they would be following the will will of the majority of the american people who support reform. instead they have proven again and again that they are unwilling the to stand the up to the tea party in order to do what's best for the country. >> the president won't be deterred. no matter what they do, he will continue to do what's right for the country. thanks for watching. i'm al sharpton. "hardball" starts right now. corporations are people with their own religious beliefs. let's play "hardball.." good evening. i'm in for chris matthews. let me start tonight with the big news from the supreme court are today. in a 5-4 decision the court ruled some for-profit companies can't be forced to provide

coverage for contraception for employees if it violates their beliefs. this is the first time the court ruled that companies can hold religious views under federal law. justice aleto wrote any suggestion that for profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of corporate law of. the hhs mandate demands that they engage in conduct that violates their religious belief. justice ginsburg said the court had entered into a mine fold. the court hold that is commercial sbrer prizes including corporations along with partnerships and sole proprietorships can opt out of any law, saving tax laws, they judge incompatible with their religious beliefs. it would deny legions of women who do not hold their pleas beliefs access to contraception. one of the businesses, hobby

lobby is owned by the green family, devout christians who say they run the company based on biblical principles. they have 13,000 employees and object to providing emergency contraceptives and iuds which they consider a form of abort n abortion. >> today's ruling jeopardize it is health of women employed by these companies. we believe they shouldn't be allowed to deny employees federally mandated benefit. >> on the other hand, conservatives celebrated the ruling. house speaker john boehner said today's decision is a viblgtry for religious freedom and another defeat for an administration that's crossed constitutional lines in pursuit of its big government objectives. i'm joined by senior counsel for the beckett fund for religious liberty which represented hobby

lobby. the headline on this is for the first time ever the court is saying corporations can assert some of the religious protections that previously only individual people can assert. i know there are attempts to carve out exceptions, well, you can't say we are not covering blood transfusions and things but when you get down to it when they talk about sincerely reld religious views do we know if there will be a slippery slope? how can we say it won't expand this protection into other areas? >> no. there won't be a slippery slope. the opinion was clear. they said the law requires a balancing test. you have to balance the burden on religious freedom. they have made other a come days agos from this law in a different case. the balance would likely be struck differently.

that's what a majority of the court said. >> isn't it fair to say we don't know until it is tested whether it is a future ruling by the supreme court, whether it is decisions by the other courtses? we don't know how it will be interpreted. i know there are specific potential cases cited in the ruling. blood transfusion or something. we don't really know -- who are we to say when somebody says this is my religious view and we hold a company, we won't know until challenges are brought. >> we have a good example. eight years ago the supreme court used the law to carve out an exception for a religious corporation, a church, from the nation's drug laws. then the bush administration said, oh, no, you can't do this. everybody will get an exception. since that time we have had only two more exceptions made from our nation's drug laws under this statute. that's a good indicator that these decisions from the supreme court that are careful and narrow do not lead to a slippery slope. >> the justices in the majority

insist it is limited in scope. justice aleto wrote the decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance coverage mandates including vaccinations or blood transfusions must fall if they conflict with an employer's belief. ginsburg wrote the court's notion of corporate personhood invites for profit entities to seek religion based. there is an alternative means for women employed by hobby lobby or other companies affected by the ruling. there is a means for them to get contraceptive coverage and there is an exemptions already to the rule that's in place for religiously affiliated hospitals, universities where the insurance companies provide contracepti contraception. they are reimbursed by the government. so what's wrong with the ruling? why isn't it as narrow as lori

is saying? >> the court just says ifs narrow. it doesn't give reasons why closely held corporations should be treated differently from publically traded corporations. we can see cases will be coming to expand which corporations it applies to. moreover when the court comes to the substantial burden test it takes the plaintiff's word for it and says, okay, if you think this is a substantial burden on your exercise of religion, if you think this is a substantial burden, okay. we'll agree with you that it is. >> let me ask you. what would you say to it's a family owned company. deeply religious family owned company. they have strong religious objections to the idea of providing contraceptive care and at the same time are there is an alternative way to get women the

contraceptive coverage. what's the objection to that? >> that's really not what we are talking about in the sast majority of the cases. closely held corporations are 92% of our companies. this will impact over 52% of the work force potentially. when people think offal small family-owned businesses, that's not who this applies to. this is dell, toys r us or koch industries. small businesses, family owned businesses don't have to comply to begin with. >> isn't there also -- we have seen hobby lobby because of this case has become a politically polarizing name. if you're on the right side of the spectrum you like them. on the left it's practically become a curse word. a lot of the large corporations, the risk here of a slippery slope effect. the p.r. damage of taking on something like this. what company will want to do that? >> a lot of major companies have

an incentive to save cost. we are not just talking about birth control. we are talking about a lot of different health benefits that can be quite high in costs which is what's wrong with the court's argument when they say there is an alternative option here. the there may be an alternative option in this case. it will require government action to make this plan available to the women who work for these employers. we don't have a guarantee that that will happen. we know it will be a big political fight. there won't be that option with things like blood transfusion and other types of treatment. >> lori, this solution that is recommended. the idea that already in place for employees of religiously affiliated hospitals, academic institutions where they object to contraceptive care, the solution is in place, the administration basically set it up as we said a minute ago so the employee gets coverage from the insurance company and the insurance company is effectively

reimbursed by the federal government. there is relief given, fees and the insurance company is reimbursed by the federal government. are you okay with that as a solution? >> the government has never offered us that option. they have said from day one, no. >> but we are talk thing about going forward now with the ruling. in light of this ruling is that something you are okay with? >> right now, again, we have never been offered this option. it's something that if the government offers, the green family will have to consider whether that's in accordance with their religious beliefs. >> so the solution spelled out here in the justification of the ruling, you're not sure you are okay with it? >> the government has never offered us this option. if they choose to offer this option to the family that's something they would consider. so far it's never been on the table. >> i understanditis not been on the table and the world has changed. now we have this ruling and we have a specific suggestion fr

that this is -- the ruling is okay. we can do this because there is an alternative means for contraceptive coverage. i'm picking up hesitation. i wonder if you consider that a back doorway of taxpayers funding contraception? >> you know, there are a lot of way it is government can achieve its goals. the oy cam days ago one of them. title x is one of them. the government spends $300 million a year to provide contraception to women who need it. i don't know which option they will choose. the green family asked that they be left out of it and not are have to take part in providing drugs that could terminate a human life. s s >> we are doing incredible damage to our doctrine around religious freedom and opening the doors to broad sweeping problems for other health care access and employee protections. what this is about at its base

is trying to figure out as many ways as possible to limit women's access to reproductive health care. title x, there have been incredible fights to defund title x, cut off federal funding for family planning. we have restrictions on which types of abortion in which circumstances can be funded by the government. there are states on the federal exchange where people cannot use their own money to purchase insurance to cover abortion. this is from all angles an attempt to limit access to affordable reproductive health care. there is a reason conservativeses won't agree to this type of solution. they are going to fight it politically. >> quickly, finish that thought. >> hobby lobby and the green family never objected to their employeeses obtaining contraception on their own. this is about whether the government can force them to be involved. >> thank you both. coming up, much more on hobby lobby and how both sides

are headed to the battle stations. the far right are is using this to say the obama administration is waging a war on religion. progressives hope it will fire up women voters. plus, president obama says he'll do it on his own. never mind those who want to sue him over kwus of executive action. and 12 years after being convicted for rack are tiering he's running for may again in rhode island. first stop on "hardball." finally, let me finish with political paralysis and the one with are branch of government immune toou gridlock. this is "hardball," the place for politics. e during the day, we generate as much electricity as we can using solar. at night and when it's cloudy, we use more natural gas. this ensures we can produce clean electricity whenever our customers need it. ♪

say "hi" rudy. [ barks ] [ chuckles ] i'd do anything to keep this guy happy and healthy. that's why i'm so excited about these new milk-bone brushing chews. whoa, i'm not the only one. it's a brilliant new way to take care of his teeth. clinically proven as effective as brushing. ok, here you go. have you ever seen a dog brush his own teeth? the twist and nub design cleans all the way down to the gum line, even reaching the back teeth. they taste like a treat, but they clean like a toothbrush. nothing says you care like a milk-bone brushing chew. [ barks ] americans are losing confidence in all three branches of government. only 30% say they have confidence in the u.s. supreme court. that's a record low. 29% have confidence in presidency. that's a six-year low.

get this, only 7% say they have confidence in congress. again that's a record low. we'll be right back. prices here. but we can take control with clean, renewable fuels... like ethanol we're growing right here. it means more jobs and more security... less pollution and less pain at the pump. because it's time to stop letting chaos decide our... energy future. tell congress and the epa to stand up to big oil. don't gut the renewable fuel standard.

it can help your business save money. false. the truth is when you compare our fastest internet to the fastest dsl from the phone company, comcast business gives you more for your money. why pay more for less? call today for a low price on speeds up to 150mbps. and find out more about our two-year price guarantee. comcast business. built for business.

welcome back. more on the fallout from today's big supreme court ruling. the news sent both political parties scrambling for different reasons. democrats went on the attack by denouncing the court's decision while trying to fire up the female base. for republicans the ruling set off a freakout on the far eight. they saw it as vindication for the idea that president obama is lawless and godless. in a statement ted cruz said the right to religious liberty reare mains under an incredible assault by this administration on a variety of fonts. mitch mcconnell said today's supreme court decision makes it clear that the obama administration cannot trample on the religious freedoms that americans cold dear.

reince priebus remaineded that obamacare has tram. ed on our constitutional freedoms. that was tame compared to what was on fox uh news. >> it's a war on nuns and other religious nonprofits. i hope it will have broader implications, that the administration will read this decision and call off the war on the nuns. >> no doubt about it. today the supreme court stopped the greatest attempted assault on religious liberty in history. >> doesn't take much to fire up the hard right. obamacare, sex, religious freedom. but democrats have a huge advantage with women. the group that's actually affected by today's ruling. who wins this political battle and who wins the war in november and beyond? a reporter with the washington post and michelle bernard from the center for women, politics and public policy. michelle, we talked to one of the lawyers helping hobby lobby and talking about what a narrow

ruling it is. how there is no slippery slope. it applies to isolated cases. then you listen to the rhetoric, the clips and you think this is the biggest decision in the history of the supreme court. just from the right wing perspective, i'm seeing an imbalance between how legal scholars are are talking and how the pundits are are talking about this. what's that about? >> there actually is a huge difference from a legal perspective. this is where i put on my georgetown law school grad hat. it's a narrowly written decision. it was written for that specific purpose to hopefully hope that people will not go berserk in the application of the law. just because the decision was written narrowly doesn't mean when humans get involved that they won't go nuts in their application of the supreme court ruling. are conservatives happy because

they think this is just the start and there is going to be more rulings like this? this is the story, i guess of the supreme court has been it starts with with a narrow ruling and then comes back and something big is repeelded, rolled back. >> i would imagine the reason we see it is you can begin to use this ruling to chip away at things on the basis of religious liberty a little bit at a time. i honestly believe we'll see corporations and otherses begin to use this act as pretext to dismantle other things they can say they believe are unconstitutional. >> let's look at the politics now we have been hearing that the playing field isn't in their favor. democrats have been talking about specifically firing up female voters this fall. we know there is a gender gap.

a huge gender gap with single women versus married women. it seems to me we can look at the right celebrating and the left not getting its way. at the same time this is the kind of thing that could fire up the left a little bit. >> absolutely. when you think you can coming off a great graet victory and there is joy and dancing in the streets, then it's time for a victory lap. not time to get fired up for the election. i see the ruling on the political front being good for the democrats. >> i agree with michelle that it is narrowly tailored because it says this only applies to contraception. it is only saying this was not the least restrictive way to meet the administration's goals of giving contraception for free

to women. >> the question i have is look at a state like kentucky. republican state. if the democrats are are going to save the senate this would help them. al son grimes, this ruling comes down and she's in a culturally conservative state, what does she say? can she take advantage? >> i'm not sure this sort of issue will be that important in kentucky where they have been doing well with the state exchange and people are happy with it. they are signing up lots of people. will the contraceptive mandate that they have said really only the goal can be met in other ways. they are not -- you know, when i hear people say, oh, this is the end of the affordable care act. no such thing. or on the other hand, when i hear them saying, you know, this is a terrible blow to women's access to contraception.

i don't are think that's true either. in kentucky, allison grimes has many more. they are look at her talking about the war on coal -- obama's so-called war on coal. they are looking at different issues. >> so many are red states are battlegrounds. democrats do have the numbers on the issue according to a poll taken in march. only 14% of americans said employers who object to contraceptives on religious grounds should be exempt from that provision of the act. 53% said they should not. that jumps to 59% among single women. i got into this a minute ago. we talk about the gender gap, men versus women. the gap that exists within women. married women versus single women. the democrats keep telling me this is our future. it's single women specifically.

you have 30, 40 point gap of oh democrats and republicans among single women. >> i believe it's not just single women. when you look at culturally conservative states, white women as a demographic are becoming a smaller and smaller number in states. a lot of the women voted republican in the last presidential election. i think where we are going to see a large impact in terms of the women's vote is not necessarily during the 2014 midterms but in the presidential election. it won't be on this issue as a single issue. it will be a litmus test of the war on women we saw beginning with mitt romney's binders full of women in the last election. with the whole notion of corporate personhood, you are going to see women think this is a large problem that corporations are not people. you will see married women, single women, african-american

women, hispanics, quote/unquote other category of women looking at a long list of issues whether it's equal pay, violence against women or what's happening with regard to contraception and republicans being the party of binders full of women and corporate personhood and saying if corporations are equal to individual individuals this is not the party we want to vote for. in 2016 it will be a more important issue than we may see in the midterm. >> i'm sorry, i would love to, but we are out of time. i want to thank you both. appreciate it. up next, a congressman caught in scandal the wants another chance. that's next in the sideshow. [ shutter clicks ] hi there! [ laughs ]

-i'm flo! -i know! i'm going to get you your rental car. this is so ridiculous. we're going to manage your entire repair process from paperwork to pickup, okay, little tiny baby? your car is ready, and your repairs are guaranteed for as long as you own it. the progressive service center -- a real place, where we really manage your claim from start to finish. really. ♪ easy as easy can be bye! (water dripping and don't juspipes clanging)ncisco.

visit tripadvisor san francisco. (soothing sound of a shower) with millions of reviews, tripadvisor makes any destination better. cozy or cool? exactly the way you want it ... until boom, it's bedtime! your mattress is a battleground of thwarted desire. enter the sleep number bed. right now, you can save $400 on the all-new c4 mattress set. he's the softy. his sleep number setting is 35. you're the rock, at 60. and snoring? sleep number's even got an adjustment for that.

you can only find sleep number at a sleep number store. don't miss the lowest prices of the season with the all-new c4 mattress at $1499.98. know better sleep with sleep number. of swedish experience in insidperfecting the rich,ars never bitter taste of gevalia. we do it all for this very experience. [woman] that's good. i know right? gevalia. are have you been watching the soccer this week? [ cheers and applause ] >> you have? oh. that's great. i'm sure you'll get a job soon. we lost to germany. and we are still in it. [ applause ]

that's what i love about soccer. you lose. you're in. it's like the way bush won the white house. >> time now for the sideshow. last week president obama proposed military aid and training to certain rebel groups fighting assad in syria. the white house was careful to stress that the u.s. assistance would only go to appropriately vetted forces within the syrian opposition. in practice it may be more difficult to distinguish moderates from extremists. john oliver weighed in on that dilemma last night. >> there are a thousand distinct units in syria. some of them are horrifying. if we are going to recruit the right ones, we have to do this properly. >> are you interested in toppling your government? are you not a terrorist? do you promise you're not a terrorist? because you have to say if you are. then you might qualify to be an

appropriately vetted element of of the armed opposition. come be part of an exciting and fast-paced work environment. you will be provided benefits that could include standard issue m-16s, m 249 light machine guns, the hypothetical chance of a stable democratic state in syria. sign up now. your future as an appropriately vetted element starts today. please don't be a terrorist. please don't be a terrorist. please don't be a terrorist. >> finally, louisiana representative vance mcallister, ak a the kissing congressman announced he's reversed his decision not to run and will stick it out for re-election despite the odds. he first wowed fellow conservatives in january when he brought his buddy willie robertson to the state of the union address. he owed his congressional victory to robertson's victory. then a month later the married lawmaker was with caught on camera making out with a staffer. when the bombshell video was made public the congressman said

he would not seek re-election. the cheating scandal cost him his friendship with robertson. now robertson's own cousin is running for the seat. so he's pitting himself against the "duck dynasty" clan. drama that will excite for months to come. up next, president obama says now congress won't take on immigration reform so he will. that's ahead. 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. introducing at&t mobile share value plans... ...with our best-ever pricing for business.

thank ythank you for defendiyour sacrifice. and thank you for your bravery. thank you colonel. thank you daddy. military families are uniquely thankful for many things, the legacy of usaa auto insurance can be one of them. if you're a current or former military member or their family, get an auto insurance quote and see why 92% of our members plan to stay for life.

here's what's happening. president obama has informed congress that more u.s. troops are headed to iraq as the security forces battle a rising insurgency. 200 will be responsible for security at key facilities including the u.s. embassy.

100 others are airmen to secure the baghdad airport. three israeli teenagers abducted in the west bank have been found dead. benjamin netanyahu vowed swift action against those responsible. back to "hardball." >> our country and our economy would be stronger today if house republicans had allowed a simple yes or no vote on this bill or any bill. they would be following the will of the majority of the american people who support reform. instead they have proven again and again that they are unwilling to stand up to the tea party in order to do what's best for the country. >> welcome back to "hardball." president obama is referring to the immigration bill blocked byes house republicans. today he announced he'll take executive action. the same action about which speaker boehner is threatening a lawsuit to do what he can to break the broken system.

>> i believe speaker boehner when he say he is wants to pass an immigration bill. i think he wantses to get something done. last week he informed me the republicans will continue to block a vote on immigration reform at least this year. there are others in the republican caucus in the house arguing they can't act because they are mad at me about using executive authority too broadly. this also makes no sense. i don't prefer taking administrative action. i would rather see permanent fixes to the issue we face. i take executive action only when we have a serious problem, a serious issue and congress chooses to do nothing. >> minutes after the president spoke house speaker john boehner made it clear there will be no cooperation. he said, quote, i told the

president what i have been telling him for months. the american people and their elected officials don't trust him to enforce the law as written. until that changes it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue. so alan, how much of a direct response is what we heard and saw from the president a few hours ago to what john boehner announced last week that the he'll pursue a lawsuit against the president on his use of executive action. i know a lot of people interpreted as an attempt by republicans to forestall executive action. sa them, nice try? >> well, look at it this way. the president has known for months and months that speaker boehner was not going to allow a vote on the senate immigration bill. that might be the only reason. speaker boehner said in december

he wasn't going to take up the senate bill. we have known for a while. he wants dhs and the department of justice to give him options here for what he can do with executive authority by the end of the summer. what's on the table here? are where do you expect him to go with this specifically? >> there are so many places he can go. they have been looking at this. he ordered the review of deportation practices in march. he said he wants it handled more humanely. a lot of immigration advocates hope he'll protect more undocumented immigrants from deportation, ease rules for them to stay longer. at the same time, what he's doing now and what he laid out in a letter to congress this morning was saying he wants to fast track deportations of people caught on the woborder n. kids streaming across the border. hes has a lot of options.

by him declaring this, it will speed up the process. some so we have talked for a year now. almost exactly a year about the bill languishing in the house. the idea that the president wantses to use are executive authority. what do you think of that in terms of a strategy for getting reform? >> it's brilliant. in many parts of the community the feeling is it's about time. since at least the fall there's been a steady drum beat from members of the advocacy community calling for relief and preprooef for families being torn apart. families in communities all over the country. remember, so many families are mixed status. so for a lot of the community they have ratcheted up the rhetoric calling him the deporter in chief. the president was backed into a corner by republicans. he's suffering some of the

blowback politically and it is now turned away from policy to politics. >> i just wonder what you make of oh this. the republican case against president obama, this lawsuit is the idea that he's over using executive power. here he is about to use executive power. he says he'll only use it because congress refu fufuse ac. if connell decides not to do something, they can. isn't it up to the vote arerses? why does the president get to say, hey, congress won't do something, so i will. why can the president say that? >> the republicans cornered him and haven't given him much choice. we have seen it time and again. basically since the president was elected. what's really important here is the presidents has really, i think, been proactive, very active in taking an advantage.

it was incredible to see how this was playing out on spanish language television today. they were cutting into programming and remember the world cup. there are a lot of viewers tuning in. these are people who are deeply affected. their families, neighborhoods, congregations at church are being torn apart. if they have questionable status they may have children, future voters if not voters today that are demanding from our government, from congress and this president action. >> what are the politics then? it's been clear for a while the idea that we know the comprehensive immigration reform polls well. the demographic arguments for the republican party. the context in which this is happening. there is a lawsuit now with republicans talking about overreach in terms of using executive power. alsole the current crisis at the border with children from

central america and republicans basically saying, hey, this happened on president obama's watch. this happened because p of the deferred action are program with dreamers. this happened because word spread to central america if you send their children they will get in. are the politics different now for president obama acting in this environment than they would have been a couple of months ago? >> you have to think we have with 28 legislative day hs in congress this year. on the one hand he might see, i'm running out of time. the house hasn't acted on anything on immigration for a year. this is a way to get the ball running. the cynic's view and what critics are pointing out is it was 2012, around this time when the president announced the deferred program which allows for children brought when they were children. >> republicans never got over it. they thought it was a crafty move to win the election. >> exactly. now come june are, get close to

an election or an announcement for a grand immigration plan he'll create or announce. just a couple months before the election. they say, how else can you say he's not interested only in the politics on this issue. >> appreciate it. 12 years after he was send to prison for racketeering he wants his job back. the former mayor of providence, rhode island, joins us next. this is "hardball," the place for politics. . [ glass breaking, dog barking ] ...with allstate, your rates won't go up just because of it. claim rateguard from allstate. your home protects you, protect it back.

your home protects you, i dbefore i dosearch any projects on my home. i love my contractor, and i am so thankful to angie's list for bringing us together. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

president obama has nominated a business executive who made political contributions to republicans to head to v.a., bob mcdonald was tapped to run the troubled agency. mcdonald is a former captain of the 82nd airborne division who only contributed to republicans. he gave $5,000 to mitt romney and $11,000 to the victoria ary committee. also to boehner and portman, both from ohio. procter & gamble is based there. we'll be right back. ♪ [ female announcer ] we love our smartphones. and now telcos using hp big data solutions are feeling the love, too.

by offering things like on-the-spot data upgrades -- an idea that reduced overcharge complaints by 98%. no matter how fast your business needs to adapt, if hp big data solutions can keep wireless customers smiling, imagine what they can do for yours. make it matter. imagine what they can do for yours. the numbers are impressive.y to new york state. over 400,000 new private sector jobs... making new york state number two in the nation in new private sector job creation... with 10 regional development strategies to fit your business needs. and now it's even better because they've introduced startup new york... with the state creating dozens of tax-free zones where businesses pay no taxes for ten years. become the next business to discover the new new york. [ male announcer ] see if your business qualifies. of swedish experience in insidperfecting the rich,ars never bitter taste of gevalia. we do it all for this very experience. [woman] that's good.

i know right? gevalia. don't just visit new york visit tripadvisor new york with millions of reviews, tripadvisor makes any destination better. when folks think about wthey think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america.

today with confidence i announce my candidacy for mayor of providence. >> we are back. that was the legendary former six-term mayor of providence, rhode island. the convicted felon announced his second comeback bid for the city's top job are last week. he's already served 21 years in office starting in 1974 when he defeated the ten-year incumbent on an anti-corruption platform at 33 years old. >> i will support measures to guarantee that city employment is no longer used to control the ballot box. [ applause ] >> he was a republican back then and was the first italian-american to win after a 150-year hold by mostly irish democrats. the period known as buddy one ended after he was convicted of assaulting a man he believed was having an affair with his estranged wife. >> i submit my resignation as

mayor of the city to become effective at 7:59 p.m. on april 25, 1984. >> he made a successful comeback bid as an independent in 1990 and presided over 11 years of city-wide revitalization. the period ended in 2002 when he was convicted of racketeering, conspiracy and sentenced to five years in prison. >> i didn't do this stuff. i'm not guilty of this stuff. i will fight it as long and as far as i can. i will go all the way to the supreme court, the hague, wherever they want to go. >> he was released from prison in 2007 and spent his post prison years writing a book, hosting a popper lar radio how and selling pasta sauce to benefit providence's public schools. he's now battling for a seventh term of the city. buddy joins me now. mr. mayor, thank you for taking the time. i remember being up there during the trial in 2002.

i remember the free buddy t-shirts, the whole thing. i wonder in your years in prison is part of what got you through prison the idea that, hey, i can get out and i will have this moment when i can run for redemption and get the job back? was that on your mind back then? >> not at all. i never thought i would be in position to run for mayor again. at that point i was thinking of my future when i got out of prison, but it didn't include being mayor. i'm not run aring for office for redemption. i'm running because i hing the city of providence needs good and effective leadership. we had a renaissance before. now we need a resurrection are. the city has the highest tax rate. i could go on and on. the 50th unfriendliest business climate. the roads and infrastructure are down. that didn't happen when i was mayor. we are presided over a city that really came up from the

doldrums. we built tremendous amounts of success. not only embracing historic preservation but the arts. created the first arts district where artists don't pay in addition, we built one of the biggest retail malls in new england, when are lost retail in the '70s, we relocated the rivers. and uncovered we had the widest bridge in the world according to guinness book of records and that was covering rivers that we had. we did that. and we did a lot of successful things. >> i think providence needs leadership. >> for people who don't know the story of providence in the 199 0s, the transformation, the city of providence underwent in the 1990s was truly remack bl. i remember when he almost stole the new england patriots and got -- >> came close. >> i know plenty of people in providence, though, who say -- i wonder what you make of this. i mentioned the free buddy t-shirts i saw all over the place. people up there loved what you

did as mayor, loved having you as mayor and, yeah, think you might have been doing stuff that might have put you on the other side of the law but say, i'm okay with it because he got good things done with the city. are you benefiting from that? >> well, maybe because the results were there. but, you know, i was in indicted on 28, or 27 charges and i was found guilty of one. the other charges i was acquitted of. some were thrown out. i've always proclaimed my innocence. i was charged with a crime called conspiracy to commit reco and found not guilty. that charge, though, it was amazing. the charges brought down was a charge they usually used for, like, mafia kingpins. said they were overseeing a criminal enterprise. i know you have maintained you were not found guilty of any specific infractions. you maintained your innocence. when you look at what was revealed about your administration, the kickback schemes taking place under you, around you --

>> there was one -- when you know that. >> oh, i think so. the fact of the matter is, the leader, you know, when you got a judge who instructs the jury, even though the mayor, the mayor should have known -- >> whether he knew or should have known, that's basically the instruction. frankly, i'm not running for office for redemption. i'm running for office because i love the city. i don't like what's happened to it. we have very high self-esteem here in 2002. now we don't have high self-esteem anymore and lead leadership. the city needs a resurrection. i'm not going to bad mouth my oppone opponents. not one of them has been in office before. one has been a -- i don't think we need that. i'm not aspiring to any other office. i love the city, a i'm going to give up a good lifestyle to two ba go back to the mayor's office. i have 22 years invested in it. >> very quickly, do you like

being back in the game? >> well, yeah, i do like being back in the game because i think the people of the city of providence need leadership and i think i can provide that leadership. i think a lot of them know it. and, you know, the response has been absolutely fantastic. not only with fund-raising, but also with volunteers. so we're looking forward to -- if i don't win, i don't win. >> all right. >> if you think my check would pass, going to bother, don't vote for me. i have a right to run and going to run. >> appreciate the time. thank you for coming on, sir. when we return, let me finish with the one branch of government that keeps on going when the rest of the government is paralyzed by partisanship. you're watching "hardball." the place for politics. a new cle that works differently to lower blood sugar? imagine...loving your numbers. introducing once-daily invokana®. it's the first of a new kind of prescription medicine that's used along with diet and exercise to lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes.

invokana® is a once-daily pill that works around the clock to help lower a1c. here's how. the kidneys allow sugar to be absorbed back into the body. invokana® reduces the amount of sugar allowed back in and sends some sugar out through the process of urination. and while it's not for weight loss, it may help you lose some weight. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause some people to have loss of body water and salt. this may also cause you to feel dizzy, faint, lightheaded, or weak especially when you stand up. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections, urinary tract infections, changes in urination, high potassium in the blood, or increases in cholesterol. do not take invokana® if you have severe kidney problems or are on dialysis or if allergic to invokana® or its ingredients. symptoms of allergic reaction may include rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing.

if you experience any of these symptoms, stop taking invokana® and call your doctor right away or go to the nearest hospital. tell your doctor about any medical conditions, medications you are taking, and if you have kidney or liver problems. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase risk of low blood sugar. it's time. lower your blood sugar with invokana®. imagine loving your numbers. ask your doctor about invokana®.

let me finish tonight with a reminder that the partisan paralysis we talk about all the time doesn't apply to every branch of our government. a big and important and controversial things still do get done in washington. remember the 2000 election is the race that was decided by the supreme court. the real significance is it decided who would be on the supreme court. the 5-4 ruling back in december of 2000, the court made george w. bush president over al gore and put bush in position to get re-elected in 2004. when that happened, it meant that he, a republican, and not gore, a democrat, got to pick the replacements when chief justice william rehnquist passed away and sandra day o'connor announced her retirement back in 2005. if gore or any other democrat had been in the white house when that happened, it would have upended the balance of the

court. it would have appointed two liberal leaning justices and thereby shifting the balance of pourer from right to left. bush was president and picked john roberts to place lundqvist and sam alito to take o'connor's place. handed him the presidency farther to the right. leaders of more reliable conservative vote than o'connell was and roberts is as conservative as rehnquist. bush had been retired five years now and made the picks almost nine years ago. roberts is 259 ye59 years old. they could be there for 20, 25, or 30 years. as long as they're there, probably going to be voting like they did on the hobby lobby case or the other big ruling we got today which eliminated the ability of public employee wrun whereons to collect dues from nonmembers. we hear a lot about washington being gridlocked because of divided government. the white house is controlled by democrats and house is controlled by republicans who don't want to cooperate with the white house on much anything. so money really gets their way, and nothing ever happens. but now think of the supreme

court. because gridlock isn't the rule there. gridlock can never be the rule there. court has nine seats. odd number. every time they vote, one side wins and one side loses. what the court says goes. the exhort is the final arbiter. who is allowed under our constitution and what isn't. this is a conservative group. four of the justices clearly on the right and another one, anthony kennedy, isn't quite as conservative but still pretty conservative. this conservative court is the exception to the rule. not much that comes out of congress for president obama to sign these days but there is a lot that comes out of this court. it's tempting, know, to throw up our hands and tune out the exhausting partisan noise in washington. remember this, four of the nine justices who sit on the supreme court are more than 70 years old. the chances are are very good there will be at least one vacancy in the next few years. when that vacancy comes it's going to matter very much who was sitting in the white house and what the makeup of the

senate is. that's the real significance of today's rawlings, a powerful rue minder even if the rest of washington shuts itself down, there's one branch of government that will always keep plowing ahead. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight, we are "all in. "". >> i believe that we will win. >> it was a high court ruling with world cup theatrics. >> hobby lobby wins. >> in the end, five supreme court justices decided today that for-profit corporations hold specific religious rights. >> religious freedom has not been ban quivanquished. >> tonight why this ruling was decades in the making thanks to scalia, bill clinton, and a little bit of paote. if congress cannot do their job, at least we can do ours. >> presidents of detroit maybe make a plea for water to the united nations. >> canno