so it is a caution light really, rather than a full up green light for arizona, that part of the decision. the other parts struck down today made it a crime for someone who is here illegal through apply for work in arizona. made it a crime not to have the right federal papers. and also said police could arrest someone without a warrant if they suspected they were here illegally. those parts were flat out struck down by the court today. >> all right, pete, thank you very much. i want to take our audience to arizona where governor jan brewer is speaking right now. let's listen in. >> -- thank you all for being here this morning. let me begin by saying from the moment that i signed into law senate bill 1070, the support our neighborhood act, arizona has been preparing for this day. the facts have too often been lost in the rhetoric. let's reflect on what has brought us here today. arizona did not ask for this

fight. nor did it seek the task of having to confront illegal immigration. we cannot forget that we are here today because the federal government has failed the american people regarding immigration policy. has failed to protect its citizens, has failed to preserve the rule of law, and has failed to secure our borders. the failure to secure or border has and arizona without question bears the brunt of that failure. we also cannot forget that president obama and his party have both houses in congress for two years and could have secured our borders and fulfilled the promise to fix our broken immigration system. they failed. and in response, arizona had no other choice but to act and arizona did so by following, not changing, federal law. instead of devoting resources to

suing states like arizona, the federal government should have spent time, money and energy on fixing the problem. so today is a day when the key components of our efforts to protect the citizens of arizona, to take up the fight against illegal immigration, and in a balanced and constitutional way, has unanimously been vindicated by the highest court in the land. the heart of some senate bill 1070 has been proven to be constitutional. arizona and every other state's inherent authority to protect and defend its people has been upheld. i pray for strength and pray for our state, before i signed senate bill 1070. i did so because i firmly believed it represented what was best for arizona. border related violence and

crime and the significant financial cost due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state. and to me. both as governor and as a citizen. as i have said, this is a day that we have been waiting for. and make no mistake, arizona is ready. we know that the eyes of the world will be upon us. we know the critics will be watching and waiting. hoping for another opportunity to continue their legal assault against our state. but i have faith in our law enforcement. our brave men and women in uniform have been trained so that they're able to enforce this law efficiently, effectively, and in harmony with the constitution. civil rights will be protected. racial profiling will not be tolerated. senate bill 1070 is equally

committed to upholding the rule of law while ensuring the constitutional rights of all in arizona are protected. including prohibiting law enforcement officers from solely considering race, color, or national origin and implementing its provision. in fact, under my direction, senate bill 1070 was amended to strengthen and to emphasize the importance that civil rights are protected. arizona is prepared to move forward to enforce this law that we have fought so hard to defend, ever mindful of our rights, ever faithful to the constitution. and ever worthy of the blessings of god, who has given us that, that we share together as arizonans and as americans. thank you. >> governor, you mentioned

section 2b and i appreciate that, but there were three other sections of the law you signed and defended including one that would make it a state crime not to have -- one that would make it a state crime not to work and the full court, the full court essentially said with the exception of scalia that, no, you can't do that. how do you defend having signed something like that? how do you defend having declared that constitutional two years ago, only to have the high court -- >> today, the state of arizona and senate bill 1070 was vindicated. and the heart of the bill was upheld. unanimously. >> -- considering some of the obama administration's rules on -- >> well, with section 2b being upheld it says local law enforcement can assist the federal government in the right

to ask under reasonable suspicion and whenever practical to confirm the legal ability of someone being in the state of arizona. >> but the point i think -- >> we're listening in to arizona governor jan brewer saying that the decision rendered, at least a portion of it by the supreme court today, is vindication. and also saying she is prepared for a legal assault on her state from critics of this law. everyone, politicians you see here, to court watchers, are weighing in on this big decision. there is no clear consensus on a so-called winner. politico writes the decision could potentially anger latinos in a twhat could, quote, give president obama an added boost from hispanic voters in november. that's one perspective. raul reyes, usa columnist and attorney general of south carolina, alan wilson, whose state is looking at something similar to what we're discussing out of arizona. nationally syndicated radio talk

show host michael smerconish. three provisions struck down, the most controversial upheld. jan brewer says it is vindication, despite the fact that not every republican even sees this as vindication of this law. what do you say, michael? you're an attorney here. >> i think all the politicians' glasses are half full and they could very easily be viewed as half empty, including hers, because three-quarters of it was struck down as you point out. and with regard to the -- as she puts it, the key provision of 1070, the court left open the opportunity to strike it down when implemented. as i read this decision, it is the court saying, we can't preclude it from being implemented where on its face, on its surface it says race and national origin won't be taken into consideration, but let's see how it is implemented and they left that door open. >> raul, let me play what jose diaz-balart had to say on msnbc this morning, this is more about

latinos in arizona. let me play jose and get your thoughts on it. >> okay. >> there is a whole issue of people that may look brown, and can be asked about their papers and if they're citizens, but don't have some passport, because what do we as american citizens carry with us on a daily basis to prove that we were born in the united states of america? what document? there is no national i.d. >> so obviously jose brings up a point, this opens a floodgate for perhaps litigation from people who believe that they have been racially profiled. jan brewer says her state is implemented rules and measures to make sure that doesn't happen. do you believe that statement even on its face? >> i'm not sure she can be so confident. one thing that is very important to remember is this whole case that the supreme court was examining, it all turned on the supremacy clause. all of the emotional aspects of this case, racial profiling, civil rights violation, none of that was examined because that's all going to come later.

the supreme court specifically left the door open. so one thing i bet everyone on our panel can agree on, there is going to be a flood of cases, challenging this, by hispanic advocacy groups, the aclu. the court has been very reluctant to rule on discrimination or racial profiling in advance. once the law is implemented, we'll see people bringing lawsuits, class actions, different things. >> which brings me to the criticism that the president has offered to congress and you hear, for example, governor mitt romney criticizing the president for lack of leadership, it goes under the umbrella that we know there needs to be comprehensive immigration reform in the country and the decision we heard from the supreme court, whether you see it as a win for one side or a loss for the other, we're still in this cloud where we need reform in this country regarding this issue that is not going away with 11 million people plus here. >> right. and we're not going to see that soon, tamron. that's really unfortunate. so both sides can point fingers and say it is the other side's fault. we know that's where we are.

i think -- i was blown way listening to governor brewer. i want whatever she's having because she's living -- >> let me tell you, i understand that people will want to hear you say that those who agree, but in her mind, she has a victory on her hands today. she can come and say, the heart, as she put it, which we never heard this was the heart of the legislation, until today, but with that said, she, at this moment, is able to say the heart of the legislation was supported unanimously, joan, by the supreme court, whether you drink the kool-aid, if it is that she is serving, she has this now to, you know, stand upon with this controversial law. >> well, it is great. she's a master of spin. i really -- i really hand it to her. this is not a victory for arizona. i think as the other panels have said, going forward it is going to be very interesting to see how they implement the one piece that they are allowed to go forward with. there will be a lot of civil rights complaints about it and it is an -- it is political.

you had justice scalia today actually coming out of nowhere, and singling out president obama, slamming president obama for his decision on deporting young people of a couple of weeks ago. this situation has become so partisan, so political, so ugly. i think it is going to get worse before it gets better. >> this is the world we live in today. sadly, you and i know that. alan, part of the ruling makes mention of other states following suit at least when it comes to police being able to check status of those they arrest. what does your state stand? >> well, actually, i consider this a partial victory for south carolina. i think everybody here is going to concede there are, you know there are partial victories for both sides. it is a mixed bag. but for south carolina, i will agree with governor brewer on this count, that the legal stop provision for law enforcement was a central part of our immigration law. there are only three components of our law that were struck down as being preempted at the district court here in south

carolina. the supreme court has addressed those this way. one of them they have struck down. that was the requirement that illegal aliens carry registration card. there was also the illegal harboring and transporting provision of our law, which the court did not directly address. and then there is the law enforcement detention and then the subsequent asking of the person's national status or making the determination which the court unanimously upheld. i consider that a great victory for law enforcement and for law enforcement specifically in south carolina. >> is it a great victory for this country? >> the national immigration law center, one of the spokespersons says this, regarding arizona. this is not simply about undocumented immigrants. this is about any person who looks or sounds foreign, skin color. this is a throwback to the days of our country when racial profiling and discrimination was with state sanctioned this and is simply unacceptable in 2012. with the praise that you laid upon arizona and this decision to be able to stop people and check their quote/unquote status

here, how do you ensure -- how does arizona ensure this does not fall into racial profiling? you can send people to sensitivity, you can send to training, but how can you ensure that someone who is a legal citizen of this country is not seen as quote/unquote, foreign or as an alien as you referred and pulled over and profiled here. how do you protect the people here legally who may fit into a quote/unquote suspicious category. >> i would like to answer that. >> go ahead. i would like to answer that. if you go to the state department, look under the bureau of consular affairs, there is an access manual they put out to all local, state and federal law enforcement which basically strongly recommends and mandates that they actually determine someone's national status pursuant to a lawful detention or stop. you have the state department already promulgating regulations for law enforcement throughout the country that basically ask law enforcement officials at all levels of our government to actually determine someone's national status when stopping them legally for, say, a traffic

infraction. it has been going on for years to claim there is racial profiling is ridiculous. we already have the state department putting out these types of regulation ands and manuals for all states to follow. it is absolutely predict us. >> is it ridiculous, raul? >> i have to address something about local law enforcement. this law actually puts tremendous pressure on local law enforcement officials in arizona because part of the law that is already in effect that was not even challenged, allows any citizen who believes that the law is not being effectively enforced to sue their local police or sheriff. this opens a tremendous floodgate of potential liability to any citizen who can basically sue the police department and say you're not pursuing the most effective solutions. i think it puts law enforcement in a tough spot. i don't think it is good for local law enforcement. >> is it ridiculous as the attorney general -- >> i think he misses for hispanics, for latino americans, this is the civil rights issue of our time. and, you know, for us to be, if

we're in arizona, be worry about whether our elderly relatives have i.d. or whether they're out alone without the proper papers, that is totally un-american and goes against our american values and there will be lawsuits by any number of hispanic advocacy groups. >> pete williams noted in his report that obviously this will go on for an extended period of time for the reasons that raul pointed out because of lawsuits. but what is your view on the notion that this is seen as ridiculous, that checking someone's status as the attorney general -- and i'm happy he is on, because obviously south carolina factors into this, michael but legally you've worked with many law enforcement personnel throughout your career. >> i think that many law enforcement personnel that i spoke to don't want this responsibility. they're concerned about what training do they have that would allow them to make these sort of determinations, their plates are already full and frankly, it puts them in a front line capacity, it puts them in the role of a customs and border

patrol agent, which is not their function traditionally on a local level. >> joe, let me go back to -- >> that's not true. >> i'm sorry. go ahead. >> that last statement wasn't true. every law enforcement official i talked to in south carolina wants this. i haven't spoken to anyone that i'm aware of that doesn't want this. and if anyone in this panel read south carolina's law, i would ask you do so. if you read the law, you find someone is stopped for speeding or a broken taillight, the law enforcement official can only hold them for a reasonable time as to make a determination as to what law was broken and if they have a reasonable suspicion they're not here legally, they can then call the ice officials or federal government and they make the determination as to deportation. if you cannot make a determination as to their legal status, you can't verify they're here legally, you must let them go. you can't keep someone just because they don't have a driver's license. that is forbidden by south carolina law. this screaming, the sky is falling and this is racial profiling is a red herring and doesn't address the real issue, which is giving law enforcement

the tools they need to do their jobs. which the state department is already allowing. >> attorney general, i can say this, i don't know -- and i've not spoken with the people in south carolina, but i personally interviewed law enforcement personnel out of arizona, who were concerned about their role in this, many of which came out against the legislation in arizona. that is a fact. let me bring in joan walsh to talk about the politics of this, joan. we're waiting president obama is set to speak. we should hear his first live remarks on this. governor mitt romney came out with a very vague statement regarding this. he's been criticized already for not taking a hard line. i'm going to pull up his statement here. let's talk about the politics of it first, joan. >> sure. well, you know, i mean, i saw his statement. and no one can really parse his statement to know exactly where he stands. every single issue that comes up, tamron, his response is president obama has failed to lead. and just as with the enforcement -- whether he would overturn the president's decision not to deport young

people who were brought here illegally last week, he continues to evade responsibility on these questions and talk in vague platitudes. we all would love a comprehensive solution. it is elusive. the president will have certain powers and mitt romney can't really tell us how he would use those powers. >> i have the statement, joan. he said governor romney said i believe that each state has the duty and the right to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. as candidate obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office, but four years later, we are still waiting. and that is part of the governor's statement there. with that said, not very specific on what he would like to see on his first day as the ad points out with the economy, for example. >> right. and, you know, i think -- i think that the president -- it also ignores the fact that the president, a, can't pass legislation by himself and, b, the other thing that governor brewer completely

misrepresented, very controversially, this president has done a lot more to enforce our laws and has deported a lot more people than president bush did, you know, which is a very, very controversial in the latino community. he's been very aggressive on using the tools he has. so this notion he's just letting people wash over the borders and he's not doing anything, he doesn't care, and he could somehow with the stroke of a pen or the wave of a wand pass comprehensive immigration reform is just a misunderstanding in our political system. >> attorney general, i want to bring you in. your statement and correct me if i'm wrong, you focus in on what i think is an interesting part of the conversation. businesses and their responsibility in all of this. i grew up in the state of texas. and i went to school with a number of children whose parents were in the country illegally, who were exploited as a workforce in the state of texas, where businesses, many of them donated to different campaigns, seem to escape the eyebrow raising that we get from someone who perhaps is pulled over. you have businesses, the hotel

industry, the restaurant industry, that would perhaps in many ways in certain states as you well know be decimated if they had the iron fist of some of the actions taken by lawmakers. with all of that said there seems to be enough blame to go around when you look at congress with the 13% approval rating, attorney general, where there needs to be action here and different states like yours are put in a position to take action that is seen as right and wrong depending open your perspective. >> well, first off, i want to say this, our law goes to great lengths to protect people's individual liberties. we go great lengths to protect people from being profiled against and to make sure law enforcement is given the appropriate guidance. all we want to do is support the federal government. for years we have heard they don't have the resources. earlier one of the other persons said that president obama used every resource available to him. that's not entirely accurate because he has local and state law enforcement. they're fighting us every step of the way. we don't want to usurp congress'

power under article one, section 8 of the constitution. we just want to help congress enforce those laws. this is not a patch work like a quilt, like the president claims, of different laws around the country. we want to support the federal framework for implementing immigration laws. we want do it at the state level. what is going on now that the federal government, the congress can never, ever again punt this thing saying they don't have the resources necessary to enforce immigration laws. they have the states to help them. it is true, it was said earlier, the supreme court could look a as an as applied argument. but we have safeguards in our law that will prevent that from happening. >> joan, you have the last word on this since the attorney general referred to you. >> i don't think you can say the president isn't doing everything he can because he's not using state and local officials. that's a complete misunderstanding of law enforcement and the way our government works.

so this president has been as aggressive as he can be with the powers that he has. very controversially with parts of his base. >> thank you, all. i greatly appreciate the conversation. attorney general alan, thank you for your time especially. we really appreciate it. as i mentioned, we're awaiting the remarks from president obama. we could hear from the president on camera for the first time, reacting to this ruling from the supreme court that is continued to be debated that the very hour. stay with us. we'll bring you the president's remarks from new hampshire.

recently, students from 31 countries took part in a science test. the top academic performers surprised some people. so did the country that came in 17th place. let's raise the bar and elevate our academic standards. let's do what's best for our students-by investing in our teachers. let's solve this.

the supreme court -- actually, we're looking at this event from new hampshire. we're waiting the president to speak any moment. now his first live remark on the supreme court decision. as you well know, the supreme court is going down to the wire with its decision on the president's health care law. it is expected to rule thursday, that is the last day of the term. by the way, the new york times writes washington is tense with anticipation, saying, quote, the impending health care ruling by

the supreme court has become this city's o.j. simpson verdict, crossed with a papal conclave polarizing maddeningly unprecedented and shrouded in mysterious signaling. what a description. let's go to our panel now. joan walsh back with us. how would you describe the anticipation, is it as the times puts, if this weren't so serious i would laugh, compared to the o.j. simpson verdict? >> well, i think that no one wanted to be taken by surprise and some people were taken by surprise by the o.j. simpson verdict. i think since the 27th of march we have been waiting to see people drew some conclusions about opening arguments. but both sides are preparing for various outcomes and trying to be quiet about it. democrats want you to believe they're going to have a victory and it will be upheld and

republicans want it to be struck down at the same time they will tell you privately they don't know what is going to happen to turn out in this fall's election if it is. that could become a real political problem if the dreaded obama care is no longer. >> to your point, the president's team bracing for all possibilities, excellent story in the new york times yesterday. pretty much outlining they have a plan a and plan b for lack of a better description. window, let me bring you in on this. we talked about the insurance industry, you know it better. its flaws, you were a whistle blower in that industry. when asked about the health care law, 33% support it, 47% oppose. that's in its total. when you look at people, ask about carrying your kid to your insurance policy or, you know appreciation existi pre-existing conditions, those things are possible, what is your gut as we await the supreme court taking it down to the wire? >> i think you're finding that the public does indeed like the elements of the affordable care

act. many could go away if the affordable care act is struck down in part or in its entirety. even if the individual mandate only is struck down, what we will see is the insurance industry will be spending an enormous amount of money trying to dismantle the rest of it through the legislative process. they have a lot at stake. the insurance industry stands to gain a lot if it goes forward. but they want to make sure that the new regulations andtections the supreme court does away with the original mandate. >> this morning, mark halperin was on "morning joe," we were giving a scoreboard before the announcement of who could be the winner, who could be the loser. let me play what halprin said and get joan's response. >> i actually think whatever the court rules is bad for the president. that's not my opinion. that's based on reporting, including a lot of democrats. if they uphold the law, which is unpopular, it will be a rallying cry for republicans across the country. even if the law is upheld,

advertising and campaign rhetoric for more republicans will be about health care. democrats will largely hide for it. there is not more than a handful of democrats in the country including the president who -- >> joan, do you agree with that statement? >> no, i don't agree with it. there is such a beltway conventional wisdom that no matter what happens, it is always bad for president obama, it is always bad for democrats. i think it is really complicated. we can't sit here and depending what they do, it could be good for the president, bad for the president. what is most important to me is what is good for american consumers. the individual mandate, there is a great, great irony here that, you know, the individual mandate was a republican invention, that they sold to the democrats, and then they abandoned it and now it could be -- it may not be, but it could be, you know, sort of the central issue that the supreme court rules on when many

democrats would have preferred an alternative, a medicare for all plan. i'm not saying that was ever politically feasible in the climate we had in 2010, but it sort of is like democrats got sort of snookered into going for this compromise solution to universal health care. and now that could be the thing that undoes what the president accomplished. >> and what about governor romney here, obviously we know his role with health care reform in the state when he was the governor with massachusetts. it also puts the governor in a trick bag and every time he brings up individual mandate, health care reform, people can pull up the picture of his official portrait in massachusetts, a symbol for universal health care right below his hand, something he was proud of then. >> he was. and he did not apologize for the massachusetts program which attacked in the primary, i would say, lightly, against other republican contestants. but he did -- he did once call it a model for the nation and that's been documented. just as he called the

immigration law a model for the nation. he said the same thing about the individual mandates. so that he used in massachusetts. now he says, no, but he wrote some op-eds and did some talking and he would like to take it back. that would come back again if this individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional. >> so if, for example, and these are the options that we could see play out on thursday if the decision comes down as we expect. strike down the entire law, that's one option. uphold the entire law, strike down the mandate, uphold the rest of the law, strike down the mandate and two related provisions. those are some of the outcomes or scenarios we're awaiting. but back to the point you're making, regarding governor romney, today his response vague on the arizona law. with what is at stake, the latino vote, he's already behind, enormous double digits from the president right now. he's cautiously responding to the supreme court decision regarding arizona. will we see that same caution thursday with any of those

outcomes that i just laid out, a.b.? >> i think it is going to be tricky for mitt romney. i'm sure he's going to say right away that this was a -- the wrong thing for the president to pursue when the economy was in danger, a failure of leadership and trying to plead special interest or something. he'll do something to criticize the president's health care reform law. but on terms of the mandate, i think it will, again it will be awkward for him. i don't think he can be as vague as he was on immigration and i don't know, tamron, how long that's going to be lasting either. he'll be in a corner pretty soon. i think on health care, he'll say it was the wrong thing for the country, presidents did the wrong thing once again. >> a.b., thank you. joan, thank you. to new hampshire where the president is preparing to speak. let's listen in. [ cheers and applause ] >> well, there you have it. a live picture.

the president not at the podium yet. all eyes are on these remarks out of durham, new hampshire, as these could be the first remarks we have heard from the president regarding the decision from the supreme court on arizona's controversial law. the president praising a part of the decision struck down some of the law, saying he was concerned about the ability for law enforcement personnel to ask someone for their immigration status when they are stopped or arrested. the president thanking the crowd there. let's quickly listen in. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you! thank you! oh, thank you! thank you so much. thank you, everybody! thank you. it is great to be back in new hampshire.

i -- a couple of people i want to acknowledge. first of all, wasn't scott outstanding? give scott a big round of applause for his introduction. [ applause ] i want to thank todd alan who is the principal here at the high school. and i want to thank our outstanding senator from new hampshire, jeanne shaheen. and i want to thank all of you. i know it is a little warm in here. that's okay. that's okay. it is wonderful to be back. and, you know, i just have so many good memories here in new hampshire. i sesame familiar faces and folks who were with me when people were still trying to figure out how to pronounce my name.

>> we love you. >> i love you guys back. i really do. now, i am back here in new hampshire, not just because i need your help. although i do. but more importantly i'm here because your country needs your help. now, 2008 we came together to reclaim the basic bargain that built this country. the basic ideal of this country, the thing that created the largest middle class, the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, we came together because we believe that in america, your success shouldn't be determined by the circumstances of your birth. if you are willing to work hard -- [ applause ] here in the united states of

america, if you're willing to work hard, you should be able to find a good job. if you're willing to meet your responsibilities, you should be able to take care of your family and own a home. maybe start a business. give your kids a better chance than you had. no matter who you are, no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like, no matter who you love, that's what we believe. that's what america's about. that's why we came together. that's why so many of you got involved in 2008. it wasn't because you thought my election was a sure thing. when you support a guy named barack obama, you know that's not a guarantee. but we shared that common sense of what america has been, and is and must be for the future. and i ran for this office -- [ applause ]

i ran for this office because for more than a decade, that basic bargain, that profound american dream had been slipping away from too many people. before i took office, the worst economic crisis of our lifetime made it even worse. so durham, the debate in this election is not whether we need to do better, everybody understands that our economy isn't where it needs to be. there are too many people out there who are struggling, too many folks out of work, too many homes that are still under water. of course, we need to do better, the debate is not whether, it is how. how do we grow the economy faster. how you do we creado we create ? how do we pay down our debt?

how do we reclaim that central american promise that no matter who you are, you can make it here if you try. and this is not just the usual run of the mill political argument. this is not the usual washington chatter. there is a lot of that. but this, this is the defining issue of our time. this is a make or break moment for our middle class and folks aspiring to get into the mid le class. the next president and the next congress will face a set of decisions on the economy, on deficits, on taxes, that will have a profound impact not only on the country we live in today, but the country that we pass on to our kids. and here's why you're so important, because what is holding us back, from meeting the challenges we face, is not the lack of big ideas, not the

lack of technical solutions, just about every policy and proposal by now has been put on the table. everybody knows what the options are. what is holding us back is a stalemate in washington between two fundamentally different visions of which direction we should go. and new hampshire, this election is your chance to break the stalemate. this election is your chance to move this country forward, instead of seeing it go back wards. that's why i'm here. that's why i need your help. [ cheers and applause ] >> president obama at a campaign event in new hampshire, making what his administration and his re-election team called the stark contrast in the direction of the economy. i want to bring in mark murray quickly. mark, the president so far at least starting these remarks and not talking about this decision

out of arizona. he did, however, release a statement as we know earlier today, does that surprise you? >> it doesn't surprise me right now that the president hasn't remarked on today's supreme court announcement. precisely because the speech he's giving today is similar to remarks he gave on friday in florida where he is trying to set up two duelling economic visions in his economic hit against mitt romney. this is almost just right out of what he said on friday, it is possible he might mention the supreme court decision later in his remarks today. but mainly what he wants to talk about are the two different economic visions between himself and mitt romney. >> all right, mark. we'll talk with you after a break regarding the other supreme court decision. campaign finance, as it relates to obviously the conversation we had about a lot of big money donors having what many perceive as great interest in this political campaign and presidential election speciespey because of the kind of money

they have opinion able to put on the table. we'll keep an eye and ear on the president and bring you any remarks he brings you on the arizona law. to being a different kind of communications company by continuing to help you do more and focus on the things that matter to you. without freshly-made pasta. you could also cut corners by making it without 100% real cheddar cheese. but then...it wouldn't be stouffer's mac & cheese. just one of over 70 satisfying recipes for one from stouffer's.

[ male announcer ] you're at the age where you don't get thrown by curveballs. ♪ this is the age of knowing how to get things done.

so, why let erectile dysfunction get in your way? talk to your doctor about viagra. 20 million men already have. ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain; it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. this is the age of taking action. viagra. talk to your doctor. olaf's pizza palace gets the most rewards of any small business credit card! pizza!!!!! [ garth ] olaf's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! put it on my spark card! [ high-pitched ] nice doin' business with you! [ garth ] why settle for less? great businesses deserve the most rewards! awesome!!! [ 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? update on at developing story. the high court doubling down on citizens united, the 2010 ruling that unleashed corporate spending on political campaigns. in a 5-4 vote, the court dismissed an attempt bit state of montana to limit campaign donations. the majority wrote, the question presented in this case is whether the holding of citizens united applies to the montana state law. there can be no serious doubt that it does. that means that citizens united can be broadly applied to any state and local elections, opening them up to unlimited campaign cash. for more on it, let me bring back senior political editor mark murray. this comes after the op-ed on the casino mogul who backed newt

gingrich and now mitt romney. since he made it clear he's fully willing to exploit the anything goes world created by the federal courts to donate limitless portions of his $25 billion fortune to defeat the president and as many democrats as he can take down, we talked about many in wisconsin recently as well. this conversation not going anywhere, but the supreme court, in words, i guess we can put it this way, doubling down on its ruling before. >> tamron, another way to put it is sentenced united is here to stay. this montana case provided the court with the ability to perhaps revisit citizens united after that decision in 2010, particularly when the minority on the court -- the more liberal leaning justices, thought what would end up happening after citizens united created this wild west version of campaign finance where people like sheldon adelson, very rich donors, have the ability to influence elections more than people. in this particular case today as

well as in citizens united in 2010, for -- applicable to campaign finance at corporations have the right to be able to speak and to be able to air advertisements and spend almost as much money as they want to spend in the campaign. >> to your point, mark, the five justices who -- showed no signs of budging. all sides have come to understand the importance f that is the proper word of the super pacts and this big money now. >> well, right now, in the two years since citizens united, you can say republicans are playing the super pac, the post citizens united world game much better than democrats. you look, you mentioned sheldon adelson, look at the republican super pacs, the karl rove founded group, crossroads or crossroads gps, the super pacs supporting romney, restore our future, they have a tremendous amount of money.

they're going to be able to impact this presidential contest. you end up having president obama's own super pac, priorities usa action, but they haven't been able to flood the air ways the same way we have seen from the republican groups. so far this citizens united decision, which was, again, upheld today, has really been a boon to the republican party so far. >> your thoughts on this. four game changers left that we'll be watching. health care law ruling, perhaps thursday, romney's vp pick and convention speeches and the unemployment number before the election here. we're narrowing down the things that i guess average americans, not those in the beltway, not those paid to give their opinions on these things, will be certainly tuning in to see. >> well, right. and it also shows we have a very long way to go in this general election. as you mentioned we are going to get the supreme court decision on thursday. we have so many more twists and turns to go, whether mitt romney's vice presidential pick, the upcoming conventions, you

mentioned that final unemployment number as well as -- i think these will be the more impactful, upcoming debates. and, tamron, all the external events, something could come out of the blue like we saw with lehman brothers on september 15th, 2008, that can shape a presidential contest without people even thinking that actually it could occur. >> mark murray, thank you very much. greatly appreciate it. and in another ruling today, the supreme court struck down mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile murderers. in a 5-4 coavote, they ruled it unconstitutional. elena kagan wrote the law violated the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. there are approximately 80 14-year-olds around this country serving life in prison without parole. we'll be right back.

if you made a list of countries from around the world... ...with the best math scores. ...the united states would be on that list. in 25th place. let's raise academic standards across the nation. let's get back to the head of the class. let's solve this.

before gut check, we wanted to bring you this story. this would have been our gut check this amazing photo finnish

the 100 meter race saturday during the u.s. olympic track and field trials. they tied for third place. the winner will get the last spot on team usa for the london games. officiales say they' es sas say women a choice of a runoff or a coin toss to decide their fate. we want to hear from you. what do you think? join the "newsnation" on our twitter page, @newsnation. time for the "newsnation" gut check that big decision we have been talking about for this entire hour from the country's highest court today, as politicians on both sides of the aisle are playing a spin game, if you want to categorize it that way. four people in arizona, the ruling will have very real consequences because the court upheld the so-called show me your papers, that's what critics referred to this portion of the law. many say it will lead to racial profiling in arizona and other states if they duplicate or

replicate this law. anjelica salas says in one sweep the supreme court has sided with arizona and aloud racial profiling as an acceptable law enforcement tool. harry reid tweeted, i'm greatly concerned arizona provision endangering innocent citizens of being detained unless carrying papers will lead to racial fro profiling. president obama saying no american should live under a cloud of suspicion just because of that they look like. you heard from jan brewer at the top of the hour saying her state needed to make the move to protect its borders, the citizens of arizona. she and other republicans say that the president and this administration did not make an effort to reform immigration laws. as a result, arizona made its move. what does your gut tell you? do you agree with the critics who state supreme court ruling could leave an opening for the potential of racial profiling? go to facebook.com/newsnation to

cast a vote. and look at friday's gut check regarding the bus monitor in new york bullied by the middle school students while on the bus. the monitor says the boys should be banned from riding the bus and not be able to play sports for a year. so we ask you, is that tough enough? should the kids have more severe punishment? 94% of you, well, well, well, said yes. 6% of you said no. one might have colleagues standing inches from me thought the kids should basically be given a pat on the back and let them go on their way. that does it for this edition of "newsnation." i'm tamron hall. thanks for your compassion with the poor bus driver. catch "newsnation" every week day 2:00 eastern time on msnbc. the premiere of "the cycle" is up next. why let constipation slow you down?

try miralax. mirlax works differently than other laxatives. it draws water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. don't wait to feel great. miralax.

tell me you have good insurance. yup, i've got... [ voice of dennis ] ...allstate. really? i was afraid you'd have some cut-rate policy. [ normal voice ] nope, i've got... [ voice of dennis ] the allstate value plan. it's their most affordable car insurance -- and you still get an allstate agent. i too have... [ voicof dennis ] allstate. [ normal voice ] same agent and everything. it's like we're connected. no we're not. yeah, we are. no...we're not. ♪ ask an allstate agent about the value plan. are you in good hands? hello and welcome to day one of our new show "the cycle." i'm toure.

a wbig decision came down from the supreme court and everyone is claiming victory. we're waiting for the so-called decision of the century on health care. >> i'll tell you why what the supremes do will affect the presidential race. or will it? >> in today's guest spot, reaction to the decision the court did issue which upheld a key portion of arizona's show your pap lawyers. >> i'm crystal ball. what happens to the supreme court after this season of big and controversial decisions? >> all that, plus governor ed rendell and my thoughts on what we hope the show will be. day one of "the cycle" starts right now. good monday to you. welcome to our first show. the gang's all here. ready for the first day of school, kids? >> going to be fun. >> yeah. >> feels real. >> what am i doing here?

that's what i want to know? how i did get here? am i in the right place? >> you are in the right place. we're going to show them that you are in the right place. >> just making sure. >> we're going to begin with the supreme court striking down three portions of the arizona law. by holding the show me your papers requirement. if you're stopped by an officer for something, and he thinks maybe you're undocumented, he has jurisdiction to check you out. health care comes thursday, but with the arizona law, the earth shook a little bit today. let's start by bringing in justice correspondent pete williams and mike saks. pete, split decision, three decisions knocked down because of a state rights issue. the federal government retains their power, but why does the court say it is okay for them to check the papers of any person they think is undocumented? >> reporter: what they said is the states can't interfere with the federal immigration scheme. as for the part they held up, the court said that was the part th