathan diehl did. at a campaign event, that's important in this story, governor diehl explained how the new law would protect his fellow