what are the rulings, and in both cases romney and obama are preparing contingencies for the ruling to go either way. to play it to their advantage as best they can. however, if you, you know -- >> how do you play a loss? let's be serious. you can try to spin it. a win is a win and a loss is a loss. >> a win is a win and a loss is a loss. the historical sense of it the loss is tremendous for the obama administration if you strike down obama care. however, if you think about it in the context of a campaign, it gives ayou a very solid thing t hitch your wagon to, which is the court is -- we need -- you need me back here to rein in a court a bit out of control. the thing about the obama care is -- i use what the republican

term for it, because i think it's a good thing. obama care is too big of a thing. that's always been the problem. it's an enormous bill, no one understands every nook and cranny. >> that's a very critical point of it. when you look at the polls, the latest polls show 56% of people are against it, but then when you ask them about specific parts of it like should kids stay on their parents' insurance until their 26, should you ban insurance companies from dropping people with pre-existing conditions? those kind of things, you look at numbers in the 60%, 70%, 82% aapproval, what is going on here? are the republicans better at messaging? >> there's a vicious cycle that's gone on. i think that the bill was never properly explained to people, and it got tarnished by a very messy legislative process and sometimes the process takes over

people's perception of the bill. that's not surprising. when you look at the individual components as you said, a lot of bill is very popular. the most controversial part the individual mandate was put in there as a concession to conservatives. it was a conservative idea. liberals preferred a mandate on business or a single payor health plan. i think there is good news here, one away or the other, for advocates of health care reform, which is we may -- if the court t strikes it down, we may come to discover what we lost. i like to think of it as the jonny mitchell rule, you don't know what you got until it's gone. if the court throws out the whole thing, we are going to have -- whether the president decides to engage it in fully or not, a huge debate about conservative judicial activism, because in 12 years we would we

from bush v. gore and now to throwing out the health care. so we won't be talking about liberal ju liberal judicial activist anymore, but we don't know what the court has down yet. >> i know you want to jump in. bill richardson was talking about this over the weekend. this is what the former governor of new mexico had to say. >> i think it's a huge defeat it the supreme court strikes any part down, even the individual mandate for the american people. just this week several million kids got their health insurance. i think there's going to be a real uproar against a politicized supreme court. you know, here they're making political decisions. >> what do you think, charles? >> well, i disagree with him on two small points, which is the messaging point. it's not that the obama administration has lost the messaging. it was an impossible war to ever win.

you have a 2,000-page bill. i think most people in the country don't understand the full breadth of this pitch most people who talk about it on tv for a living don't understand the full breadth of the bill. that became the problem. >> well, part of the problem is is that people don't like -- when you look at polls they don't like the individual mandate, and that messaging was this is big government run amuck. >> there's a big government piece in the spirit of the thing. i'm nervous about government getting involved in something that's very intimate to me. the second is that the best advocate that any politician ever has is neighbor-to-neighbor, co-worker to co-worker. if i can't explain to you all the specifics of what i'm arguing for, it becomes -- people are nervous about that. they think even if i like part of this, there may be something about it, something lurking in those 2,000 pages i may not like. i'm just nervous about this

idea, and that baecomes part of overreach. that was always the problem. you have to write something that big to really be comprehensive, but it also is the negative part of it. but on the point about judicial activism, people in america are really not particularly savvy about judging the court, because it has such a long history. they only engage in the court's rulings when there's something big. >> even if you buy that argument and i think that maybe i do, i wonder, e.j., if this isn't more about firing up the base on both sides. >> i think that just to go to charles' point in terms of the messages, health bills are really complicated. it was going to be long. everybody knew that going in. there should have been a concerted effort to say what is this is about is if you can't afford insurance, the government

will help you buy it. if businesses can't afford insurance, the government will help them cover employees. you have these benefits for people with pre-existing conditions and for people's kids. there should have been a focused effort because it was conservative to say it was 2,000 pages and it must be bad. progressives allowed that become a dominant part of the jair active. in terms of judicial activism, i agree the court is a complicated issue that appeals to the two bases. up until now the issue of the court has been much more a voting issue on the right end of the political spectrum. i think we're going to see among a significant -- a minority of the voting population but a significant group saying, wait a minute. hold on. we see conservative activism run amuck. if the court throws out the bill and progressives say the court has just deprived 30 million people of health insurance, i think there's a case to be made

about the dangers of judicial activism. i have any illusions. it's a complicated case to some degree, but 30 million could have been insurance if the court hadn't done this. this is a pretty powerful message. >> there's a ruling down, and that's immigration. let me bring in congressman gutierrez. how important is this ruling today? >> i think it's very, very important, because if the court were to uphold the arizona law and while i know that it wasn't argued before the supreme court, i was there, racial profiling will basically be allowed by the supreme court and institutionalized. the only way you can from a practical point of view carry out the arizona law is to stop people as confer their i.d. and ask them for proof of citizenship because now you take local police enforcement officials and you're making them

immigration agents. i have a funny feeling that people that look like me, especially in arizona where the law was crafted to pick up immigrants specifically, are the ones that are going to be asked. unfortunately, i think it is also going to harm our civil rights here for everybody in the united states, because we shouldn't all be looked at as suspects. >> do you believe that, congressman? do you believe you're on vacation in scottsdale and you're driving down the street, you might get stopped? >> i think that's exactly what's going to happen. so i think that because it's not going to be how is luis gutierrez driving? did he rob the bank? what did he do wrong? it's what he looks like. we've seen this time and time again, whether it's in alabama or south carolina, you see the activism for the law. the activism is to deport and

get rid of the people. not let's make it safer. let's deport and get rid of them. the federal government argued in the supreme court is that our domain, right? the federal government is the one, and you want to know something? to a great extent win or lose at the supreme court, whether it's upheld or not, only the federal government can deport people. so it would be my hope that the justice department, should the ruling be upheld, will say, you know those 287-g agreements with plip police departments and security communities, we need to revisit and revoke sthoez especially with states like arizona until we are guaranteed that the people's fundamental basic civil rights are protected. >> thank you very much. e.j. and charles will stay with us. we'll take a quick break, but two key decisions are coming down. they could come down today. one on immigration, one on health care. we will have it for you as soon as we hear from the justices right here on msnbc. stay with us. our cells plays ae

throughout our entire lives. ♪ one a day men's 50+ is a complete multi-vitamin designed for men's health concerns as we age. ♪ it has more of seven antioxidants to support cell health. that's one a day men's 50+ healthy advantage. want to hop in the back and get weird? no. no. ♪ ugh, no! [ sighs ] we can have hotdogs for dinner?! yes. [ male announcer ] it's nice to finally say "yes." new oscar mayer selects. it's yes food. sven's home security gets the most rewards of any small business credit card! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put them on my spark card!

why settle for less? testing hot tar... great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? here's your invoice. how math and science kind of makes the world work. in high school, i had a physics teacher by the name of mr. davies. he made physics more than theoretical, he made it real for me. we built a guitar, we did things with electronics and mother boards. that's where the interest in engineering came from. so now, as an engineer, i have a career that speaks to that passion. thank you, mr. davies.

for washington and activists around the country this has been a long and excruciating wait but it may come to an end within this hour. we're expecting to hear from the supreme court. will we have their ruling on health care and immigration? either or both could come in the next 45 minutes. still with me, e.j.dion and charles and joining us is jonathon alter. we were just talking to congressman gutierrez. in the big perspective, how important is this immigration decision? >> i think it's very important politically, not just legally in terms of human rights. it's politically important becaused latino vote is so

critical in in election. really, in some ways it's the whole ball game. in president obama can get up in the high 60% in terms of the latino vote with a strong turnout, he will win this election. if he can't, he will likely lose the election. the question coming out of this case is whether it will further mobilize latinos to register and to vote. >> that's a critical question, isn't it? e.j., this is not a group that has voted in huge numbers. there have been these huge mobilization efforts, but they're waiting to see. in fact, in states where there are high latino populations, a swing of 3 or 4 percentage points could turn this election. >> the latino vote has always been under it's potential, as often the case with new immigrant groups. it's grown substantially. a lot of latinos sought

citizenship in the '90s and 2 0 2000, and they're a growing group in the electorate. the question is do they mobilize to grow to be a significant portion of the electorate? you know, to go back to these twin cases of arizona and the health care bill, we have until the conservative courts came along since the new deal what legal scholars call the new deal settlement. the idea was the supreme court will leave congress lots of room to legislate the social problems but it will look out for the rights and minorities who aren't always protected by majorities, particularly in particular states. >> let me interrupt you, e.j. we get word from washington that the decision is being released even as we speak on immigration. it can take three to four minutes for us to actually get our hands on it, maybe longer

than that. the justices will release within this hour the decision oim integration. let's just remind people what's at stake here. obviously, this is about the constitutionality of one of the toughest laws that we have ever seen passed in arizona, and it really does focus on whether or not states have the right to set their own immigration laws. the feds argued obviously that that is federal jurisdiction and it raises questions as we heard from congressman gutierrez about racial profiling and could affect more than 11 million illegal immigrants. in addition to that, more states are considering their own laws, and they've been waiting, haven't they, charles? a lot have waited to see what the supreme court rules. in could open up aa floodgate. >> this could open up a floodgate. this is classic state rights, federal rights territory. it plays well into that argument for politically as you were

saying before on that political side well into the obama administration's camp, which is this is why you need us. i mean, if -- i actually believe that, you know, crossing my fingers and taking a wild stab here that this is one where they're a little safer than obama care. >> they think this might go their way? >> it might go their way. but if it does not, romney faces a real hurdle figuring out how to discuss this issue at all. oba the obama camp will push hard on him in that regard. >> jonathan, we haven't heard a clear answer from romney "nightly newabout what obama decided last friday? we haven't heard mitt romney give us a clear answer to his

executive order. what would dein this case? >> in that case he dodged bob schieffer's question five times on what he would do. >> sxl subsequently other questions. >> we will see this come up in the debates. what will likely happen in the debates is that these two issues will be joined in one question by the moderator, whoever that happens to be, and we will see how romney and obama kind of disentangle them and deal with each in its own way. i think on the law enforcement issue in arizona, that is a matter of conscience in the same way. i think the link, chris, is that the dream act and resisting this are both matters of conscience, the nation's conscience. do we want to live in a country where people provide papers when they're driving? do we want to live in a country where children are penalized for no fault of their own, other than they were brought to the country at a young age.

it's about who we are as americans. >> let's go to pete williams at the supreme court. >> blocked its most controversial elements. at issue is whether states enforce federal immigration laws. it's a complicated ruling and we have pete williams at the court in washington trying to sort it out all for us. tell us how it came down. >> natalie, i suspect that both sides will have something in here they can claim victory about. what the supreme court said is that most of the law that was challenged here is unconstitutional, but by a 5-3 vote the court has upheld a provision in the law that says police officers in arizona must check the immigration status of anyone they arrest before they person can be released. 5-3. justice kennedy writing the majority opinion. justices thomas, aleetd toe and scalia ascending. this is one that kagan sat out because she worked on this case at the justice department before they came to the supreme court.

three other proiss of the law before the court were struck down. two of them made it a state crime to do something in arizona that was not a crime under federal immigration law. to look for work and to be in the state without papers. the court also struck down a very controversial part of the law that said police officers in arizona can arrest someone without a warrant if they think someone has done something that violates federal immigration law. so three of the four provisions declared unconstitutional, one part held up. remember, natalie, ts is not the end of the court fight over the arizona law, because there are lawsuits pending. which was one filed by the justice department. there are other lawsuits pending in arizona that challenge the law as racial profiling. those are now working their way through the courts. that ain't over yet, natalie. >> absolutely not. let's bring in savannah guthrie here with us for lyle analysis. the most despited provision is the stop and check part of that

law, and that's the part the justices uphold. how surprising is that? >> it's somewhat of a surprise? there was an expectation that this law would be upheld because there was skepticism on both the liberal side of the court and the conservative side of the court of the government's position, the federal government which was trying to strike down the law. yet, they have struck down the majority of it, but upheld that provision that got most of the attention, the ability of police officers in arizona to determine the immigration status of anybody they had lawfully stopped. as pete mentioned there's a lot of litigation to come. one of the reasons this was so controversial was because people thought it would lead to racial profiling. there hasn't been a case before the court. this law hasn't gone into effect yet. once it goes into effect, there will be lawsuits to come and some will be litigated for sure. >> thank you again. >> let's bring in pete williams live at the supreme court. i don't know if in the three

seconds since ugsd good-bye to folks at the "today" show to look more at the ruling. what more can you tell us? >> this was the big issue in the case. the issue was what parts of the arizona law were at odds with the federal law. the one at odds is when the police arrest anyone for any crime they must check their immigration status to see if they're here legally or not. it was clear frankly in oral argument the court was prepared to up hold this. there's this enormous federal center in vermont that takes queeries from local police officers around the country when they arrest someone and want to know about their immigration status. so it's kind of hard to argue that that's at odds with a federal scheme. one other thing. there's a federal immigration law that says nothing can interfere with the police officer's ability to check on the immigration status of

people. what the justice department argued is that by placing a priority on checking the legal status of anyone, that is going to throw a monkey wrench into the federal scheme, which is trying to concentrate on people who are here illegally who present the most danger to the country who have committed crimes or a threat of national security. if you stand everybody in line and check on the legal status on anyone that any policeman arrests, that would overwhelm the system. the court did not find that persuasive. the question here is, how much is this decision going to energize other states as they look at tough immigration laws of their own, and as i said earlier, i think stll be something for both sides to declare victory about here, but i would say this. the supreme court has upheld perhaps the narrowest part of this arizona law, the part that in any anyone's opinion strayed the least from the federal scheme. >> let me ask you, pete, too, if you have a sense and again

knowing this just happened and the fact there's aappeppeals an lot of legal court challenges, are we looking at months or years? >> reporter: years for sure. this was the justice department's lawsuit that said, look, this is what the lawyers call preemption. there's a long-standing rule that says when congress passes a law, it preempting the field and the states can't pass laws at odds with that. that was the main question here. did the arizona law stray too far from federal law, and after all, the whole question of immigration is a federal question. it's the federal government alone that gets to decide who can be here legally and not. nobody disputes that's a federal decision. the question is how far can the states go in helps ing to enfor that? that didn't deal with this question still in the courts about whether this law encouraging police officers to engage in racial profiling and whether that's unconstitutional. that's just in the early stages, so it's going to be another

couple of years before that's sorted out. >> we have that, and we're still waiting for health care. pete, what's the status of that? >> we don't know. we may find out in a few minutes what the other decision days will be this week. we'll know whether if there's two or one decision day. another big decision from the court today, the court struck down mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles who commit murder while they're still juveniles. this is the next in a series of cases in which the supreme court has put the death penalty off limits for a variety of offenders, people who have mental problems, all kinds of different areas in which the court has shaved away at who is covered by the death penalty. this was the latest. a closely divided decision 5-4. >> thank you so much for your very fast work there, and i'm sure we'll hear from pete more throughout the day. of course, we've been talking about the incredible political implications of this ruling for

both sides in an election year when the latino vote is so critical in so many key battleground states. let's going to the white house where nbc's chuck todd is standing by. andrea mitchell is in washington for us as well. chuck, as you heard from pete, a little bit of something for everybody. is it the joy of victory or agony of defeat for the white house, do you think? >> reporter: politically i want to talk about in terms of mitt romney, this is the worst of all outcomes if you're mitt romney. you talked about some parts the arizona law you thought was a model. it was not this part of the law that they take issue with that they say necessarily was a model. i think what we learned from the supreme court is simple. the supreme court said, there can't be 50 different immigration laws, but that didn't mean there wasn't a way for law enforcement to check immigration status. that's clearly why they decided to separate that part of the arizona law and issue this split verdict.

i think it puts romney in a much more difficult position. i do think you're likely to see other state legislatures now look at sort of how did the supreme court rule and they will narrowly model and you will see a lot of the laws get sort of re-litigated, if you will, relegislated in the states taking this up. there were a couple of southern states in particular, alabama and georgia. they'll likely put it just like the part of the arizona law that was upheld, and that in itself offends a lot of latinos and it is not necessarily the type of story or the type of political issue that the romney campaign wants to be talking about for another three days. any day they talk about immigration, chris, is a bad day for their campaign. >> clearly as we said on the program and you've talked about so many times, chuck, it's not something that mitt romney has wanted to answer. he hasn't wanted to answer about the executive order, but surely they had statements that are ready to go in any event

although. how quickly will we hear from the campaign? >> reporter: it's interesting. mitt romney by happenstance is holding a fund-raiser in phoenix, arizona. he's wheels down at noon eastern time. the guidance was he would issue a paper statement. my guess is that's what they'll stick with. i don't think they politically would view it as a smart decision to put the candidate out there talking about immigration any more than he did last week. >> andrea, i think there's a question, too, of does he have to? at some point, what is the point at which he has to say something? >> reporter: they've been very adept about avoiding tough questions or any questions about specifics. he gave the speech on thursday, and he laid that out in florida. the point is that neither he nor his surrogates or marco rubio, for instance, have been specific about what they would do. that ambiguity is very much in their interest, and as chuck

pointed out, they don't want to be specific. what you are going to see in this limited way reframed by the court you see in south carolina, georgia, utah and indiana attempts by state legislatures to model what has been upheld at least in arizona. interestingly those with the exception of indiana are all really red states, romney states. they won't engender a whole lot of activity in terms of the political action in terms of the electoral college, but you are going to see, i think, an energized community, the latino community is going to see even this aspect that has been upheld as a threat. it's going to be something that democrats can use. >> and let's talk about those states where it really will and could potentially make a difference, chuck. i think that there is generally a feeling and a number of republicans have said this that mitt romney needs to hit that 31% that john mccain had. where are the states where at the margins an energized

electorate one side or another could make a difference where this ruling on immigration might a difference? >> reporter: there's three object juvious states, nevada, o and florida. i would also point you to north carolina and virginia, where you have had north carolina with the fastest growth among their hispanic population over a ten-year period and the census over any other state in the union. it's that way all through the south if you will, but north carolina in particular and virginia. you could argue in the states where it's going to be closest but particularly in even virginia and north carolina let alone the obvious places of nevada, colorado and florida. those five is where i would center on, if you will, of where you see some of this energy and activism. >> chuck and andrea, thanks to

you. andrea will have more than at 1:00 eastern time and chuck will talk about it tomorrow morning. i want to bring in chief counsel at the constitutionality sb integrity center and jamal green at columbia university. jamal, what's your headline out of this? up. >> i think the headline out of this is it's basically a win for the federal government here. i don't think anyone expected the court to uphold the portion of the law that was struck down. in the course of striking down the rest of the law, the court said broad language about the sense in which there's a national immigration policy that states really aren't allowed to interfere with in any way. >> would you agree with that, elizabeth? is this a win for the feds? >> i think it's a win for the feds. i think it's a victory for the constitution and i think it's a victory for the american people that the court invalidated these three on you out of the four

progressions. i would argue that even though the court upheld the show me your papers section today, i think that is merely a victory delayed. there are still proceedings that are going on, for example, the lawsuits by civil rights groups that challenge the show me your papers provision, that one particular one that squeaked by today in the supreme court, and i think that in those cases still ongoing, i think it's likely that the provision will be eventually found unconstitutional. >> will it eventually be found unconstitutional? >> it depends on how it's enforced. we have to see how this law operates on the ground. it hasn't gone into effect yet precisely because this rule was pending. now we have to see whether or not the show me your papers law on the ground as enforced will result in racial profiling. i'm with elizabeth and thinking that it probably will be. if it is and an equal protection

challenge will be brought in supreme court. >> let me ask you then, kenji, what do you think the real life impact is, if you're an illegal immigrant and you're living and working somewhere in america, particularly right now live organize work inning arizona, how does your life change or does it? >> the concern is we're creating two americas. people who feel safe going about their business and people who don't because of their demographic characteristics. i want to emphasize i understand that sb-1070 did not say that racial profiling were permitted. it's naive to think it will create an unsafe environment for individuals who are perns of color that are latino or afterwards or what have you or asian-american for that matter. i think that the equal protection violations are going to be successful precisely because it's really hard to thread the needle and to understand how this is aapplied in anything but a way that would

involve racial profiling. i think that many individuals are going to live in fear or with great concern for that. >> elizabeth, you're nodding. we talked about the fact over the last couple of minutes that this is winding its way through the courts for the next couple of years. again, if you're an illegal immigrant right now living in arizona, what does this mean for you? >> i think the key thing to think about is this professed goal of arizona's to achieve attrition through enforcement. while there certainly was a blow to that policy with the court's ruling today, i think the fact that section 2, the show me your papers provision was allowed to go into effect is going to have a real impact on the lives of people in arizona. i would note that the supreme court left open the possibility that the federal government could come in again after the law goes into effect as kenji mentioned and say that this

attrition through enforcement as applied in arizona is preempted and in contradiction to federal immigration policy. it's important for the federal government under its constitutionally delegated powers to be able to balance all the myriad concerns of foreign affairs, humanitarian considerations and resources when it determines how to enforce immigration laws. arizona really doesn't have the right to decide that. i think that that's something that the courts will look at when this case pres as well. >> does this put a lot of people in a dangerous situation? >> i think a lot of the impact of the law is largely symbolic in the sense that it does suggest to people who are brown skinned, people of color that there's going fob a special eye on them. i would emphasize the point that the court did not say the law is necessarily going to be applied in a constitutional way. it said, let's wait and see. there's a lot of pressure from the federal government and sift rights groups to keep the

pressure on and to make sure that this law is enforced in an even-handed way. >> how long do you think -- i'm going to bring our panel back in. do you think we'll see things happen that can be used as political fodder by either side? >> i think very possibly so in these red states if anti-immigration forces are able to get show me your papers laws passed through the state legislatures and if that gets a lot of press attention. this is critically important in terms of the political dmen someone. if there's a lot of media attention to the way this issue plays out moving forward in the next four months, that could be harmful to mitt romney because then, remember, with the dream act question, that affects younyoung latinos that can't vote. many families are recent immigrants who can't vote. this provision, this show me your papers provision affects

all latinos potentially and could potentially have a much more profound impact on their attitudes toward what their lives will be like moving forward if this does become the law of the land and spreads to different legislatures. >> e.j., i think jonathan makes a good point. this is not something that happens today and we talk about it for two or three days and it goes away. this is something potentially we could be talking about on the day of or day before the election. >> right. i think jonathan underscored exactly the right point politically here, which is this is ultimately not about the impact of this law on people who are here illegally. it's about the impact on this law on latinos who are legal residents or legal citizens of the united states. do they face harassment from police authorities because they happen to look latino? that's been the controversial aspect of this. because we don't have -- i don't have the decision in front of me, it does appear that the

court narrowed that to some degree. i think to the extent that they did narrow it, they took a little bit he of the sting out of the issue, but i want to see what the decision actually is. i think this really does affect a lot of legal citizen voting latinos who say, are we being singled out? i think mitt romney is making a big mistake to keep avoiding these issues. he went to the right on immigration in the primaries. on this issue the etch-a-sketch isn't working for him as he tries to -- as he needs to correct for the general election to get a share of the latino vote. >> chris, there's one thing that i think we're not sure about how this is going to play out, and that's registration of latinos. so will this -- >> not an insignificant point. >> this is critically important, because many eligible latino voters are not registered. will this encourage them to register because they want to express their unhappiness with this decision, or will it

discourage them because they fear that maybe if government, you know, has their name on a voter roll that it will be easier for them to be harassed? there are some latinos who feel that way, even if they're here legally. they don't want to have entanglements with the government, so we're not sure how it will play out in terms of r registration. >> let me ask that question to maria. i'm sure you heard what jonathan just had to say. will it encourage or discourage registration. do you have a good sense of that? >> i believe what's going to happen is this will energize the base of the latinos community. the architect behind it was recalled and defeated by a special election in november, and it was the very first time in arizona 30-year period that that had actually happened. in demonstrated it wasn't just latinos concerned with this law

but fellow americans say it's decisive governmentally. it's a rallying cry to the latino community to register and vote. that's what we see in different pockets where this law particularly is really impacting local communities. >> well, also i think it's important to realize on that j registration thing, which is if you push people to get i.d.s to dmvs -- people who are here legally don't have i.d. pushing them into places where voter registration will be very easy. you're basically creating a voter registration drive with this ruling. that's number one. number two is you can't minimize the fact that the court struck down the round 'em up provision of this law. it is huge. the part of the law that said

you can detain and question anyone who you suspect is here illegally is enormous. that is a big win for the obama administration. >> to jonathan's point about, you know, a lot of this is how it's presented and out there, in the latino community and some of the for example spanish language newspapers or on univision or telemundo, what's the red line going to? >> that the supreme court went against the latino community. it's a terrible narrative, because what the supreme court did today was extend police officers with the opportunity to be immigration agents. that's not good for anybody, because it prevents people that are undocumented or from mixed status families to actually ask for help. it makes these communities incredibly vulnerable as a result. that's another issue. what's going to happen is this actually going to exercise and

this is a terrible day for romney because the only narrative that folks have with romney is arizona is a model of immigration for the rest of the country. he's going to try to skrak bell. you mentioned that he lands in phoenix. he has to create more than just a piece of paper statement but also have a conversation with the latino community saying ints okay to racial profile and this is something i don't stand for. >> you know, e.j., there's so much criticism of mitt romney at this point, that he avoids these questions and goes on rope lines and they don't want the media there. can he come off that plane in arizona and have his press people say, he's not talking about this? >> he can. the question is at what point does he begin to pay a price for in? i think he is setting up a pattern that sinks in over the course of a campaign that all he wants to do is say, the economy is bad, obama is power, vote for me. you could say that for a while, and it's a -- he does want to take advantage of all economic

discontent out there. i don't think he can keet evading these issues, and i think he's stuck with some pretty strongly anti-immigration positions from the primaries that if he doesn't move off them, i think it will get the mobilization of the latino vote on the democratic side. that was not a given going into this election, given that congress has not passed comprehensi comprehensive immigration reform. his reluctance to shift his view is going to mobilize latinos nor obama. >> we have a lot more at that about. before we go to break, we heard from the supreme court there will be only one more day when they brings down decisions on thursday. so on thursday we will get the supreme court ruling on the health care law, but today we're talking about the decision on immigration. we'll take a quick break and be back with more on jansing & company here on msnbc.

♪ one a day men's 50+ is a complete multi-vitamin designed for men's health concerns as we age. ♪ it has more of seven antioxidants to support cell health. that's one a day men's 50+ healthy advantage. that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about.

and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients.

and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. o it's about time we made our homes work for us. so let's make our dryers do the ironing. have our fridges cater our parties. and tell our ranges to whip up dinner. let's plug in to summer savings before they're gone... ...without wasting an ounce of energy with smart machines that turn housework into house play. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, save $600 on this maytag french door refrigerator, just $1,598.

s from from the supreme court the long awaited decision on immigration is in. help uphold the one that calls for police it to check the immigration status of people that they stop. there are a lot of questions about the political implications in an election year where the latino vote will play a crucial vote. mari maria, pick up on what e.j. was saying. he talked p about the message that we hear from mitt romney is that we want to focus on the economy. if you talk to the romney campaign people, what she will say is that ultimately what matters to the latino voters is the economy. in the end supreme court rulings and immigration status will play barely at the margins that this is an election for latinos like everybody else about the economy. is the campaign right about that? >> the economy and jobs are the number one issue for the community. however it's difficult to have a

conversation with the constituencies when they believe you don't like them and don't address their issue. the fact that the narrative that mitt romney that says the arizona law is a model for immigration law around the country is a big problem, and that's why he had a difficult time basically to pivot from his immigration stance to talking about the economy within the latino community because he's not clear with where he stands with the latino community. even the fact that marco rubio promised to introduce the dream act to make it -- not create a stop gap measure like the president had but create long-term policies through congress and the fact that rubio stopped that puts romney in a difficult position. >> we're going to take ather quick break. we'll come back with a congressman very active and vocal about the supreme court case. we'll be right back. ttrader streaming quotes, any way you want. fully customize it for your trading process --

from thought to trade, on every screen. and all in real time. which makes it just like having your own trading floor, right at your fingertips. [ rodger ] at scottrade, seven dollar trades are just the start. try our easy-to-use scottrader streaming quotes. it's another reason more investors are saying... [ all ] i'm with scottrade. it's another reason more investors are saying... how mbefore you do constipation do yosomething different?... when you feel your first signs, try miralax. unlike other laxatives, miralax empowers the water you drink to do more. drawing water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. which gets you back to being you. don't wait to feel great. miralax. what happens when classroom teachers get the training... ...and support they need? schools flourish and students blossom. that's why programs like...

...the mickelson exxonmobil teachers academy... ...and astronaut sally ride's science academy are helping our educators improve student success in math and science. let's shoot for the stars. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students. let's solve this.

there's cases the supreme court has to heal on the issue of racial profiling and

discrimination, but this section was a wrong decision on the part of the court. i wish it would have struck down all of them. that would have been consistent and would have been a really strong affirmation that congress do its job and come up with with something humane and comprehensive for the entire country. >> in an hour mitt romney will land in your state. he has a fund-raiser there later, so we'll wait to see if he has any reaction to this. what do you think the political implications are? >> well, the political implications are that, you know, people running for congress better talk about something other than debating about immigrants in this country and talk about reform. the court admonished congress for not doing its job. mitt landing in arizona is interesting because he called 1070 a model for immigration reform across this country. i wonder what he will say now when three parts are found unconstitutional. 2-b continues to and we will continue to fight that both

through legislation, through the political side and judicial side. that is a problematic point, and its application is also going to generate more lawsuits in the future. >> congress grijalva, thank you so much for rushing to the camera. >> thank you for the invite. very kind. >> that wraps up this hour. thomts roberts is up next. thomts. >> on the agenda next hour, more reaction from the breaking news from the supreme court. they're living the papers please policy intact, the raekdz from the white house and the romney campaign and i have a full reaction from the governor of ardz, jan brewer rilt here. we dissect the ruling going forward. the super-pac wars and a new ad taking aim at mitt romney tenure at bain. it doesn't use vampire language but is close. egypt has a new president, one that the military is now

recognizing. who is momamed morsi? what he means to egypt and how america playing a role in his formal education. i don't spend money on gasoline. i don't have to use gas. i am probably going to the gas station about once a month. drive around town all the time doing errands and never ever have to fill up gas in the city. i very rarely put gas in my chevy volt. last time i was at a gas station was about...i would say... two months ago. the last time i went to the gas station must have been about three months ago. i go to the gas station such a small amount

that i forget how to put gas in my car. ♪ home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance, where the costs to both repair your home and replace your possessions are covered. and we don't just cut a check for the depreciated value -- we can actually replace your stuff with an exact or near match. plus, if your home is unfit to live in after an incident, we pay for you to stay somewhere else while it's being repaired. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance. because you never know what lies around the corner. to get a free quote, call... visit a local office, or go to libertymutual.com today. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?

breaking news from the u.s. supreme court which has just struck down three out of four provisions in the arizona immigration law. it's the first politically explosive decision from the high kourtd, which is also planning to issue a ruling this week, the affordable health care act. jan brewer called it a victory for the rule of law. she issued a statement a short time ago. pete williams is live for us at the supreme court for us with reaction from there. pete, let's go over the details and what this law means, the key changes ahead? >> i think this is a victory for arizona, but i think it's the narrowest possible victory for the state because the court struck down three parts of the law. there are four at issue, not the whole law but four that came up

here in the supreme court. here are the three that were struck down. an arizona law that made it a crime to fail to have the right immigration papers. court said today that interferes with the federal immigration law, the federal schemes sets out who has to have what papers. the field is preempted by federal law. the court struck down a provision of the tough, new arizona law that would have made it a state crime for someone here illegally to look for work. the supreme court said that's the furthest at odds with the federal law so the state can't make something a crime that the federal law doesn't. it struck down another part of the law that said police in arizona can arrest someone without an arrest warrant if they have a reason to think that the person has violated immigration laws. in other words, is here illegally. the court said that would give the state police in arizona the power to arrest someone beyond what federal immigration agents do. the court upheld a final