hillary's front page news. let's play "hardball." ♪ >> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. it's front page news. it's right up there. read all about it. hillary clinton used private e-mail while at state. read "the new york times," "the washington post," read all about it. what is going on? suddenly the once future presidential candidate is the topic of attention from the country's major newspaper, including "usa today." that means we're back to benghazi. there has been subpoenas issued for hillary clinton's e-mails. let's get inside this big spotlight.

is this a major problem, a minor one, or a concoction by her critics? last week the big front page paper focused on foreign governments gave millions to foundation while clinton was secretary of state. and yesterday "the new york times" front page raised concerns about her exclusive use of private e-mail during her tenure at state saying she may have violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence by retained as part of the agency's record and today in "the washington post," "she appears to have operated in violation of what the white house said tuesday was very specific guidance that members of the obama administration use government e-mail accounts to carry out official business." and several instances in which

records request sent to the state department came up empty. and the highly unusual practice of a cabinet-level official physically running her own e-mail out of her family's home in chappaqua, new york, would have given clinton impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. operating her own server would have afforded clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas. the place of these stories, why are they so big in the judgment of the news business? >> well, two reasons. number one, it involves hillary clinton, the front-runner for the democratic nomination. and second, you know, as many government employees have been saying to me in sort of vitriolic language, if i did

that at the government, do you know how much trouble i'd be in? and even the white house and at the state department people are really shocked. some people are really shocked that she was able to basically create her own rule system. >> let me get matt in on this. i think you can fairly say you'll be a critic of hillary. if you had to explain this to your mother or grandmother or somebody at the bar, a regular guy, what's the big deal here? >> it looks like she has a separate set of rules, that she didn't do what was mandated, that we have these rules. she received 65,000 e-mails to a server put in her house that was not protected like e-mails would be at the state department. what i worry more about despite the fact that she had her own set of rules, who being looked at these e-mails? i'm worried about it from the

fact that she's secretary of state and there ought to be a protocol. >> give me an anecdotal explanation. >> this was a decision she made well before -- >> she's e-mails have only come out in the most recent benghazi investigation. how come they didn't come out earlier? >> okay, jess, no offense, small offense or a concoction? >> every secretary of state prior to hillary clinton used a private account for their e-mails. more importantly, can you possibly imagine any american family across the country and saying, wow, i'm so concerned that she used private accounts instead of state accounts and where was the server located? no. because there are major economic questions that american families are -- >> but you're changing the subject right now. >> i think the electorate is not going to be focused on -- >> why do you think "the new york times" is leading with this in its major front page placement here again and again

this week, "usa today," they are not anti-hillary clinton. you can't tell me "the new york times" has a case against -- >> no. i think carol is exactly right. it's leading because hillary clinton makes news. >> that's not what she said. she said she's leading this because she's talked to these agencies and the secretary thought she could have a separate set of protocol. >> suppose dick cheney when he pushed these wars in iraq, the whole time he had a completely -- somebody has a better idea. go ahead. >> no, chris. there was a huge hubbub about this. there's no partisanship at "the new york times" in our news decisions. it's really because she's a presidential candidate and because this -- >> right. exactly. >> and -- >> and second, it's a huge deal.

you may remember the missing e-mail case in federal court in d.c. involving karl rove's e-mails and these vanished e-mails and people thought that was a huge deal. because why? because our government is supposed to be open. you're supposed to not only see what our government is up to but if you were a citizen or an investigator for a congressional committee, you're supposed to be able to go back later and see what happened. >> we're not talking about vanished e-mails. we're talking about 55,000 e-mails overturned at state's request. >> no, no. actually, what we're talking about are a certain set of e-mails mails turned over to the state department at the decision of hillary clinton and clinton aids, not state department aids, turned over to the state department. it's not a government entity making that decision. and -- and, in terms of what the benghazi committee got, they are somewhere in the couple dozen. we don't know who is making the decision about what we are allowed to see. >> let me find out something i didn't know.

apparently you don't have to be on e-mail or aol. you can set up your own server and hillary clinton as she was secretary of state created a whole separate reality where she can decide when and if and what she was going to release to anybody asking for it. in fact, she was the only one that knew what it was. doesn't that give her the power to decide what government business she is going to share? doesn't that give her the discretion that most public officials don't have anymore? >> lots of public officials set up their own server. >> jeb bush did. >> he wasn't secretary of state. >> you think it's okay for her to keep it all private? >> yeah, absolutely. i think that she should be able to disclose things that ought to be disclosed and keep things private that ought to be kept private. >> i think she should follow the letter and spirit of the law and that's what i think she's done. >> i'm asking you, do you think it's okay for a public servant at the level of secretary of

state to carry on official correspondence? because that's the option that she has now since it's all her account. >> i think at that level it's important that they follow the law. i think if we spend the next few months debating how long something was kept on the server, the american electorate is going to flock to a third party. i don't think american families are going to care. >> former secretary of state hillary clinton appears to have violated or operated in violation of what the white house said tuesday. that's yesterday. members of the obama administration used to carry out government business. what do you think of that front page? >> i think she will have lots of opportunities to answer lots of -- >> she's not talking to anybody about anything. she's saying nothing and what she needs to do is come out immediately, explain what her process was. the fact is, i worked for karl rove when you referenced those e-mails.

we got the hell beat out of us for thinking that every e-mail wasn't coming through white house servers. it would be nothing but trying to avoid the record and -- >> clearly did not have department e-mails. she didn't. >> she's the head of the -- >> we do all -- i think all of us at this table expect hillary clinton to make an announcement for president. we expect that. >> it could be delayed. >> putting together a team, clearly that's going on. here's the question. i always look at these stories and say, there's got to be a backstory here. there's something that suggests a fuel to this beyond what is being reported. is it this supposition on the part of her critics and maybe stand-by critics that she is very private about her person, not wrongdoing or something like that, she just doesn't like to be totally exposed in what she does every day. it's her instinct after years of being attacked by the right when in arkansas and since then, a built-in instinct for self-protection for privacy and

which this displays. carol? >> i think you have a great point about this actually, chris. and one of the interesting things about this is it's almost like a double whammy effect. i can tote three emphasize with the desire for privacy, the desire not to be -- to have all of these e-mails read. we all know about super duper government surveillance now in the wake of the edward snowden disclosures, we know that calls that we make may be monitored or tracked in some way. so i get that. but it's funny ironic that a benghazi committee that was looking for some sort of dirt, some sort of smoking gun about how hillary handled the attack on the consulate in benghazi didn't really find anything that

striking about the state department's handling other than they knew it was a terrorist attack long before they acknowledged it. but now the committee has found something that actually is quite worrisome, that the secretary of state decided on her own power that she was going to behave in a way that other government employees would not have been allowed. >> secretary of state before her, colin powell, madeleine albright. >> could it be the irony here, the chicken and the egg thing, did she get too paranoid because she had reason to be paranoid, they could still be chasing you, hasn't she given trey gowdy and this committee an excuse? what we know is behind the curtain we can't get to because she's destroyed the e-mails. they've given them a case now that there's something bad she did by putting up a wall to get rid of stuff, allowed her to get rid of e-mails?

>> i don't think there's any way that she could have conducted herself as secretary of state that would -- >> moving on from -- this reminds me of operation move on. >> she put herself in a bad position because the reason you have this protocol is when there are investigations and you're in a big job as secretary of state, it's out of her hands, out of the ig hands. >> everything through the government has to go to the national archives. when i was a speechwriter one million years ago, we were not allowed to xerox it. >> you're a good defender but changing the subject is not going to work. these newspapers are powerful. >> it's about the voters, though. it's about an agenda. >> it's about the national security of this country. >> sure. >> thank you, carol.

thank you from joining us from "the post," matt, jess mcintosh. thank you. coming up, the supreme court may do something that republicans have been trying to do, kill obamacare. and this is only round one. they still have gay marriage this summer and immigration to go and without congress, president obama's completely at the mercy of their rulings. plus, the genius presidents. two top historians to tell us which presidents were the smartest of them all. and what's behind the republican party's love affair with israeli president benjamin netanyahu. finally, the day after ben carson announced his exploratory committee said homosexuality is a choice. people go to prison straight and come out gay. that's really clinical. anyway, this is "hardball," the place for politics. introducing new always discreet underwear for sensitive bladders, from always.

with soft, dual leakguard barriers to help stop leaks where they happen most. plus a discreet fit, that hugs your curves. always discreet. i already feel like we're the most connected but i think this solo date will seal the deal. sure! i offer multi-car, safe driver, and so many other discounts that people think i'm a big deal. and boy, are they right. ladies, i can share hundreds in savings with all of you! just visit progressive.com today. but right now, it's choosing time. ooh! we have a winner. all: what? [chuckles] he's supposed to pick one of us. this is a joke, right? that was the whole point of us being here.

bush hasn't launched a campaign or exploratory committee yet but will likely be the foundation for his white house run. and we'll be right back.

remember, obamacare is the president's legislation. so the president has decided since this disaster occurred that if he doesn't like something, he just changes the law. >> we're hoping the supreme court will actually do the right thing here. i know it's a lot to hope for.

>> when it comes to the subsidy issue, i really think that they will rule in our favor. >> emotions were running high outside the supreme court earlier today wherein side the court, the nine justices heard oral arguments on the fight over obamacare. as the president's party has lost the congress and the opposition parties in constant turmoil, it's the supreme court who's in the driver seat. the power of the judiciary will decide three issues. first, the obamacare subsidies. the affordable care act will be gutted if they side with the plaintiffs. the legality over president obama's use over executive action on immigration. and the supreme court will settle the issue of marriage equality. the stakes are high for president obama's legacy and nine men and women could decide his political fate in the months to come. u.s. congresswoman donna edwards

and john feehery is a republican strategist. it seems to me that everything is on the supreme court's platter right now, starting with the obamacare. the legacy of obamacare did not provide for getting subsidies if they are in states that didn't create exchanges and it sits there as a problem. what happens if the court says that's a problem. you're not going to get the subsidiaries in those areas? >> i was in the court and it was a very animated discussion. the court is concerned that the federal exchange is there for a reason and i think they are going to take the argument that there's a choice that states can make. either adopt your own exchange or have a federal exchange but either way subsidies could apply across the board. we're talking about 10 million people just since 2013 who were newly ensured and the state is sensitive -- the court is sensitive to the fact that it

doesn't want to turn complete disarray in the insurance markets and the state and actually, you know, there was some questions about whether this will be coercive for the states if you remove the subsidies. i happen to agree with that argument in a way that would be unconstitutional. i also agree with the fact that we have 10 million people, the republicans don't have a plan and what are they going to do when they throw all of these people off of insurance -- >> it's not a judicial -- you're making a policy argument that it would be bad for the country, bad for the people who benefit by these -- from these subsidies and get health care they can't otherwise afford. why does the court care about that? aren't they likely to read the legislation and see there's no provision for subsidies in states that don't have exchanges? >> i think what they are going to do is read it and say, they get -- states were given a choice when it comes to health care. either you set up your own exchange or the feds would set

up an exchange. otherwise, it doesn't make any sense for us to have had a federal exchange. that wouldn't make any sense at all. i think the court is going to look at the plain language and say, you have choices, choose the federal exchange, you still get the subsidy. i believe the court is going to conclude that and not create the disarray that would result. >> john, we're, working politics but politics may not have any role in this. there's two justices now. roberts is the chief justice, kennedy who is together, these two guys never elected to anything, going to decide whether same-sex is a constitutional right and decide whether the president can do all of this with immigration as an executive order or not and they are going to decide whether obamacare stays funded or not. these two guys are going to decide it all and the big trifecta. >> what i think about this in the context of obamacare, roberts has a mulligan. the first time he ruled with the obama administration, i think this time he's going to rule against the obama administration.

>> why would he do that? >> because the law is the law. >> he'll go with the letter. >> the congressman is right it's going to cause turmoil and alito said this today, we have to get some time to make this right. the congress will have some work to do. the supreme court has become the referee and with chief justice roberts, he's become a real referee and calling him like he sees him and i think that he has a tremendous power. >> let's go back to congresswoman edwards. if the court says there is a way to fix this, do you think the republicans will try to fix obamacare or knee-jerk try to destroy it? >> there will be 10 million people who can't afford health care anymore, the market is going to be in turmoil. it will be their responsibility to fix it given that it was

their idea to undo it. so i don't know what the republicans are going to do. i feel for the 10 million people who are newly insured who will no longer be able to afford their health care. let them live with that. >> have you decided whether to run for the senate? >> how did i know that you were going to ask that? i'm seriously considering it and i think it's important to follow on a legacy of leadership for women and leadership in the congress and i think i could fill that bill and i'm considering it. >> can you beat the mayor of baltimore for the job, can you beat chris van hollen? >> if i were to do it it would be because i see a pathway to victory, not to make a statement. >> i've always been a fan. good luck there. congresswoman donna edwards and thank you, john feehery. up next, lbj, teddy roosevelt.

we want you to know which presidents have been the smartest in history. we're going to ask that question to smart people. this is "hardball," a place for politics.

welcome back to "hardball." when abraham lincoln asked for divine intervention to help this country, quote, see the right and choose its own path forward. well, today marks the 150th anniversary of that speech and serves as a reminder that this country has rested on the shoulders of just 43 americans. how do we measure these men? all of them were smart enough to obtain the country's highest office but which comes close to the notion of genius? as part of msnbc's "the 7 days of genius" festival this week, i'm joined by doris kearns goodwin and jonathan darmin. doris, the ground rules, please,

how do you distinguish a genius and who were your nominees? >> i don't think it's -- it's a natural talent and in that case teddy roosevelt said i'm an average man that i have brought to extraordinary degree through the application of hard, sustained work and if i have any genius at all, it's in leadership. he wasn't as good as horseman, wasn't as good a soldier. he was clearly their leader. and he looked at lincoln, for example, when somebody said to him, your speeches aren't as good as lincolns, what can you do? he said, lincoln is a rare literary genius. he had a poetic gift. his speeches remembered for

generations and weirdly, i would put in lbj in, he looked at every senator and congressman and figured out what they want for themselves. dirkson, you come with me on this bill. and he knew every single congressman, what they cared about and brought them together to produce this extraordinary legislation. >> i heard that you think of genius as the ability to marry into the flow of history and understand where it's going and to somehow find in that what you can do. did johnson fail at that, the ability to ride with history and move it in his direction? >> without a question. just as he succeeded in 1964 to understand after kennedy died that the most important thing was to take command of the office and get that civil rights bill passed before the election, so he failed to understand what was going on in southeast asia, what containment meant, he was looking back to world war ii as too many leaders were at that

time. his legacy, as gorgeous as it is in domestic stuff, was cut in two with the war in vietnam. and you're right, every president has to see what their opportunities are, where history is and hopefully shape it in the right direction. >> well, let me go to jonathan darmin. great to have you on. let's talk about the same question. how do you define it and who meets the standard of genius? >> i put franklin roosevelt at the top of my list. there's the famous moment after oliver holmes meets fdr and says it's a second class temperament and you wouldn't say that fdr has the greatest intellectual ability of all of these presidents although his capacity was significant, but what he was really unique and exemplary in was his intuitive powers and that is what made him so good to realize where his opportunity was as a president to sort of step in and try and effect

change. the second on my list is lincoln. for similar reasons, actually. he was also a man of great ability and who was very good at having people underestimate him but also understood a lot of human understanding is beyond us and a president shouldn't try to control everything that he can go forth humbly and just try and do good work. my third choice is probably a little more iffy. it's john f. kennedy. really exclusively i would say because of his handling of the cuban missile crisis. i think when you look at jfk in those moments, you see a brain and a spirit that is sort of operating on highest level. >> yes. >> he is able to be both in the moment and also thinking beyond the moment and he's able to take, you know, counsel and advice from really credentialed people and sort of keep them happy but also think about what all of the flaws in their logic are and he's able to do it under more pressure than any other

president had had up until that period of time and that's really what makes him an extraordinary genius like president. >> let me go back to doris for a minute. we've had presidents like jimmy carter who have great s.a.t. scores, probably did very well on engineering and didn't know how to connect. distinguish political iq from sort of taking tests iq. >> without a question. what's much more important as was mentioned in terms of temperament, absolutely outdoing pure intellect is how does an president connect with the people at large and with the congressmen? lincoln didn't let past hurts occupy his mind, that he knew how to bring people of alternative points of view together, that he understood how to reconcile opposing points of view. i mean, those are human qualities. and some people have more of a profound empathy. i think they are born with it more than others.

lincoln more than any other president understood other people and how to get in their points of view and care about them and that's far more important than your s.a.t. that's why it's important not to think of genius as albert einstein. not all of us can become that but we can develop a natural talent like teddy roosevelt did through hard work. i really believe in that. >> thank you both so much. i think you should consider the possibility of taking the soul of lbj and president obama together. you'd have wholesale and retail thrown together. that would be a real emotional iq that -- i'd be afraid of that one. thank you doris and jonathan. msnbc will feature "7 days of genius." logon to msnbc.com/genius. up next, how do you explain the right's infatuation of this new hero of theirs, benjamin netanyahu. you're watching "hardball," a place for politics.

benjamin netanyahu addressed congress today in observance of the sacred jewish holiday of --

it was a festival of slights. >> festival of slights. welcome back to "hardball." the reviews are in. conservatives loved bibi netanyahu's speech yesterday while others call it politically motivating. >> what many in our government love about netanyahu is his conviction and his certainty. >> in the middle east, iran now dominates four arab capitals, baghdad, damascus, beirut and sana'a. >> look how iran has expanded its power since the fall of saddam hussein. what kind of idiot wouldn't have seen that coming in 2002?

>> if you take out saddam, saddam's regime, i guarantee you it will have enormous reverberations on the region. reverberations of what could create an implosion in a regime like iran. >> or the opposite. >> for more, i'm joined by msnbc political reporter perry bacon, christina bellatoni and gregory angelo. who here is a conservative? you're not partisan. why are these guys just festering? they are so excited about this -- my brother said, i just love this guy. what is it about bibi that he likes? >> as a gay conservative, one of the things that i like is that they are all supporting gay people and part of the world in the middle east where people who are gay are being targeted for

being executions. so in that regard, israel is our greatest ally in the middle east and from a greater perspective. >> orthodox on this issue? >> i was in israel in 2013. there are still difficulties like here in the united states but people are not being killed just for being gay in israel, right? >> widen your aperture. to the question of -- here's netanyahu running us into iraq, iraq becomes the conquest of iran and then says in the house of representatives, look the hell that broke loose, iran took control. he was behind it all and said it would help bring down iran. totally, utterly wrong as a visionary and now he's giving us advice? >> at the end of the day, these were all actions that the united states took. >> he was pushing it.

well, here he is in our chamber giving us more bad advice, maybe. >> i think he's certainly calling out iran, a country that does not have a good record on human rights and is working to destabilize the middle east even more. >> economy afraid the issue here is war and peace. it's going to be -- i didn't hear him once offer a sound proposal besides war. because all he said was you can't cut a deal. any deal is bad. you can't get a better deal. you don't think we're not trying to get the best possible deal? come on? >> well, this is what the president has been saying. this can't undercut what we're trying to do with these cuts and we need to consider both these speech being a problem and also the iran sanctions. i mean, the congress and president have a huge disparity on this issue. he says he's going to veto this and they are all saying, no, we need to push ahead and he's saying this could really endanger these talks, they are saying push ahead. you have this thunderous

applause and, yes, 55 democrats didn't show up but people were excited to see him. >> except nancy pelosi. >> the response on the right to bibi's speech was close to hero worship, conservatives were falling over themselves to contrast netanyahu to president obama. let's watch. >> people who can speak the way netanyahu spoke yesterday rather than the way the president speaks. >> i had leadership envy. i will confess that. >> netanyahu is a warrior, a combat veteran, he is a leader who takes his commander in chief responsibility seriously. barack obama is a community activist. he's an ideologue. >> he's so desperate for his legacy that he is willing to give israel up. i mean, let's face it, if israel disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, obama would not shed a tear. >> okay. president obama wasn't their

only target. the right also found something wrong with rand paul's response to netanyahu. the "national review" pointed out, unenthused rand paul applauds netanyahu's speech. and then, oops, almost like he's been faking his support for israel until now. senator paul was asked about the criticism this morning and defended his applauding. let's watch this ridiculousness. >> i think what's funny about it is, you have these gossipy websites who demean themselves by putting that out. i gave the prime minister 50 standing ovations. i co-sponsored bringing him here. >> what is this, pyongyang? if you're not clapping like machines, you're in deep trouble? >> rudy giuliani does not like president obama? i did not know that until just now. >> surprise. putting down obama. big news. >> it is clear that rand paul's views on foreign policy are close to the president and i

think what you are seeing the people who criticized rand paul saying he's like obama who, of course, they hate. >> if he's not smiling until his cheeks hurt, they go after him. >> what's interesting about this, this all happened as they finally relented and funded the department of homeland security. you have somebody warning of these massive threats of terrorism, the threat of, you know, a dangerous world and then you're having this big fight go on, you know, between republicans about how things get funded and it was like a really bizarre scene. >> iran dome and vote down homeland security. help me out here. >> not the republicans. not your party. >> there were a lot of republicans that -- >> your party overwhelmingly voted against it. why would they vote for u.s. security and vote for the iran dome? security is okay for other countries but not ours? >> ultimately we passed the bill. there was a caucus in the

republican party who did not vote for that bill. >> can we use english here? did the republican majority vote for or against the bill the other day? >> i saw over 100 republicans -- >> 75%. the rest voted against it. >> right. the republican party leadership allowed that to pass through. it was a theater yesterday. security tape blocking off some of the entrances, you have this massive show of force of security because of the speech and then this debate going on. >> this is going to be remembered as a very dark day for american democracy when you bring a foreign leader in to try to displace the american leader. obama sets our foreign policy, not netanyahu. anyway, the round table is staying with us. ben carson's indefensible comment about being gay. he said how else would people go to prison and come out gay? that's tough, clinical analysis. this is "hardball" a place for

politics. than a spontaneous moment. so why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. 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 symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com

well, the new governor of illinois has a strange way of thanking his buddies. he won in illinois with the help of new jersey governor chris christie who was head of the republican governors association. he doesn't think much of christie's home state. he said that his state has the highest property taxes in america other than new jersey

and then added, i don't want to compete with new jersey on anything, especially that. that's a disaster. he went on to say that new jersey has lost, they are going down the drain and they ain't turning around. ouch. anyway, christie campaigned for rauner and got him elected. and we'll be right back.

0

back with our round table. dr. ben carson's known information making provocative statements about homosexuality. today, however, he might have taken it to a new level while trying to prove his belief that homosexuality is actually a choice.

>> people have no control over their race, for instance. >> do you think they have control over their sexuality? >> absolutely. >> do you think being gay is a choice? >> absolutely. >> why do you say that? >> because a lot of people go into prison, go into prison straight and then they come out gay. did something happen when they were in there? >> people go to prison straight and come out gay. dr. carson is a neurosurgeon. for the record, scientists say carson's example is unfounded. criminal justice at the university of tennessee who studied sexuality and incarceration for a quarter century told the "washington post," the fundamental assumption of the analogy is insane. i don't know of any research that substantiates that men go to prison and come out gay. >> well, i need to comment. apparently dr. carson is one

federal felony conviction away from turning gay himself. it was actually staggering. >> if he goes in the slammer, he'll come out different. >> from a bigger picture perspective, by all means, today should have been the day that republicans around the country were unified in our message. we had a gift on a silver platter with hillary clinton using a personal e-mail address for government affairs. we have the supreme court case against obamacare subsidies. but dr. carson, on the fringe right, says this absolutely ridiculous comment and puts all the republicans on the defensive. i hope that there are republicans in the rest of the gop field for president that took note today. >> who's going to get more publicity, dr. ben carson or you? >> ha! one of the things we do in addition to making the conservative case is gay conservatives, like obamacare repeal and lower taxes, et

cetera. and bad actors like dr. carson today, it's absolutely out of touch on cultural issues. >> this is not the first time he's said anything along these lines. and it's not going to be the last. there's a certain group of the presidential candidates who are running for a certain segment of that base. it is a social conservative base. whether it's michele bachman, it's not the mainstream of america anymore. >> who does believe the orientation, or identity is a matter of choice? >> social conservatives. i don't have the statistics in front of me, but there are a small percentage of people who believe that. i don't personally believe that. i think he's appealing to a group of people that will be able to help him in places like iowa marginally. and he'll continue to be on the debate stage by the rating in the polls. >> i think you give ben carson too much credit.

i don't know as i view him as a legitimate candidate as opposed to someone who rants and says things. >> he's not completely oddball in the party. dr. carson is certainly popular with many conservatives. he came in fourth last week in the cpac straw poll. and in iowa he finished third. he's not some uncalled from the hallway from somewhere. >> i don't see him gaining traction beyond iowa. a third place finish in iowa is not actually something to celebrate. you're finding it's not just like santorum 2012, the one guy and -- >> mike huckabee, governor of arkansas who won iowa's caucus a couple years ago, he said he will leave the party if it drops his opposition to same-sex marriage. >> and in his most recent book, he was rolling that back a little, saying the greatest threat to marriage is the erosion of marriage in the country. >> thank you.

two italians here. let me finish with the power of the supreme court on three top issues. heroes charge! ♪ (explosion) ♪ (explosion) ♪ (explosion) ♪ lead your heroes in the hit mobile game! download heroes charge now!

let me finish tonight with this. for the first time in our lives, the supreme court is the most pivotal branch of our government. those nine people up there could have more power on three top issues than a speaker of the house, the whole body of the u.s. senators, and the president of the united states.

will obamacare be allowed to continue? will people with modern income still receive the subsidies that allow families like them to afford health insurance? that depends on how chief justice john roberts who stated obamacare is constitutional, and kennedy read the program. could the orders of last autumn not go into effect. will the people who entered the country illegally obtain legal status here. it could go to the supreme court for a decision on the separation of powers where the decision lies between the supreme court and policymakers. chief justice john roberts and anthony kennedy, will same-sex marriage be a right in this country? don't ask mitch mcconnell or speaker boehner or the tea party or president obama. ask the supreme court deciders, roberts and kennedy, because when you want to know what the lauf of the land is, it's

roberts and kennedy. they know, because these two people are the pair who will decide the issues. that's "hardball" for now. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> some of those protesters -- >> the justice of report on ferguson is out. >> it's time for ferguson's leaders to take immediate, wholesale, constructual action. >> inside the federal government's jaw-dropping finding of systematic discrimination in an american city. then, it's like 1998 all over again. the latest on the clinton e-mail mess. plus, it's like 2000 all over again. >> it does appear to be a 5-4 opinion. >> why today's supreme court obamacare arguments could be the most important since bush v. gore. and it's like 2003 all over