>> this is not a victory for arizona. >> they just repeat over and over and over again. doesn't matter if it's true. >> perhaps she only read scalia's dissent. >> justice scalia today singling out president obama. >> it just shows you political scalia can be. >> how does this decision play out with latino voters? >> what document? there is no national i.d.. >> how does arizona ensure that this does not fall into racial profiling? >> it's almost a warning to the state. >> there's going to be a lot more litigation, particularly on racial profiling. >> this is probably the worst of all outcomes if you're mitt romney. >> why is governor romney in arizona? >> mitt romney, by happenstance -- >> he's in arizona -- >> holding a fund-raiser today in phoenix, arizona. >> this is a reminder to latinos who has their back and who doesn't. >> i think you see a model here in arizona -- in arizona -- in

arizona. i'm not familiar, precisely, with what i said, but i stand by what i said, whatever it was. today, the crazy anti-constitutional thinking of arizona governor jan brewer got smacked down by the united states supreme court. two republican-appointed justices, including the chief justice, joined clinton and obama appointees on the supreme court to throw out three out of four provisions of an arizona law, and left the fourth provision hanging by a legal thread that they will surely cut as soon as a case on the enforcement of that provision makes its way back up to the supreme court. much of what you're about to hear may be in contradiction with much of what you may have heard about this case today. there have been many headlines and comments today saying that the supreme court upheld the most controversial element of the law. it did not. there have been many headlines

and comments indicating that this supreme court upheld the papers, please provision of the law. it did not. the court stck down that provision. there have been many headlines and comments today that agree with this false statement by the arizona governor. >> the heart of the bill was upheld. >> fox news legal authorities don't think so. >> the heart and soul of the arizona stute has been struck down by the supreme court. >> arizona's illegal immigrants must be thrilled that the justices on the supreme court are empathizing with their plight. >> democratic governor chuck schumer got it right, saying, "this is as strong a repudiation of the arizona law as one could expect, given that the law has not been implemented yet. three linchpins of the arizona law were struck down by a convincing majority of the court as clearly violating federal law and a fourth is on thin legal

ice. the provision that is on thin legal ice is not the so-called show me your papers provision. it is the show me your papers after you get arrested or detained provision. and the supreme court said that they could not rule on that provision until arizona law enforcement actually arrested or detained someone under that provision. which they have not yet done. the supreme court was very clear on how that provision cannot be used. the supreme court said that arizona police officials, quote, may not consider race, color, or national origin, quote, as a reason to check the immigration status of an arrestee or a detainee. the supreme court did not issue any guidelines to arizona law enforcement officials as to what they would -- what the court would accept as legitimate to justify a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of any person stopped. no guidance for the arizona

police in this decision at all, none. in practice, it will prove, then, impossible for arizona law enforcement officials to find a constitutional way to thread the needle that the supreme court has left for them. the most egregious of the provisions, the show me your papers provision was, indeed, struck down completely by the supreme court today. that provision said that arizona police, quote, without warrant may arrest a person if the person has probable -- if the police have probable cause to believe that that person is in the country illegally. that provision meant that any arizona law enforcement official could stop any person at any time without any other legal provocation, like going through a stop sign or speeding or jaywalking, just stop that person at any time, while that person was behaving legally, stop that person and demand to see proof of that person's legal

right to be in this country. that egregious, un-american, unconstitutional provision was wiped out today by the supreme court. president obama is not confused about who won today. in a written statement, the president said, "i am pleased that the supreme court has struck down key provisions of arizona's immigration law. what this decision makes unmistakably clear is that congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. a patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system, it's part of the problem." mitt romney issued a written statement today in which, in classic romney style, he tried to use words that actually didn't say anything. like, does he agree or disagree with what the supreme court decision actually is? romney said, in his statement, "today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion

to pursue a national immigration strategy. 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." then later at a fund-raiser in, of all places, scottsdale, arizona romney essentially admitted who really won today. saying, "now, you probably heard today there was a supreme court decision relating to immigration, and, you know, given the failure of the immigration policy in this country, i would have preferred to see the supreme court give more latitude to the states, not less. and there are states now under this decision that have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws." joining me now are krystal ball, a democratic strategist, and co-host of msnbc's new 3:00 p.m. show that premiered today, "the cycle. alicia menendez, and julian

epstein. i want to start with you. because this stuff used to be under your jurisdiction in the house committee on immigration. chuck schumer says this was a very big win for president obama and the justice department that the court went pretty much as far as it reasonably could in throwing out everything in the law, except for this one provision, waiting to see if there is a constitutional way to enforce that one provision, and then it seems to me, julian, when i read the opinion, for poised to get rid of that position too. >> yes, larry, that's absolutely correct. and congratulations, your opening is the best description of what the supreme court did that i've heard on any newscast the entire day. it's important, it's very important to understand that this was not a split decision. this was an old-fashioned slapdown by a conservative court against the arizona law and the

conservative movement on immigration. the arizona law did three essential things. it, one, it made it a crime for an immigrant not to be able to show and produce papers on their documentation. secondly, it made it a crime for an undocumented worker to try to get a job. and it gave the police unwarranted authority for searches and detention. the supreme court threw all that out and what it left in place is that arizona law enforcement may during the course of normal law enforcement activities inquire as to the immigration status of an individual, and if there's some question about it, to simply report that to the federal authorities. it gives them no ability for indefinite detention, no ability to prosecute any state law. this was, as i say, an old-fashioned slapdown. and even as you point out, lawrence, that third provision that is simply really nothing

more than a reporting provision, even that is subject to further challenge on things like racial profiling and equal protection. so this was a huge victory for obama administration today. >> and julian, i have never seen a tinier eye of a needle left by the supreme court in a decision. i mean, it's not just that they can can't do racial profiling. the supreme court will consider no grounds on which they will consider it to be reasonable to check the background of a detainee or an arrestee. and then say very specifically in there, if you detain these people an extra amount of time or keep them in custody for an extra amount of time, just to check their immigration status, we will probably throw that out. and they don't even give a sense of time, like, if we keep them five minutes extra, is that unconstitutional? if we keep them a half an hour extra, is that unconstitutional?

just within that time frame. you must not extend their time in in police custody or detention by doing this background check. it seems very specific that the supreme court is ready to t this thing off as soon as they see any kind of uses of it that they actually are anticipating in this decision. >> yeah, you know, larry, your reporting is really excellent on this. that's exactly right. that third provision, which is essentially nothing more than a reporting provision during the course of normal law enforcement, the court says, you may do this, except if we find evidence and if someone makes a claim that there's racial profiling, we will strike that down too. it also says, except if you hold anybody for any unreasonable period of time, any kind of indefinite detention, we will strike that down under the constitution as well. even that little provision that

is left over is subject to further constitutional challenge. there's no way other than to describe this as a huge victory for eric holder or the obama administration or for anybody that cares about sensible immigration policy in this country. >> i want to read one sentence and move on to the politics of this. the supreme court says detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns. and that means, after you've processed them for the arrest or the detaining, whatever you're questioning them about, you cannot keep them, as far as i read this, for another minute on this immigration status. krystal ball, this decision was greeted, i think, with a lot of confusion in the media today. it makes me wonder what thursday's going to be like when the really big one comes down. but mitt romney showed two faces on this thing.

he did one of those great romney statements publicly where he says nothing, and then at the fund-raiser, it sounds to me like he came very close to the truth with that arizona audience saying, yeah, you know, you have a lot less power today than your law was trying to give you. >> yeah, it is interesting how sort of the news war over the day. because as you pointed out, jan brewer declared victory, right? they upheld the heart and soul of the law, which, by the way, i think in your quote there from the supreme court, you very accurately identified the heart and soul of this law, which, in fact, was not upheld, which was struck down. but that first statement was such classic romney. it should be filed away in the history books. it's exactly how he's run his entire campaign, trying to say as little as he possibly can about anything, and then when he gets in the room with the people

he feels most comfortable, his donors, that's where he shows his hand a little bit, and says, in fact, this is a blow to the republicans. and this isn't just a blow to the republican party. this law, as many of the anti-immigrant laws across the country, which were essentially drafted by the private prison industry, which benefit financially from having more immigrants detained. so that's another sort of undercurrent of this that i find very disturbing. in arizona on this sb-1070 bill, 30 of the 36 co-sponsors have received donations from lobbyists for the private prison industry. so this is also a blow to them, and in that way, it's encouraging as well that the decision went in the president's favor. >> alicia, president obama was pretty clear about this. he did talk about objecting to the provision that remains, and some other democrats actually

kind of emphasized the provision that remains and i think exaggerated the impact of the provision that remains, possibly because they don't want the latino vote to relax now, with what the supreme court did today. >> i don't think there's any way that that latino vote relaxes. you saw polling from latino decisions going into this. 60% of hispanics saying, i'm really nervous that if this is all upheld, we create an environment across the country that is aggressive towards immigrants, is anti-immigrant, is anti-hispanic. and very often we say, oh, immigration isn't a top three issue for hispanics. it's not, necessarily, but it's an enthusiasm issue, and it's a proxy conversation for who believes in this country and who doesn't, which party is welcoming to the ever-growing hispanic community, and which party is not. so i'm not even necessarily sure democrats were using it to make

sure that they could rile up latinos. i don't think it's that complicated. i think there's the fact that this one provision does remain, and in an ideal world, we would have wanted to see the entire thing struck down. and it is yet another reminder as the president said in his statement, that now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform. every state can't start legislating this issue by themselves. we need one framework for the entire nation. >> well, and alicia makes a phenomenal point there. immigration is not the number one issue for latinos. the economy is, as it is for everyone. but everyone -- i mean, on both sides, people are saying, we want to help the economy. it's not as though you have mitt romney saying i want to create jobs and help the economy, and the president saying, he doesn't. the nation is roughly evenly split about how they feel which

candidate would handle that better. so i think it is a motivator. and the other piece of this is, will it encourage more people to register to vote? i think that's really the critical piece here as well. >> and lawrence, one more piece on the law. imagine if the supreme court went the opposite way on this. imagine what this country would look like. in a number of states acro the south, police officers would be able to stop, search, and detain people of color for the most flimiest of rationales and pretexts. >> and the alabama law was, in effect thrown out today. it doesn't have a chance after this. we'll have to move on. thanks, everyone. krystal ball, the co-host of msnbc's new show, "the cycle," great premiere episode today, which i watched, krystal. >> thank you, lawrence. >> and alicia menendez and julian epstein, thank you very much for bringing some judiciary expertise to this. >> thank you, lawrence. >> thank you all very much for joining me tonight. >> have a good one. coming up, justice scalia is losing it. he really is. and he proved that today in an unbelievably crazy dissenting opinion that he wrote. justices don't get this crazy in supreme court decisions, usually. and arizona governor jan brewer picked the wrong guy to wave a finger at. jan brewer and her now-dead immigration law are in tonight's "rewrite." oreo fudge cremes. indescribably good. ♪ [ engine turns over ] [ male announcer ] we created the luxury crossover and kept turning the page,

this is the next chapter for the rx and lexus. this is the pursuit of perfection. did you know honey nut cheerios is america's favorite cereal? oh, you're good! hey, did you know that honey nut cheerios is... oh you too! ooh, hey america's favorite cereal is... honey nut cheerios ok then off to iceland! begins with back pain and a choice. take advil, and maybe have to take up to four in a day. or take aleve, which can relieve pain all day with just two pills. good eye.

and once again, it's time for that question, how long is too long on the united states supreme court? it is a lifetime appointment, so you can stay there as long as you want, but should you?

in fact, should justice scalia, who is really losing it. he wrote something really crazy today, an opinion he's very proud of, and that rush limbaugh likes and every legal scholar thinks is very embarrassing. and in that opinion, in the other supreme court opinion, the one that carried the day, governor jan brewer, who waved her finger at the wrong president, lost very, very badly. jan brewer and the losers are in the "rewrite" tonight.

what kind of a judge will you appoint to the supreme court? >>, you know, there's some justices i think we all like

pretty well. justice roberts, alito, thomas, scalia, that's the kind of judge i like. >> 76-year-old justice antonin scalia has spent a third of his life on the united states supreme court. the job is apparently starting to get to him. he confessed today in writing, in a strange, even-for-him opinion that his mind is, and this is his word, "boggled." the most peculiar thing about justice scalia's dissent today is that he reached far beyond the record of the case, far beyond the arizona statute, and cited material that was never considered in the case. it seems scalia is very upset with president obama recent announcement restricting deportations of people under 30 who may be in this country illegally. scalia alone, among the justices, snuck that little bit into his thinking about the case. the president said at a news conference that the new program

is the right thing to do in light of congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the immigration act. perhaps it is, though arizona may not think so. but to say, as the court does, that arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the immigration act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind. of course, scalia could not be more wrong. the arizona law, even if left standing, does not under any circumstances allow arizona officials to deport anyone. they can't enforce a federal law. they have no power to deport. for a supreme court justice to use an official written opinion to write, in name, legal fiction is, to put it mildly, unusual. it is the kind of thing that should destroy respect for scalia among legal scholars and make it much easier for scalia to get his own radio talk show

when he leaves the court. >> scalia is so right on the money on this, it boggles the mind. all arizona did was right law that mirrors federal law that obama was not enforcing. and the court told him today they can't do that. it is. it's disheartening. >> joining me now is attorney tom goldstein, the publisher of scotasblog.com. he's argued 25 cases before the united states supreme court. and tom, just for audience's perspective, over 99% of the american lawyers never get the chance to argue one case before the united states supreme court. but to justice scalia's very peculiar dissent today, i've never read anything like it. he is pretending that it boggles the mind that local law enforcement don't have the same legal authorities as federal law enforcement? >> well, justice scalia's opinion kind of spoke for itself in the sense that one else

wanted to join him. he has an incredibly strong view about immigration. he made it clear in the oral arguments for the case that he thinks sovereignty for a state means the ability to defend its borders. and the rest of the court has a very different view about this. you know, it says, you joined a union and this is the responsibility of the federal government's. the other thing that was unusual, the most strident parts of the opinion you were reading from weren't in the written opinion that was issued. his discussion of the new administration policy on deportations was in his bench statement. so it was a little strange to have him make such important points to him that aren't actually in the opinion that he issued. >> now, he's saying that if the federal government isn't enforcing a law to the satisfaction of a state, he believes the state can then go

enforce it. so if -- say the state of massachusetts believed that we were not doing a very good job enforcing federal tax law, income tax law, that the state authorities could just go grab people's federal tax returns and start investigating them. he, scalia, you would never support that, would he? >> no, there's no way. i think what the majority said here is that if it's truly cooperative, if this is what congress has invited the states to do, then it's consistent with federal immigration law. but what arizona was trying to do was to take and add on penalties, put people in jail that the federal government and congress never imagined. and it was that kind of over the top extreme reaction to a federal policy that a pretty broad majority of the supreme court thought was unconstitutional, because it was prempted by federal law. >> then he used the strangest

phrase about sovereign states since the civil war. he said, 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 concept of sovereign state is what the confederacy were thinking of as sovereign state. >> there are a lot of things the states gave up the power to do, they can't print money, they don't have foreign relations -- >> they can't have wars with canada. minnesota can't get in a war with canada. we don't like that. >> that was really part of the point. and justice scalia is our most vocal supreme court justice. he has very strong views. and there's actuly, in the end, i don't think anything wrong with that. it creates a very serious debate and you actually understand the law much better knowing that justice scalia had this very strong view and the rest or the

supreme court didn't agree with it. that gives you a real sense of where the supreme court actually is at. >> tom goldstein, the most important blog in america this week, thank you very much for joining me tonight. >> thanks so much for having me, lawrence. coming up, mitt romney isn't running thway a lot of republicans think he should be running. and the supreme court's decision about arizona's immigration law is not open for interpretation, but some people are interpreting it in absolutely crazy ways. the craziest, no surprise, jan brewer. that's in tonight's "rewrite." by the name of mr. davies. he made physics more than theoretical, he made it real for me. we built a guitar, we did things with electronics and mother boards. that's where the interest in engineering came from. so now, as an engineer, i have a career that speaks to that passion. thank you, mr. davies. holding down the fort while you're out catching a movie. [ growls ]

lucky for me, your friends showed up with this awesome bone. hey! you guys are great. and if you got your home insurance where you got your cut rate car insurance, it might not replace all this. [ electricity crackling ] [ gasping ] so get allstate. you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. [ dennis ] mayhem is everywhere. so get an allstate agent. are you in good hands? if we took the nissan altima and reimagined nearly everything in it? gave it greater horsepower and best in class 38 mpg highway... ...advanced headlights... ...and zero gravity seats? yeah, that would be cool. ♪ introducing the completely reimagined nissan altima. it's our most innovative altima ever. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪ thor's couture gets the most rewards of any small business credit card.

your boa! [ garth ] thor's small business earns double miles on every purchase, every day! ahh, the new fabrics, put it on my spark card. [ garth ] why settle for less? the spiked heels are working. wait! [ garth ] great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? [ cheers and applause ]

a lot of republicans are worried about mitt romney and more are worried after this weekend, after mitt romney tried to explain the difference between offshoring jobs and outsourcing jobs. karen finney is here. she will no doubt be thanking mitt romney for trying to help president obama with that little explanation. sam stein will also join me. and jan brewer is in tonight's "rewrite" along with all the other people who got it wrong today, misinterpreting, to put it mildly, the supreme court decision which was a huge win for president obama and a virtual complete defeat for the madness of jan brewer. and later, the veep stakes. there's a new name moving up quickly on the list of possibilities for the almost vice presidential nomination. i'm not going to give you that name. we're going to talk about it later.

i will give you one hint, her first name is condoleezza. it's coming up. but they can be really well thexpensive.ted a puppy, so to save money i just found them a possum. dad, i think he's dead. probably just playin' possum. sfx: possum hisses there he is. there's an easier way to save. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. i've been fortunate to win on golf's biggest stages. but when joint pain and stiffness from psoriatic arthritis hit, even the smallest things became difficult. i finally understood what serious joint pain is like i talked to my rheumatologist and he prescribed enbrel. enbrel can help relieve pain, stiffness, and stop joint damage. because enbrel, etanercept, suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections.

serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. [ phil ] get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biolog medicine prescribed by rheumatologists. that could adapt to changing road conditions. one that continually monitors and corrects for wheel slip. we imagined a vehicle that can increase emergency braking power when you need it most. and we imagined it looking like nothing else on the road today. then...we built it. the 2012 glk.

see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial services. with two times the points on dining in restaurants, you may find yourself asking why not, a lot. chase sapphire preferred. in the spotlight tonight, mitt romney has 134 days left in his campaign to win the presidency without answering spific questions like, do you agree with the supreme court's

ruling today? if you think that's frustrating for democrats, it might be even more frustrating for romney supporters, many of whom are starting to worry that romney's evasive strategy is probably a losing strategy. yesterday rupert murdoch asked his 257,473 twitter followers, which includes me, "when is romney going to look like a challenger? seems to play everything safe, make no news, except burn off hispanics." and then he also tweeted, "easy for romney to spell out restoration of the american dream and bash incompetent administration, but not a word." rupert murdoch isn't the only one questioning romney's evasive campaign tactics. republican columnist peggy noonan writes, "the romney strategy in the past eight weeks has been in a small way, shrewd. have the candidate out there talking in candidate-like manner, but not let minimum say anything so interesting that it

will take the cameras off mr. obama. it's working, but won't for long. people want meaning, a higher and declared purpose." joining me now are karen finney, former dnc communications director and msnbc political analyst and sam stein, "huffington post" political editor and reporter. karen, this is an odd night for us. it is usually, at this stage of the campaign, for that matter, at any stage of the campaign, professional democrats who are publicly worrying about the democratic campaign and why the democratic candidate is doing everything wrong and if the democratic candidate would just listen to these professional pundit democrats, everything would be okay. but here, it's happening to mitt romney. how did we get here? >> indeed. but don't worry, lawrence, there's plenty of time for democrats to do that. don't worry. >> yes, they will. >> look, we got here because

there are a number of republicans who recognize that a strategy of trying to do no harm, right, as your campaign strategy, is not going to work at a point. because, particularly when you're running against an incumbent. because, you know, you're essentially asking people to switch horses, to use a metaphor, in the middle of a race. it takes more than just to say, i'm not that guy. you've got to actually give, particularly, those independent voters, those swing voters, something to vote for, not just something to vote against. and to rupert -- i can't believe i'm going to aee with rupert murdoch, but okay. to his point, at the same time that you are also, you know, decreasing size of the base of your vote by, you know, frustrating hispanics and not appealing to sort of other sectors of the country, you're in real trouble. >> let's listen to the ad that

priorities usa, the super pac supporting president obama has put out today. >> out of the blue one day, with we were told to build a 30-foot stage. gathered the guy and we built that 30-foot stage, not knowing what it was for. just days later, all three shifts were told to assemble in the warehouse, a group of people walked out on that stage and told us that the plant is now closed and all of you are fired. i looked both ways, i looked at the crowd, and we all just lost our jobs. we don't have an income. mitt romney made over $100 million by shutting down our plant and devastated our lives. turns out that when we built that stage, it was like building my own coffin. and it just made me sick. >> priority usa action is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> sam stein, in to the vacuum that is mitt romney, priorities usa is right to provide that

definition of him and what he will mean to the american worker. is there a romney response that can work against that? >> well, the one they've tried worked briefly when you had people like cory booker and deval patrick, and to an, extent, ed rendell, crying foul, and the response is you can't attack the idea of getting successful in this country. it's an american belief that you can get successful in this country. but what's telling is that the bain attacks have come back. and in no small part because of investigative journalism from "the boston globe" and other outlets. they've come pack and don't seem to be going anywhere. the obama campaign has very clear designs about what they want to do. they want to show bain and show principles mitt romney learned from them and ask the question, will he apply those principles to being president? and they used his time as

governor as a roubik's cube to see if he did it then. this is all part of a very calculated plan that the obama campaign was never going to deviate from just because a few northeast democrats said they were uncomfortable with the attacks. >> the romney campaign has stumbled into trying to explain the difference between outsourcing and offshoring, which delights president obama. let's hear what he had to say about this. >> so yesterday's advisers were asked about this and they tried to clear this up by telling us there's actually a difference between outsourcing and offshoring. that's what they said. you cannot make this stuff up. what governor romney's advisers don't seem to understand is this. if you're a worker whose job went overseas, you don't need somebody trying to explain to you the difference between outsourcing and offshoring. you need somebody who's going to

wake up every single day and fight for american jobs and investment here in the united states. that's what you need. that's why i'm running. >> karen finney, you can see why romney supporters are very worried at that kind of stumble. >> yeah. when you're trying to explain a difference between outsourcing and offshoring, you really are losing. so it was not -- it was only a matter of time before supporters would get frustrated. look, the other point of this, though, with romney, to what sam was talking about, in that ad, is that people will look at these ads and say, that could be me, that could be my neighbor, that could be my community. and that's why these ads are so devastating. and mitt romney, as he said to us last week, he understands about outsourcing and offshoring in a way that president obama doesn't. >> let me just quickly add, the most effective attack that president obama had in 2010, that paul ryan supported

outsourcing. it wasn't something they could use much then, but they can use it now because of this piece on bain capital and mitt romney. >> we'll be hearing more of it now. karen finney and sam stein, thank you both. and coming up, arizona governor jan brewer got smacked down by the supreme court today, but her day will actually end when she appears next in the "rewrite." meets determination... and businesses lead the world. the new new york works for business. find out how it can work for yours at thenewny.com. you're entered for a chance to win a trip to the olympic games

for life. to cheer the summer athletes to new heights, starting in 2016... as you experience every moment, every emotion, every four years... for the rest of your life. visa. supporting athletes and the olympic games for 25 years. people everywhere go with visa. [ chuckles ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ male announcer ] now you'll know when to stop. [ honk! ] the all-new nissan altima with easy fill tire alert. [ honk! ] it's our most innovative altima ever. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪

i'll have more on what a big win it was for president obama at the supreme court today next in the "rewrite." 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. 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... [ voice of 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? ask an allstate agent about the value plan. 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 key components of our efforts to protect the citizens of arizona, to take up the fight against illegal immigration, in a balanced and constitutional way, has unanimously been vindicated by the highest court in the land. >> that was arizona governor jan brewer rewriting what the supreme court said today.

the heart of the arizona bill has not proven to be constitutional, as she put it today. just ask fox news favorite judge. >> the heart and soul of the arizona statute has been struck down by the supreme court, consistent with previous supreme court opinions. >> not everyone at fox news got judge napolitano's memo. the fox nation website proclaimed, "u.s. supreme court upholds part of tough arizona immigration law in defeat for obama." "the wall street journal" gave its readers what they wanted to hear, "supreme court upholds key part of arizona law." "the huffington post" t it right, "arizongutted." and "the new york times," trying to play it straight, got it wrong, "blocking parts of arizona law, justices allow its centerpiece." section 2-b of the arizona law, the surviving piece of the law, is not its centerpiece. section 6 was its centerpiece.

section 6 was its heart and soul. section 6 was the most unconstitutional and un-american provision of the law. it made every law enforcement official in arizona and, in effect, deputyized federal agent empowered to enforce federal law. section 6 was ripped up and thrown away by the court because it empowered arizona cops to stop anyone they chose at any time to check their legal status in this country. people could be stopped without any legal provocation. just stopped, walking down the street, sitting in church, at the mall, going to school. stopped at any time, anywhere by local law enforcement agents and forced to prove their legal right to be in this country. that was the most shocking and most egregious part of the law and that part of the law is gone. but someone needs to tell that to harry reid's staff. the senate democratic leader issued a press release that says

the supreme court decision, quote, gives arizona officials free rein to detain anyone they suspect of being in the state without documentation. as i said, that is one of the parts of the law that was thrown out. chuck schumer, who is the chairman of the senate subcommittee on immigration, who completely understands these issues, got it completely right in his statement, saying, quote, this is as strong a repudiation of the arizona law as one could expect, given that the law has not been implemented yet. three linchpins of the arizona law were struck down by a convincing majority of the court, as clearly violating federal law, and a fourth is on thin legal ice. the court is sending a stern warning to arizona that the provision allowing local law enforcement to check people's immigration documents cannot be implemented in a zrim nahtory or draconian way or it will be

thrown out like the rest of the law. and that provision of the law can only be used when arizona police have stopped, detained, or arrested someone for a legal reason, having nothing to do with immigration. the supreme court decision told arizona police very clearly that they cannot, quote, consider race, color, or national origin as a reason for conducting an immigration status check on people they arrest or detain. the court deliberately did not tell arizona police what they can use as a reason to conduct an immigration check. arizona police are now left to guess, just guess, what reason they can use that will be constitutional to conduct one of these immigration checks. and as soon as they do run an immigration check under this provision of the law, under section 2-b, an army of lawyers is now ready to take that case

back to the supreme court, where it is now hard to imagine how that court would be able to justify the constitutionality of that provision once it is formally challenged, after throwing out all the rest of that law today. the truth is that what is left of the arizona law is virtually nothing. it changes nothing in practical terms, for this country. every local law enforcement official already has the right to check the immigration status of virtually anyone they want that they have detained or arrested. but they are not allowed to detain those people simply to check their immigration status and nothing that the supreme court did today changes that. citing a pre-existing law, the supreme court pointed out today that congress, quote, has encouraged the sharing of information about immigration violations, end quote. in 1996, president clinton signed a law passed by a

republican house and a republican senate that says, "no state or local government entity may be prohibited or in any way restricted from sending to or receiving from the immigration service information regarding immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the united states." that law was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority vote, including the votes of harry reid and nancy pelosi. the supreme court cited that law today as the one leg, the only leg that what is left of the arizona law is now standing on. without that bill clinton-signed law, the arizona law probably would have been completely wiped out today. but the constitutional challenge that the court has now given arizona police officers without any guidance about how to complete that constitutional challenge, in what is now left of that arizona law, that constitutional challenge to

arizona police is so narrow, so precise, that the rest of the law will surely be thrown out when they try to enforce that provision. if this relatively simple and clear decision by the united states supreme court today produced this much confusion, imagine where we will be by this time thursday night when the u.s. supreme court issues its most important decision of the 21st century on the constitutionality of the affordable care act. one of the names on our big board of republican vp possibilities that has gotten very little attention made a big move this weekend, according to the romney supporters and fund-raisers who attended his utah strategy retreat this weekend, condoleezza rice's speech stole the show, receiving a standing ovation. one unnamed donor told "the washington post" that she, quote, hit it out of the park. joining me now, joy reid,

managing editor of thegrio.com and an msnbc contributor. joy, other than condoleezza rice having said supportive things about roe versus wade, any other reason why she shouldn't b moving up on this list? [ male announcer ] this is sheldon, whose long dy setting up the news starts with arthritis pain and a choice. take tylenol or take aleve, the #1 recommended pain reliever by orthopedic doctors. just two aleve can keep pain away all day. back to the news. right? get. out. exactly! really?! [ mom ] what? shut the front door. right? woop-woop! franklin delano! [ male announcer ] hey! there's oreo creme under that fudge! oreo fudge cremes. indescribably good.

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 ] ce 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? thought they were dead. huh? [ male announcer ] should've used roundup. it kills weeds to the root, so they don't come back. roundup. no root. no weed. no problem. thin coffee shops. people wh: i thave been out of work. you can tell it wears on them. narrator: he's fought to pull us out of economic crisis for three years. and he still is. president obama's plan keeps taxes down for the middle class, invests in

education and asks the wealthy to pay their fair share. mitt romney and his billionaire allies can spend milions to distort the president's words. but they're not interested in rebuilding the middle class. he is. i'm barack obama and i

one of the names on our big board of republican vp possibilities that has gotten very little attention made a big move this weekend, according to the romney supporters and fund-raisers who attended his utah strategy retreat this weekend, condoleezza rice's speech stole the show, receiving a standing ovation. one unnamed donor told "the washington post" that she, quote, hit it out of the park. joining me now, joy reid, managing editor of thegrio.com and an msnbc contributor. joy, other than condoleezza rice having said supportive things

about roe versus wade, any other reason why she shouldn't b moving up on this list? >> you know, lawrence, there are candidates you actually pick and candidates you talk about picking because it makes your baseeel good. i think condoleezza rice is the latter. the reality is she would not bring women, she would not bring african-americans. she does not have the standing that even colin powell does and she's on the reminder of the bush administration. she's on the wrong side when it comes to the life issue. she's more of a feel-good, let's talk about picking her, kind of person. >> and in a poll in april, joy, condoleezza rice talked to the poll of republican voters, who do you want to see as the vp? there's rice with a comfortable lead at the top of that poll. >> three words for you, lawrence, 9-9-9. republicans like talking about

african-american republicans. it's a feel-good move. i don't see her being picked. and the current governor of florida picked an african-american woman as her running mate and got 3% of the african-american vote and that is exactly the percentage of black people in florida who are republicans. i don't think they're going to go with her. >> what about a governor who needs foreign policy credentials? >> i know you're a tea-paw fan. and he's right on a couple of levels. he's a southern -- he's a baptist. he's the right sort of religion that romney sort of needs to add, but was a it shall governor, so he doesn't help romney. i think the smart pick for romney is paul ryan. paul ryan has the ideological base that mitt doesn't have. playing half-court. let's play "hardball."

good evening. i'm chris matthews down in washington. let me start tonight with this hot issue of immigration. the supreme court today took a whack at the arizona law declaring part of it unconstitutional. it left standing the requirement that police check on the immigration sta stus of someone they stop for a possible violation who the police officer suspects is in the country illegally. will this drive people to the polls this november? will it ignite fury that the republican packed high court is in league with the pro-self-deporting mitt romney? joining me now is the mayor of los angeles, chairman of the upcoming democratic national convention and john heilemann of new york magazine and top msnbc political analyst. gentlemen, i want you to look at