federal immigration law because the federal law already provides for local law enforcement people to check status of folks they detain. there is a huge center in vermont that does nothing but take phone calls like that all day. there is another provision of federal law that says nothing can interfere with the ability of police to do that. however, it has to be noted that in upholding that part of the arizona law, the court put in essence a warning in upholding it. what it said today is, look, this hasn't been enforced yet. so we can't agree with the obama administration it will be unconstitutional. we just don't know how it is going to work. we'll take the state at its word, but the court said today, in this 5-3 opinion, if police in arizona detain people too long, or if they begin to use this part of the law as a pretext for rounding up people that they suspect of being here illegally, then that part of the law could cross the line and be unconstitutional. so it is a very -- it is a victory for the state that part of it, but a very narrow part. >> okay. mike, it seems the court has given police officers in arizona a free pass to racially profile.

do you agree? >> i don't agree. it sounds as though what pete said is correct, if they racially profile, if this gets back to the supreme court, the supreme court might say section 2b is unconstitutional under a different provision of the constitution. state courts will get a crack at nair rog narrowing the section and there is a class action in the district of arizona challenging the papers as free speech, free association, due process and equal prosection violation. >> we got to wait and see on that piece. >> right. and i think you described that provision exactly right. what it says is if the police arrest someone or if they detain someone for something, a violation unrelated to immigration, then while they have the person in custody, they can check on their immigration status. what the court struck down today is another part of the law that said the police could arrest someone without a warrant if they suspect them of being here

illegal illegally. >> justice kennedy wrote for the majority this decision, and some were speculating that maybe that means that chief justice john roberts would write the majority opinion on thursday in the health care ruling. are we reading too much into that? >> yes. in a word. >> i knew it. >> if you're going to engage in opinionology, you have to go back and see when the case was argued and what other justices have written decisions in that week. and that's a poor predictor anyway. i think you put your finger on something, this is an interesting lineup of justices. as you say, justice kennedy often considered the swing vote, writing the decision today, joined by three of the court's liberals. ruth bader ginsburg, stephen breyer and sonia sotomayor. and justice roberts, one of the court's more conservative justices. the three other conservatives consented, that makes eight. elena kagan the ninth sat this out because she worked this case when she was with the justice

department. you have to wonder, why was justice roberts there and it may be that, you know, interesting note here, because there were only eight justices if this were a 4-4 split, the decision wouldn't count. the lower court ruling would be in effect. this would have no effect. perhaps he was trying to find a way for the court to have a holding. >> mike, all eight justices voted unanimously on the papers please aspect of the bill, roundly called the most controversial aspect part of the bill and divided on the other three. did we all have it wrong? do court watchers look at this as a surprise or this what is supposed to happen? >> justice sotomayor and stephen breyer, both in the liberal wing, both expressed concerns but not overriding concerns over the papers please section. they're okay with it as long as it didn't violate one's fourth amendment rights not to be detained for too long. this is unanimity was somewhat expected and so was the striking

down of the criminal provisions as well as the warrantless arrest provision. >> there is the way that the law is supposed to go and then the way the law actually goes when you're out in the street on a dark night with a police officer and sometimes the law is whatever the officer wants it to be. we can't assume that officers will follow the law and say we're going to detain you for something else and then check your papers. if i look at you and think you're probably mexican, and maybe you're undocumented, then i might stop you and say it is for something else. >> there is a lot of mexican-americans being stopped and detained and harassed behind this. >> the secondary enforcement nature of this, what pete and mike are saying, is the key point. this technically -- they have the power now to go ahead and do what you're describing, but the supreme court is -- >> can i make two points about that? >> please. >> first of all, you have to remember this law does not immediately go into effect. what happens now is it goes back down to the courts in arizona to resolve the other big question here, which is -- is it racial

profiling. secondly, the case came to the court in kind of an unusual situation. it had never been enforced before. so the court had to look at it and say, well, as it is worded, do the words itself in the law seem unconstitutional? what the lawyers call a facial challenge. and they said we don't know enough about how it is going to work. the kinds of scenarios which pause it, you know, words actually applied could invite -- involve it coming back here again. >> and let me ask you this, on a related note, other states, alabama, south carolina, georgia, among others, have instituted similar laws to this one in arizona. how does this supreme court decision impact the laws that have passed in other states? >> as an immediate matter, not at all. because there are various provisions of those laws that have also been challenged bit obama justice department. they're also in various forms, working their way through the lower courts. you know, i think that the real question there is politically what difference will it make? the advocates of the laws, will

they say, see, we won a partial victory, that's enough. or will they consider this a warning to trim their laws back and it is too soon to tell. >> do you see any way to look at this decision today and be able to look ahead to see what might happen on thursday with health care? >> if only. i think i can make this prediction. it is not going to look like the lineup we had today. i don't think. i don't know. we're going to get all nine justices on thursday on the health care ruling for starters. so that will be different. but, you know, like back what we were talking about a moment ago about why justice roberts joined the majority today, one other explanation is he might have agreed that that part of the law was constitutional. but, you know, will -- that's the big speculation, will, if he thinks it is going to be five votes, will he join to make it six so it doesn't look like one of the 5 live-4 rulings, i don' know. >> we look forward to seeing you on thursday.

mike, we'll see youen thursday as well. we have much more on the immigration law and the developments out of the court today and the big decision expected later this week. first, governor ed rendell on the politics of all of this as "the cycle" rolls on for monday, june 25th.

and how much the people in your life count on you. that's why we offer accident forgiveness... man: great job. where your price won't increase due to your first accident. we also offer a hassle-free lifetime repair guarantee, where the repairs made on your car are guaranteed for life or they're on us. these are just two of the valuable features you can expect from liberty mutual. plus, when you insure both your home and car with us, it could save you time and money. at liberty mutual, we help you move on with your life. so get the insurance responsible drivers like you deserve. looks really good. call... or visit your local liberty mutual office, where an agent can help you find the policy that's right for you. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?

and now to the politics of all of this. no matter which way the supremes go, the issue of health care, like immigration, will be a big part of the presidential campaigns, or will it? let's bring in one of our favorite pals, former philadelphia mayor, former pennsylvania governor, former head of the dnc and all around great guy, governor ed rendell.

>> good afternoon, guys. good luck to you guys. >> thank you. >> first, your thoughts on the political impact of the immigration decision. is this a good day or a bad day for president obama? >> well, i think it is a mixed bag. i like it from the obama viewpoint. it struck out some of the more own ru onerous parts of the act but kept in play racial profiling which will motivate the hispanic base and the president is doing so well among hispanic voters, anything that gets them fired up is a good thing. >> listen, i was trolling around on twitter at the 10:00 hour as i am want to do. when this news broke. and i came across some interesting duelling headlines if we can put them up. one from the ap, supreme court strikes down most of arizona crackdown on illegal immigrants. from reuters, the u.s. supreme court upholds tough part of immigration law, in defeat for obama. is that the way the political machine works?

>> well, a little bit. i think on both sides will claim a victory. and it is very difficult when you have a nuanced opinion like this. that adds something for both sides in it. but the key factor is politically this is going to continue to worry the hispanic base and continue to energize them. i think that's good for president obama. >> governor, i wanted to skip ahead to thursday and the ruling that will obviously get all the attention this week when it comes out about health care. if there is a morning line on this right now, it is that the ruling is going to be individual mandate gone, rest of the law, whatever that is worth, is left. i'm curious, you know if that is what happens from a democratic standpoint, where you and your fellow democrats go on the issue of health care, if there is no individual mandate, the conventional wisdom holds the rest of the law doesn't work because it will kill the insurance companies. there is an alternative view that the law may be applicable. do democrats stick with the law without the mandate? is that still where democrats are going on health care or do democrats revisit it and say we tried to do it with the insurance companies, now we go

for single payer medicare for all? >> right. well, let me start out by saying eventually i think whatever the court decides, if it decides against all or part of health care, the health care law will eventually down the road drive us to single payer. single payer makes sense fors s by business because it takes it out of the job of providing health care. it levels out the bottom line against european and asian competitors. i don't think that will be the immediate result. if the mandate goes down, i think it is likely the court strikes the ban on pre-existing illnesses on insurance companies, keeping someone out who has a pre-existing illness. if they don't, the law is a total shambles. both sides have to go back to the drawing board whether they strike the mandate or the law itself. both sides better have some answers. i think this is going to be an issue where the american people are going to be looking to the two candidates to provide some answers. >> can i follow up on that for a second. the counter to what you said is this, if the mandate is removed from this bill, but the rest of

the law, the rest is allowed to stand, as a rule two things, some people would say, would make it workable. one, you have an expansion offed me -- medicate at the state level. people who are young and healthy without a mandate will be enticed into the risk pool by the medicaid expansion or the subsidies and that dead spiral you're talking about there won't happen. do you think there is anything to that? >> i think is nothing to that. i think the people that -- the young people that don't call in, they're called the untouchables. they think they're not going to get hurt, nothing is going to happen to them, they're 26 years of age, they won't be lured into anything without a mandate. that's number one. number two, the way to fix the mandate's disappearance if they leave all of the ban on preki prekisting conditions is some form of stop loss. stop loss where the federal government comes in and ensures the health insurance companies that after $50,000 of payments in a year, the rest of that payment is shared by the federal government and the insurance

companies to some degree. that's a workable plan. what john kerry put forward in 2004. but, of course, you have to figure out a way to pay for it. this is not an easy issue. both candidates have to be ready, unless the law is totally upheld and romney goes back to his position and obama back to his position. but there is changes, both sides better be ready to read and react flair quickly because i think the american people will be looking at it. in terms of the democratic base, any tinkering with the law is good for obama in terms of democratic turnout. because it will rally -- if it is a 5-4, a political decision, that will jack up democratic turnout. >> and to that point, governor, if the law is struck down or if the mandate is struck down, doesn't that put the onus on to the republicans and on to mitt romney who has been very reluctant to spell out his policy position on health care or immigration or any range of matters? doesn't that put the onus back on the republicans to provide

some sort of a solution? >> you're absolutely right f you listen to john boehner and darrell issa, they're aware of that. john boehner said if some of this is struck down, no spiking the ball, no celebrating, we have got to come up with something. issa said we'll try to get the portions of the health care law that both sides agree on enacted. if i were the republicans, i would be doing that, i would be doing that quickly. if i were governor romney, i would be leading that charge, we all degree on these eight things, let's get these eight done and after the election, w sort it out. there has to be an answer for the american public and the public heard president obama's answer to some extent. now the attention turns to governor romney and governor, let us hear you. >> toure to that point, like most conservatives, i don't like what the president has done on immigration or health care. however, he has the advantage of, as krystal said, having done something. mitt romney is going to have to come out and answer for both illegal immigrants already here, and the uninsured.

he has to have an answer for both of those populations. how does he win on this. >> mitt romney has to have an answer for something. so far the campaign has been i'm not going to tell you much about anything about what i have to say. >> that's politically adventurous, but does very to come up with answers for this at some point. >> i don't think it is advantageous in a year when people need to know where do you stand and if we're going to get off of this horse and change horses when it is so difficult, we know this is -- this election is far more important than the last election. last election had social issues raised, those sort of things. this election is a stark difference and will change where we go as a nation and you need to be telling us what you're going to do and not just don't go with that guy. >> the biggest problem, the most revealing polling in the last week is pew. it polled the individual components of the health care law, republican ideas for a long time. they are all popular, they poll above 50%, even with republicans. the solutions that are in obama care, republicans like.

the idea of owe buickia caobama don't like. >> if you release it as an unauthorized bill, no matter who it is from, then it works. >> anonymously. >> i want to say good-bye and thanks to governor rendell for joining us on our inaugural show. next up -- >> this show won't be boring. >> thank you. >> no, it won't. >> next, a former border patrol agent joins us to talk about the court's decision on immigration today. we'll be back right after this. last season was the gulf's best tourism season in years. in florida we had more suntans... in alabama we had more beautiful blooms... in mississippi we had more good times... in louisiana we had more fun on the water. last season we broke all kinds of records on the gulf. this year we are out to do even better... and now is a great time to start. our beatches are even more relaxing... the fishing's great. so pick your favorite spot on the gulf...

and come on down. brought to you by bp and all of us who call the gulf home.

but not for long! your very own four course seafood feast for just $14.99. start your feast with a soup, like our hearty new england clam chowder. next, enjoy a salad with unlimited cheddar bay biscuits. then get your choice of one of 7 entrees. like new coconut and pineapple shrimp shrimp and scallops alfredo or new honey bbq shrimp. then finish with something sweet. your complete four course seafood feast just $14.99. come into red lobster and sea food differently.

welcome back to "the cycle." in the guest spot today, ipilito

acosta. the author of an awesome sounding book "the shadow catcher," an agent infiltrates mexic mexico's deadly cartels. >> what i'm uncomfortable with is the lack of training that is being provided for officers to make such a determination. i'm very strong on enforcement of all of the laws of our country. i just -- i want to make sure -- i would ensure that each individual that is going to be making such a big decision to detain someone would be properly trained and that's my concern with that provision of sb-1070. >> i share your concern. they're training in new york city around stop and frisk and still officer are stopping all kinds of people, whoever they think, whoever they think is making a suspicious movement which can be defined in any way

they want. but you've been on the front lines of all this. what would you do to fix the problem? >> well, the whole immigration issue has been neglected for many, many years by our federal government. it should be enforced by federal authorities and we had tremendous agents in the u.s. immigration service and those serving under department of homeland security now. one thing we have and i'm sure people understand out there is that the magnet that attracts people coming into our country because they can obtain jobs and the they transit states like arizona. that doesn't mean undocumented aliens come into our country are going to stay in arizona. we have anywhere estimates from 11 to 13, 14 million undocumented aliens in the united states. many of which are in interior cities of the united states and big neglect of our federal government has been interior

enforcement. we have done the right thing in increasing our border patrol agents throughout the border. we're up to 23,000 in our efforts to secure the borders and those are the right steps to take. but we have always neglected tone force interior enforcement by holding companies accountable for being a magnet coming into the united states. and furthermore, we have probably anywhere from 1.5 to 2 million undocumented aliens in the united states who actually came in with u.s. visas issued abroad. one thing waiting to focus on, securing the border, which i think our agents do a tremendous job and we need to be very vigilant. but secondly, we need to be serious about interior work site enforcement, which i believe has been a big cause for people coming to the country because they can work, they're going to continue coming to the united states. >> and to that point, had there been major differences between the george w. bush administration and the obama administration on enforcement both at the border and interior

enforcement? >> well, we recently have seen the obama administration going -- having a large number of deportation, but the reality is the deportations have been -- have occurred for individuals who have committed other crimes in the united states. that initiative also played a big part during the bush administration. but i want to use an example of what is similar between the two administrations which i think also causes a tremendous problem and doesn't address the immigration issue. and that's the fact that the immigration service conducts or ice as it is called now conducts audits at employment locations and the employers are then notified that a large portion of their workforce might be using fraudulent identities. instead of arresting the individuals at the work sites, the companies are merely required to fire those individuals without taking the documents away from them, so they simply go on to the next employer willing to take them. that was done under the bush

administration and it is being done under the obama administration which i think plays a big role in continuing to be a magnet for undocumented aliens to come to the united states. >> you know, you talk about the magnet affect, but there is some statistics that jump out at me and one is if you look at 2005 to 2010, the number of mexicans illegally entering the united states was basically equal to the number of who were leaving. it seems to me that the -- that pattern changed in response maybe to the crash of the economy, to the stepped up border enforcement, deportations under an all time high under obama. you point to the fact we have 10, 12, 13, 14 million here already. when i read the statistics, i say we're doing a good job on enforcement now. the magnet affect doesn't exist the way it did a decade ago, so the issue becomes how do we deal with the people we have in here right now and it seems to me that's where congress and some kind of comprehensive reform is the solution. are you optimistic we're moving in that direction at all now?

we had such little luck with that now for the past generation. >> well, i don't necessarily know that i agree with those statistics because when we talk about a reduction of the mexican illegal population in the united states, i don't know how we come up with the estimates that that number is leaving the united states because we have a substantial number who were legalized their status, they're no longer in that particular population. bear in mind that in 2001, 2002, we had 2 million to 3 million illegal aliens in the united states. now we're up to over 10, 11 million. there is a lot of factors as to why that has happened. but one of the things, when we talk about a reduction of the people coming to the country, we already have a large population of illegal aliens in the country. the economy played a major part in that reduction. and, of course, we can't minimize how important our border security has been because it made it much, much harder for people to get smuggled into the united states. so those are all the factors

that i say have contributed to what we have now. the bottom line is that i think we need to -- we need to address this issue. we need to address the issue of what to do with the 11, 12 million people in the country who are not identified who are not legal to work, what do we do with those? i think we need to address the issue because it has been neglected for too long of a period of time. i'm not saying that we should do it without penalizing those individuals who enter the country illegally because the law was violated and we have a recourse for people who violate the law to either be penalized because i know that there is not going to be an effort to deport 12 million people from the united states. >> well, krystal, i want to ask you, antonin scalia in his descent today, maybe my all time favorite justice, in his way -- >> minority on that opinion. >> for sure. in his way wrote this, if securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of arizona, we should cease

referring to it as a sovereign state. that is, a, so scalia, and, b so juicy. is he wrong? tell me. how do you respond to that? >> he is wrong and i don't have to respond because in the majority opinion, they stated very clearly that there was a lot of latitude. they essentially reaffirmed the obama administration's executive order, prioritizing enforcement of the decision. so i don't think there is any question that this is an issue that needs to be addressed at the federal level. i think everybody's on the same page there. so what we need to ask who is standing in the way of that progress. and thus far it has been republicans actually under george w. bush put forward a plan that was moderate, reasonable, but since then, made amnesty a dirty word and as hipilito just said, we're not going it deport 12 million people.

>> also standing in the way of progress to what you brought up before the show, private prison companies lobbying for this so they can get more money for themselves for their product. we're going to get to that later. >> we got to go. thank you. thanks for joining us, though. >> we got to wrap up. thank you so much. you will be back. you're much loved on this team. next up, a break from the supreme court. we'll turn our attention to why men don't get help and maybe talk a little bit my own experience in therapy. >> oh, no. you know, we're a little early for this thing...

want to hop in the back and get weird? no. family vacation... vegas. ♪ no. no. give it a big yank! really? yeah! [ knock on window ] no! no. ♪ ugh, no! [ sighs ] we can have hotdogs for dinner?! yes. [ male announcer ] in a world filled with "no," it's nice to finally say "yes." new oscar mayer selects hotdogs. made with 100% beef and no artificial preservatives. it's yes food. lookin' good, flo! feelin' good! feelin' real good! [ engine revs ] boat protection people love. now, that's progressive. call or click today.

well, here is a question i wonder about all the time. why won't men ask for help? seriously, since 1998, the number of men seeking treatment for depression increased by more than 40%. and yet men account for nearly 80% of u.s. suicides. our next guests our r psychiatrist betsy bates frieden and her husband david frieden. they write about today's crisis

of silence in the new issue of "pacific standard." was the article your idea or david's? >> it actually was the editor's idea. we don't typically work together. and it took a little convincing to ask us to do a piece together, but eventually the editor convinced us this was a good idea and a good topic for us to address. >> well, david, it seems fitting that you're part of this too. you're talking about an issue that, you know that strikes a cord with a lot of men, i think. they don't know what to do about it when they find themselves in emotional turmoil, emotional distress. i cite that statistic, 80% suicides being men. what do you think is behind that and what are the practical solutions that are out there? >> i think it all harkens back to sort of darwinian evolution when animals that were perceived as weak in any regard would be culled from the pack and they wouldn't live very long. and i think that's -- i think

women are probably much more evolved in this regard than men. >> yes. >> and that's why men don't, i believe, i think that's why men don't ask for help is because they don't want to be perceived as weak. i think that the solution, the elegant solution if there is one, is the exercise of example. a lot of the people we talked to for this story, men and in many cases friends of ours, they were compelled to go seek help,le psychologically, oftentimes because they were influenced by a friend or relative who had a positive experience going to see a psychiatrist. a lot of men who have had no interaction with professionals, i think, are very reluctant, simply because they don't want to ask for help in the same way they won't stop in at the gas station when they're completely lost and ask for directions. >> let me do my best to single handedly destroy your thesis here and look at my fellow panelists and say i need help. want to -- >> good for you. >> we're proud.

>> i think everything that david is saying is right. i saw how hard it is to be in therapy recently talking to somebody and i just found it very difficult to just swim in that pool because she kept saying, how do you feel? and i did not know how i felt. >> you don't have feelings. >> maybe i'm numb. maybe i don't have the language to interpret how i feel. maybe i don't process the world that way. but here's what i want to do, but how do i feel? i don't know. i didn't want to continue because i was, like, i don't know this is not a language i know how to speak. i think a lot of men would enter therapy and find the same sort of thing. >> that's funny because i don't think of you as a particularly repressed individual. >> i'm not. i'm not. i'm not. and even still, i think it is a very feminized language to generalize a little bit and i wonder if david and betty would agree with that, it is a bit of a feminized language when you enter the therapy, the

therapeutic situation or experience and sometimes men are, like, you know, americans go to france and don't know the language. >> exactly. i would agree with that. and in speaking with some of the experts on this subject, particularly the people in the american psychological association's division for men and masculinity, we're learning the approach needs to be a lot different. a man has very little problem going to a golf pro to help with a swing. and we need to sort of do it more like that, not talk about, well, how do you fell and how do you feel now, but more sort of saying what you're feeling right now might be this, try saying this or a little more directive perhaps, a little more focused, a little more adapted to male values and male language. certainly humor is a huge -- is a huge part of therapy for men

that really does not exist a lot in groups of women getting together. but in men's groups, it works really well. so we need to study how to reach men and then adapt what we do to be more comfortable, to people like yourself. >> and, david, to that point, really tragic epidemic that we have seen this year is an increase of suicide in the military. and obviously military is men and women but there is a very macho culture there and more men than women and this is something that impacts them. are there recommendations that you would give to the military of how they could better help individuals who are troubled? >> the military has taken great strides in this regard. the -- when a service member comes out of a combat environment from -- whether iraq or afghanistan, they go through a series of sessions where they're mandatory, they're

basically asked are you okay, is there anything we can do for you, and there is every opportunity, i think, given the constraints in the system to provide them those sorts of -- that sort of care. that said, there still is very much a reticence on the part of service personnel to avail themselves of that service. and i think ultimately this is all a function of stigma and i harken back to what i said a minute or so ago, in that as soon as men start to realize that talking with someone and the cathartic experience of vetting the frustrations or the anxiety they may feel, as soon as they recognize that is -- that is no longer tantamount to weakness, i think then the male part of the population will be well on their way to reaching the same sort of understanding

that the female part of the population derives when it comes to talking with professional counselors. you know, the interesting thing is when we started to do this story, for pacific standard, we have -- i wouldn't describe them as diametric differences in this regard, but one of us is a psychologist and one of us is not and i've never been to one, that's why i married one. >> well, david and betsy, let me say something you don't hear from nearly enough men, thanks for the help. up next, we'll cycle back to the court and find out if it is being sucked into the political crazy world. krystal ball takes the lead as we look into the court's future after this. ♪ how are things on the west coast? ♪

♪ i hear you... ♪ rocky mountain high ♪ rocky, rocky mountain high ♪ ♪ all my exes live in texas ♪ ♪ born on the bayou [ female announcer ] the perfect song for everywhere can be downloaded almost anywhere. ♪ i'm back, back in the new york groove ♪ [ male announcer ] the nation's largest 4g network. covering 2,000 more 4g cities and towns than verizon. rethink possible. covering 2,000 more 4g cities and towns than verizon. an intense burning sensation i woke up with this horrible rash on my right side. like somebody had set it on fire. and the doctor said, cindie, you have shingles. he said, you had chickenpox when you were a little girl... i said, yes, i did.

i don't think anybody ever thinks they're going to get shingles. but it happened to me. for more of the inside story, visit shinglesinfo.com

♪ hello...rings ♪ what the... what the... what the... ♪ are you seein' this? ♪ ♪ uh-huh... uh-huh... uh-huh... ♪ ♪ it kinda makes me miss the days when we ♪ ♪ used to rock the microphone ♪ back when our credit score couldn't get us a micro-loan ♪ ♪ so light it up! ♪ even better than we did before ♪ ♪ yeah prep yourself america we're back for more ♪ ♪ our look is slacker chic and our sound is hardcore ♪ ♪ and we're here to drop a rhyme about free-credit-score ♪ ♪ i'm singing free-credit-score-dot-com ♪ ♪ dot-com narrator: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com. his morning starts with arthritis pain. and two pills. afternoon's overhaul starts with more pain. more pills. triple checking hydraulics. the evening brings more pain. so, back to more pills. almost done, when... hang on. stan's doctor recommended aleve. it can keep pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol.

this is rudy. who switched to aleve. and two pills for a day free of pain. ♪ and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels. let's cycle back to the supreme court today and with the big decisions this week mean for the supreme court. the justices upheld a key part of arizona's immigration law, allowing police to check a person's immigration status during lawful stops, but ruled three other provisions went too far. and saving the most important for last, the court will have its final say on the president's health care law thursday. we think. we turn now to george washington university law professor jeffrey rosen, professor, thank you so much for joining us. we really appreciate it. >> thanks. it is great to be here. >> what does today's decision reveal in general about the direction of the court? >> well in some ways this is a

vision of the bipartisan decision that people who don't like the polarization of the court were hoping for. the court did not divide along party lines. you had chief justice rjohn roberts and anthony kennedy joining the three liberals. the court didn't strike down all of the law or uphold all of it but picked and chose. justice kennedy ended with a call to civility. for those that hoped the court is not going to go off the polarization cliff on thursday on health care reform, in many ways this could be a model of what a good path would look like. >> let me ask you about that. should we read anything into this decision in terms of what we should expect to see thursday? are they -- some have conjectured that maybe this is sort of softening the blow for more of a down the line partisan decision on thursday. >> that's possible, of course. but another possibility is this shows that justice kennedy and chief justice roberts really do have a broad commitment to national power, that they're willing to allow to trump state

claims to the contrary, that is consistent with stuff they heard said in the past, why many people thought before the health care argument they would both vote to uphold the law and if they remain true to that expressed philosophy, national power really needs to be given a lot of flexibility, maybe we'll see the same thing on thursday. >> i would like to hear you talk more about why chief justice roberts went the way he did, kennedy is the swing vote, so he goes on both sides. but i found it a little funny to see roberts with this group today, given what you know about what he's done in the past, why do you think he made the decision he made? >> it is interesting. it is striking. when he started his chief justiceship, this was the kind of decision he said he wanted to promote. i had an interview with him, he talked to other journalists and he said he felt 5-4 decisions along polarized party lines were terrible for the court. he said he would strife to persuade his colleagues to reach narrow, unanimous opinions. and he said that would be good

for court and good for the country. you suggested he had mixed success achieving that. there have been plenty of polarizing 5-4 decisions from the citizens united campaign finance decision to affirmative action, but maybe in this particular case he thought, you know, kennedy is with the liberals, i'm not going to make this a 5-4, i really want to find some kind of common ground. that's why i'm not predicting anything, but this suggests a kind of model for the sort of bipartisan he could try to achieve in health care as well. >> maybe broaden this out and i'll talk about it here, but it is interesting to me that we have sort of a bipartisan ruling today but i was struck by something s.e. talked about earlier in an earlier segment, you talked about scalia's dissent today. this was not the first time in recent months that scalia made a dissent that i read as informed more by partisan thinking as much as by legal thinking because he invoked the order that obama issued a week or two ago, dealing with deportations of minors. and this is the same guy who during the oral arguments over the health care law, you know,

he invoked the cornhusker kickback which wasn't in the law but was all over -- >> yeah. >> this is the partisan talking points that are part of the debates, but that aren't really part of the legal -- the legal debate and scalia, i wonder, is this just a case of scalia or is this really a window into the thinking? it is moving the entire court. >> is scalia the other one or do you see others doing it? >> today, notwithstanding, how many rulings are coming down on 5-4. look at citizens united. they basically upheld citizens united, 5-4. this could be partisan-gutting health care. >> to be fair, the majority opinion did also sort of not directly address the president's executive order, but also sort of addressed it as well, so it's not scalia, but on the health care law during the arguments, he referenced the broccoli

argument. even complained how long the bill was. >> they're not jurors. they're not sequestered, so they don't live in a vacuum. this is very much a signal they're living in the world. very much aware of the politics. very much was concerned about the perception of the politics of the court and i want to ask professor rosen really quickly, president obama has not been shy expressing his disapproval at times of this court's decision. do you think that's something they consider? do you think that's something that goes through your mind or do they shake it off and say this is what we're doing regardless of the consequences. >> i think they're aware of their fragile status. chief justice roberts told me they're often concerned about their legitimacy. they know an attack didn't end well the last time on the president in the 1930s. they're well aware of the political context in which

they're making these decisions. >> i'm sure we will have more questions for you on thursday after the health care ruling. thank you so much, professor rosen, for joining us and next, the sickle's mission at least according to toure. he's up next, so stay tuned. eat good fats. avoid bad. don't go over 2000... 1200 calories a day. carbs are bad. carbs are good. the story keeps changing. so i'm not listening... to anyone but myself. i know better nutrition when i see it: great grains. great grains cereal starts whole and stays whole. see the seam? more processed flakes look nothing like natural grains. you can't argue with nutrition you can see. great grains. search great grains and see for yourself. for multi grain flakes that are an excellent source of fiber try great grains banana nut crunch and cranberry almond crunch.

so, my friends, you may be wondering what we're doing here. what's the cycle all about?

we're a group of friends having a dirn party in the afternoon and we invite you into our party where we're going to talk about politics and culture. this foursome will be here together talking about america for the foreseeable future or until s.e. leaves the run for president. the the initial idea was what would happen if the partners of the law firm called ms and nbc and the junior partners took over. from that seed, this show was born. we're two men and two women. three whites and one brother. three of us are progressive and s.e. is conservative. three are from massachusetts and krystal's from virginia. i like women. the three of them like men. three of us are in our early 30s, one is in our very, very early 40s. two of us are single. two of us can see. there's lot of ways to slice the

pie, but we're friends who believe in america and want to see it succeed. a lot of people have focused on why did you put a conservative on the show. i don't want to watch her, but if we exclude the views of the other side, we're no better than them. wants to find slugss, we are better than them. obstructionism is anti-american -- it stems from a refuse cal to respect each other and listen to each other and a preference for winning an election over improving our future. we're better than that. plus, as krystal said last week, if your world is so fragile you u can't hear different points of view, you should reassess. steel sharpens steel and i like to know what the enemy's thinking. we'll be here every day at 3:00 p.m. putting on a great daytime

dinner party and you're one of the game. tweet us during the show. maybe your tweet willconversati continues now. >> not to say that s.e. is the enemy. >> sometimes, she speaks in the voice of the enemy. >> let me speak for the other two when i say we'll get you off that liking women thing. >> lucky, it's not like we don't have anything to talk about this week. in the words of ed schultz, i think we need two shows. >> we had some amazing stuff this week. health care is coming. the super bowl of politics is coming. >> no that any of the four of us ever has trouble finding something to say no matter what's going on. >> a clear, unambiguous, easy to interpret. >> like a kindergarten tee-ball game. everybody wins. >> everybody gets a trophy,

something to cheer about. good stuff, guys. i think we might be able to come back tomorrow. what do you think? >> we'll find out when we try to swipe our tags. >> it will be the three of you and as toure's twitter feed put it, the other dude. >> which i love. >> i've been called worse. >> can i put it out there? steve needs twitter followers. you're struggling, but that's all going to change. >> he needs a better name. we have funky names. >> first time kornacki's been the normal name. >> the only reason we're all here is to help prop steve kornacki up and get him some new twitter followers. >> that's the real goal of the show. not that s.e. judges people on twitter followering. >> martin bashibashir, it's all

yours. >> congratulations on what i'm sure is going to be a very successful broadcast. good afternoon, it's monday, june 25th and here's what's happening. papers, please. >> show me your papers. >> show me your paper. >> i don't think i have them on me. >> in that case, i have to ask you to come along. >> the supreme court says yes to a controversial part of arizona's immigration law. >> politically, this is probably the worst of all outcomes. >> guess where mitt is on this monday? yep, arizona. >> well, i sport the arizona law for recognizes what arizona has done underscores the failure of the government to do its job. >> i'm not familiar exactly with what i said, but i stand by what i said, whatever it was. >> it is the beginning of a big week at the supreme court with crucial decisions about the proper law and scope of government hanging in the

balance, all coming at the crest of the 2012 presidential campaign and today, it was arizona's controversial immigration law rejected in large part by the high court, but allowing a key provision to stand. the justices ruled that federal law does not preempt arizona's instruction to police to check the immigration status of people they detain. that would be the so-called papers please provision. here's mine by the way. you can bet i'll be carrying this when i next visit the grand canyon state, which is where mitt romney touched down just hours ago. arriving in scottsdale for a fund-raiser this afternoon and though mr. romney called arizona's immigration policy a model for the nation at a debate earlier this year, he managed to issue a statement full of words and fury, but signifying nothing earlier today. quote, president obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. this represents