so that's where we were up until a couple years ago in this country. constitutionally speaking, kids cannot legally be killed by our government. the state can't actively take a kid's life. but kids could still be sentenced to die. they could be sentenced to die in prison. that's called life without the possibility of parole. it's a sentence to never get out of prison. it's a sentence to die behind bars. in 2010, a legal office called the equal justice initiative which is in alabama, run by a really remarkable guy named brian stevenson, argued a case about the constitutionality about seencing american kids to die in prison. the outcome of the case was a ruling that said a kid could not be sentenced to die in prison unless he had committed murder. this year, 2012, equal justice initiative and brian stevenson went back to the supreme court again. we talked to him in march after he did the oral arguments in

this case. what he was arguing this time around is even if your crime is murder, if you commit that crime when you are a kid, the government should not be able to sentence you to die in prison. today, the supreme court ruled in that case. they said there cannot be mandatory death in prison for a crime committed by a child. in america now, if you're a kid when the crime is committed, you must at least get a hearing on what your sentence ought to be. you must at least be allowed to argue that you should not be sentenced to die in prison. no more mandatory death in prison sentences for people who commit crimes when they're kids. there are about 2,500 people in the united states who were sentenced to die in prison for something they did as a child. by virtue of today's ruling, those people will now get hearings on whether or not they ought to die in prison or get some lesser sentence that's offers them a chance to get out, ever. the united states is one of few countries that has or uses the death penalty for any of our

citizens. more than two thirds of the countries in the world have gotten rid of the death penalty by law or practice. we here in the united states are still one of the world's top five enthusiasts of using the death penalty. that puts us on a top five list with china, iran, saudi arabia, and iraq. for the record, on the juvenile side of this, we're also the only country in the world besides somalia, which isn't really a country anymore, that has not ratified the u.n. convention on the rights of a child. although my lifetime has been a generation of the united states being an international anomaly, almost a rogue state on issues like this, sometimes even in this lifetime, the brian stevensons of the world win. sometimes people swimming against that incredible tide win. sometimes they make progress. and now even though it has taken until the year 2012, we have

concluded that the explicit constitutional requirement that we not be inhumane, that's in the bill of rights, no cruel or inhuman punishment, that's in the bill of rights. we have decided in 2012 that constitutional explicit requirement that our government not act in an inhumane manner, when punishing people, that requirement means that someone at least ought to maybe consider thinking about it before sentencing an american child to die in an american prison. that said, all of the conservatives on the court were against this ruling. chief justice john roberts all but shouting from the pages of his angry dissent that it could not be possibly be cruel and unusual punishment to sentence kids to die in america because we do it to so many of them. if you sentence 2,000 kids to die in america, that's no longer unusual, right? am i right? it's frequent. samuel alito was so angry he read it from the bench out loud at volume.

anthony kennedy was the swing justice in this case. these days, anthony kennedy sides with the conservatives on just bearing, but on the issue of sentencing american children to die, either in prison or on a lethal injection gurney down the hall from their cells, anthony kennedy has sided in the past and today again sided with the liberals. the liberals are not lucky however to have that same swing justice with them on issues of democracy and corruption. justice kennedy was the author of the decision in the most justly famous radical supreme court decision since bush v. gore, citizens united. that case struck down decades of anti-corruption election law and said that corporations need to be able to spend in an unlimited fashion to be able to dominate the political discourse in our country as much as they want to. at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time historic high and american wages are at an all-time historic low, no literally, both of those

happening at once, one might think corporations are doing okay getting what they want. they're doing just fine dominating american politics and policy on their own without this big assist from the supremes. but given the opportunity to partially reverse or limit the impact of the citizens united ruling by letting states guard at least their own state elections from being outright bought, today, justice kennedy sided with the conservatives again. and proclaimed that montana's century old anti-corrupt practices act be overthrown. citizens united stands, not only at the federal level but at the state level. there's no bullwark against that decision. both of these decisions today, the montana decision and the sentencing kids to die in prison ruling, were frankly overshadowed by the ruling that mostly struck down arizona's anti's immigrant papers please law. we're going to be talking about that a bit later on in the show. but even these overlooked decisions today, the montana

decision and the killing kids in prison decision today, even those ones, even those were overlooked today, they even got a heck of a lot more attention than another decision that came down last week, last thursday, which you should definitely know about, particularly given what just happened with this montana ruling today. the supposed free speech argument in favor of citizens united in this montana ruling and all these other rulings overthrowing the anticorruption laws, the supposed free speech argument is that corporations are just like people. and money is just like speech. and so just as you can't limit people's speech rights, you can't limit corporations' money rights. you can't limit spending. the idea is if you don't like the idea of the koch brothers spending $400 million to help mitt romney beat barack obama this year, if you don't like that idea, the remedy to that is easy. all you have to do is spend $400 million of your own money on the other side from them. see, if money and speech are

locked in a murderous analogy here, then the way you balance somebody else's speech, right, is with more speech of your own. that's always been the free speech argument. but if the money is analogous to the speech here, the supreme court's argument is the way you balance somebody else's money in politics is with more money of your own. what if you don't have the money? who has more money than corporations and the superrich to spend on politics to get more policies that benefit them more than policies already do? by definition, nobody has more money than the super rich, and the only aggregate source of money that might conceivably compete with the aggregation of money that can come from corporations, conceivably i

guess that's unions, right? even though all corporations' money in american politics basically goes to one side, it goes hugely, disproportionately to the republican side, we're not supposed to see citizens united as a partisan thing. because, at least theoretically, the same decision frees up unions to spend a lot of money too, so maybe that equalizes everything, right? as this conservative court has been twisting itself into really admirable gymnastic legal radicalism to flood corporate money into politics which always money into politics which always goes to republicans, they have also been limiting how unions can spend in politics. last week, and nobody rely noticed it at all, the supreme court erected elaborate barriers to participation in elections by public sector unions. requiring that unions get affirmative approval from their members before making dues assessments to fund campaigns countering corporations. this is john nichols writing at "the nation." this is coming right after john's year and a half of dedicated day to day passionate reporting about the partisan efforts to dismantle unions in wisconsin because unions in wisconsin help democrats. that was the whole scott walker controversy, right? so how level is this playing field that's been set up by the supreme court?

corporate money has been absolutely unleashed. union money, getting clamped down on. so here's a hypothetical for understanding how that works. if walmart, say, wanted to support candidates who promise to eliminate all taxes for walmart, that corporation, walmart, could spend unlimited amounts of money to do that. unlimited. in any level election that it wanted to. it would not need to gain stockholder approval. it could just go for it. let's say a public sector union wants to counter that argument from walmart, saying eliminating taxes on a big out of state retailer might save consumers in the short run but ultimately it will undermine funding for schools and public services. if the union wants to do that kind of spending, the union, unlike walmart, has to go through this laborious new process of gaining permission from tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of members. after it goes through the process, it faces additional reporting and structural

barriers imposed by the court. it's very, very, very free speech for corporations, but it's not fe speech for unions. and the whole first amendment argument here is supposedly this frees up unions as much as it frees up corporations. no. and now the states can offer you no shelter from this totally legalized, unlimited corruptions in elections that has been green lit by citizens united. which means we'll have elections whose outcomes are predetermined by politicized billionaires and corporations, predetermined from here on out at every level of american democracy. until we amend the u.s. constitution as a way of 84 turning this rulinging, or i guess until we get a new supreme court, substantially reconstituted, that wants to reverse these precedents just

set by these rulings. but it will be harder for state governments to kill american children now. so there's that. as we await the supreme court's health care ruling on thursday, this week, on a day like this, we need advice and guidance from somebody who knows these things so we turn to slate.com's dahlia, senior editor and legal correspondent. she watched today's proceedings at the supreme court. great to have you here. thank you. >> thank you for having me. >> tell me what i got wrong. you watch these things very closely. you're a trained lawyer. you get these things. i'm sure i misexplained something. >> no, i don't think you misexplained anything. i think just to connect up what you just talked about, it's worth noting it was justice sam alito who did that far-reaching decision last week with regard to union sech. and to kind of close the circle or to open the circle, it's important to remember you started with bush v. gore. let's just remember that bush v. gore is the reason we have changed over from sandra day o'connor to samuel alito at the u.s. supreme court, and that's the vote that flips in citizens united on campaign finance.

it's not just that sam alito and we've talked about this before, is this hugely, hugely consequential fifth vote in abortion decisions in campaign finance, soon to be in affirmative action. but it's really, really what happened to change the entire landscape is bush v. gore. >> you wrote today about the politicization of how we talk of the supreme court right now. how the supreme court ideally shouldn't want to be in the headlines at all. but right now not only are they in the headlines, they're continually putting outhese very, very, very consequential decisions that have big partisan implications. do you see that elevating the supreme court into playing a more prominent role in election year politics and do you know if the supreme court cares? >> it's a very, very strange set of events that leads the court to say continuously and i think across all idealogical lines, rachel, that they're not partisan, this is not junior varsity politics. that they are umpires, that they try to just apply the law. and then they turn around and do things like, you know, we saw

the argument in march in the health care cases and we heard those broccoli sound bites. again today we heard, as you said,v. very angry, quite personal dissent by samuel alito. a dissent read from the bench also in the arizona case by justice antonin scalia that was again not just furious but went after the president himself on immigration changes. so it's an amazing thing to see a court that is, a, says it wants to be out of the spotlight, and b, suffering from the lowest poll ratings this court has seen in a long, long time. doing things that seem to deliberately promote the idea that the partisan rift at the court is worse than it's ever been.

>> on the issue of the campaign finance stuff, i realize citizens united has been famous since it was decided. it's getting more and more famous with each passing day in american politics as we see its impact. it's interesting to see the montana attorney general put out a statement in response to this ruling. montana law, their state law is getting overthrown by virtue of this decision. he seemed to signal he does not think this fight is over yet. he said, despite this disappointing decision the last word has not been spoken on the issue of how we preserve a viable democracy in which everyday people have a meaningful voice. steve bullock, attorney general of montana. is that happy talk or is there a next step? is there anything that happens in terms of people wanting the citizens united ruling reversed? >> one of the most insightful things i read today was rick hasson at ucla saying be grateful that the court did not take this case because if they had taken it, they might have made citizens united a lot worse. the chance of justice kennedy flipping and saying you know, i

was wrong in 2010, was about zero. the chance of them changing the law in some way that is even more egregious was not inconsequential. i think there is some reason to think that between the reprieve that we have from the possibility of it getting worse and also the idea that the public hates citizens united and things like the disclose act are in place, attempts to get the regulators to do their jobs are in place, there's a sense more good could be done legislatively and through the regulatory branches than through the supreme court. it might not be happy talk, it may be the truth. >> dahlia, you have been doing great work explaining this stuff, but also putting it in a broader political context in a way i think more clearly than anybody else writing about this. thanks for being with us. i appreciate it. >> thank you, rachel. >> and there was that one other case at the supreme court today. something about papers and arizona and please. we've got details on that one coming up, including we'll be talking with a sheriff in arizona who's an important part of what happens next in arizona on that case. >> and michigan, the state of michigan has gone crazy in a whole new really personal way

and it's all about you.

great! tyler here will show you everything. check out our new mobile app. now you can use your phone to scan your car's vin or take a picture of your license. it's an easy way to start a quote. watch this -- flo, can i see your license?

no. well, all right. thanks. okay, here we go. whoa! no one said "cheese." progressive mobile -- insurance has never been easier. get a free quote today. busy week. really busy week. today, you got the supreme court invalidated most of arizona's papers please law, solidifying and encasing in steel their citizens united ruling which renders most human participation in democracy a moot and theoretical point. and on thursday, this upcoming thursday, we now know we'll get the supreme court's ruling on health reform.

also, and also on thursday, nbc news confirming that republican controlled house of representatives will vote on contempt charges against attorney general eric holder in the fast and furious investigation. there was a video of eric holder playing over me when i said investigation, but yes, if you could hear it, you were right, i did put air quotes around the word investigation. the head of the fast and furious darrell issa appeared on three sunday morning shows. the right is furusly trying to mainstream this story, and they got their guy on three network morning shows on the same sunday morning. the mainstream is taking the bait. the problem for republicans is when you ask them to explain what they think the scandal is, they go right to their crazy conspiracy theory. >> do you really think there's a possibility they were sending guns across the border, not because they were trying to get people into mexican drug cartels not because they were trying to figure out gun trafficking, but because they were trying to push gun control?

>> two things, first of all, this was so flawed you can't believe they expected to get criminal prosecutions as a result of it. the level of flaw if that's a word, here is huge, but here's the real answer as to gun control. we have e-mails from peopl involved in this that are talking about using what they're finding here to support basically assault weapons ban or greater reporting. so chicken or egg? >> the republicans really are going to vote on holding the attorney general of the united states in contempt this week, and if passed, it's going to be a party line vote. and the basis of the vote is a conspiracy theory that the obama administration was secretly fomenting gun violence in mexico so americans would have bad feelings about g violence so americans would have bad feelings about guns so then the obama administration could get on with their secret plan to

eliminate the second amendment and take everyone's guns away. >> what were they thinking of? could it be that what they really were thinking of was, in fact, to use this -- this walking of guns in order to promote an assault weapons ban? many think so and they haven't come up with an explanation that would cause any of us to disagree. >> they try to put the violence in mexico on the blame of the united states, so they concocted this scheme and sending our federal agents sending guns down there and trying to cook some little deal to say we have to get more guns under control. >> the whole point, don't forget, the whole point of fast and furious was to create mayhem in mexico among drug cartels with american-made weapons easily procured so you and i would stand up in outrage and demand tighter gun laws. >> remember when republicans in congress during the clinton

administrati tried to prove that a white house staffer had been murdered? and they tried to prove it by congressman dan burton from indiana shooting a pumpkin in his backyard as if the pumpkin were a human head? dan burton who shot the pumpkin to try to call presint clinton a murderer had the same job in that republican controlled congress that darrell issa has now. darrell issa, who says fast and furious is a secret obama plot to kill mexicans in order to take your guns away. except 15 years ago, all the republicans in congress didn't vote with dan burton, the pumpkin shooting guy. this thursday, we'll see if any republicans in the house decide not to vote with darrell issa on this conspiracy theory. thursday, a busy week.

arizona's anti-immigrant law today, sb 1070, the papers please law. they considered four parts of the law. three of them they struck down. and the fourth part they said, well, we'll wait and see. it's weird how poorly this ruling was reported on today because it's really not that complicated. the one specific part of the papers please law the court did not strike down, it's not like the court upheld it as

definitely constitutional. the court just said, on that part we have to wait and see. specifically in the ruling, they said it would be improper to enjoin it before the courts had an opportunity to construe it. nerd, once it's implemented and we see how it's going, we might rule on it then. maybe the reason this got misreported is because if you liked arizona's anti-immigrant law and didn't want to see it struck down, you might not have made it that far in the ruling. because to make it that far in the ruling, you would have to get through the little love song to immigrants the justices wrote in the paragraph right above that. sometimes the supreme court is petulant and whiny, sometimes it's impane trabl and boring, and sometimes they write a little poetry. this is from the very end of the ruling today. quote, on may 24th 2012 at one of this nation's most distinguishes museums of history, a dozen immigrants stood before the tattered flag that inspired francis scott key to write the national anthem. the they took the oath to becomes citizens. these ceremoies bring together men and women of different origins who now share a common destiny. they swear a common oath to renounce fidelity to foreign princes, to defend their country

by law. the history of the united states is in part made by the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here. the national government has significant power to regulate immigration. with power comes responsibility and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational, civic discourse. arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that progress continues but the state may not pursue policies thaundermine federal law. end quote. that is directly from the supreme court ruling today

written by anthony kennedy. sometimes you can tell when the justices like their jobs. we've got news on the supreme court and news not on the supreme court. much more ahead. at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the senate floor, would you

at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the senate floor, would you vote for it? >> it won't. it won't. that's why we went through the debate. >> it did. >> no, i would not. >> i would not vote for my own proposal. of course not. as president of the united states, there are a few very specific tools you have at your disposal in terms of influencing the national opinion. you have tools that other

politicians don't have. you can convene a joint session of congress, which president obama did toward the end of the health reform fight in order to get that legislation over the hump. you can call an impromptu press conference at the white house that guarantees you road block coverage on all the news channels. you can just unexpectedly drop into a normal daily press briefing at the white house, which in addition of scaring the ba jesus out of the press corps which allows you to set the agenda for the day's news imm repu bil me. has b f re con to people re to arrest illegal immigrants. the fact of t co patrol. >> i know you have been, as you said, you have been a cop for i think you've b magnitude of the illegal immigration problem on your part of the border right now compared with previous years? is it better, is it worse. is there a noticeable trend over two years ago, there was a study done by the government which showed that 12 years ago, we were arresting 80% the exception of narcotic right? not really, because they have taken the position t built this huge wall, put people of this law that has been of left hanging by the supreme court ruling. i think taught s on in dec medic republica do something about grea thi april 9th at 5:00 p.m. 9th at 4:08 p.m., in comes a challenge. turns out to live inside the office of a of the on april 26 canvasse deadlocked on party incidentally, the remaining republican says he's happy on the board, but if he, too, quit, the board would have no quorum and could not do anythin another month off the clock. in its court filings the secretary of sta out of ti

the one presidential candidate that has a comprehensive position on immigration is the guy that already has the oval office. the other guy is out to lunch with billionaires. republicaned banded together as a group, along with a couple of democrats, and they filibustered the president of their own party's immigration reform. the bill itself was bipartisan, the mccain-kennedy immigration bill, standing alongside john mccain and ted kennedy in the press conference in which the bill was unveiled, where other republicans like jon kyl and johnny isakson. but when it came time to vote, jon kyl and johnny isakson voted to filibuster their own bill. there has been a really weird

battle for the soul of the republican party on this issue for the last 20 years. and the once upon a time george w. bush, john mccain, lindsey graham wing of the party, those guys lost the fight wind their own party. they either got out of politics or reversed their position on the issue or they now just refuse to take a position on the issue or work on it. now when it comes up, they hope nobody remembers what their record on the subject used to be. when they said it was important and they wanted to do something about it. republican senator orrin hatch of utah was one of the original sponsors of the dream act, a bill to grant legal status to immigrants who complete a couple years of college or join the military. orrin hatch introduced it in 2001. reintroduced it in 2003. he went on to become a de facto national spokesman for it as recently as 2010. >> with regard to the dream act, a lot of these kids are brought in as infants. they don't know they're not citizens until they graduate from high school. if they've led good lives and done good things, why would we penalize them and not let them at least go to school?

>> orrin hatch, eloquent spokesman for the dream act. then after it became clear he was going to get primaried in his own party from the right, he changed his mind. he turned against his own dream act. senator hatch does face that primary in his own party tomorrow. he's favored to win, but had he stayed with his old position on the issue of immigration, he would likely be in much more trouble in this primary than he is because right now, it's republican party orthodoxy that being willing to do anything constructive on the subject at all is essentially a mortal political sin. mitt romney is often stylistically credited with seeming like a moderate republican, but he has plated his trough and it's not with the george w. bush side of the story. it's not with the guys john mccain and orrin hatch used to be. before they got afraid and

changed their minds. mitt romney has both feet firmly planted on the super anti-immigrant side of this fight within the republican party.

this is not a mixed bag of a ruling. this is a ruling striking down the arizona papers please law. the republican party used to have two wings on the subject of arizona. subject of immigration, excuse me. it's only within the last five years or so that the anti-immigrant side really won the fight within the republican party. the result of them winning that fight was policies like this, policies like sb 1070, and that has been gutted by a supreme court majority that included the ultra-conservative chief justice john roberts. john robert was on the anti-arizona side of the ruling. arizona has been a guinea pig on this issue for national republican politics for a long time now. now the people in charge of enforcing the law in arizona have to figure out what they're going to do next. joining us now for the interview is pima county arizona sheriff clarence dupnik, thank you for being here.

i know this is a busy time for you. >> my pleasure. >> as sheriff of a county that has a large border with mexico, can i get your personal reaction, your reaction as sheriff to the supreme court's decision today? >> well, i was surprised by it because what we have been hearing from the media and others was that they were going to support senate bill 1070, so we're kind of pleasantly surprised. from our point of view, it really doesn't change how we do business at all. >> do you think the kind of

policing that that law tried to mandate in arizona, do you think it would have made the people of arizona safer or would it have made your job easier as sheriff? >> wl, it would have been a nightmare for law enforcement to try to implement. one of the things that people don't understand that right now,

when we encounter aliens in conjunction with other stops that we make, we call the border patrol and turn them over immediately and that's the end of it. this law would have required us to charge them with a state misdemeanor, put them in our local jail, overcrowd the jail overnight, and then subject them to the local criminal justice system and overwhelm that system overnight, and then put them back in the pima county jail for a sentence and then call the border patrol and turn them over to the border patrol. and then we'd have to send a huge tax bill to the local taxpayers. people really didn't understand what this law was all about. they thought we needed this law

to arrest illegal immigrants. the fact of the matter is we have been detaining for the feds for 54 years that i have been a cop, illegal immigrants, and turning them over to the border patrol. >> i know you have been, as you said, you have been a cop for i think you've been sheriff for more than 30 years. how would you characterize the magnitude of the illegal immigration problem on your part of the border right now compared with previous years? is it better, is it worse. is there a noticeable trend over time? >> in 19 -- well, i should say

two years ago, there was a study done by the government which showed that 12 years ago, we were arresting 80% more aliens than we are today. and that's in spite of the fact that we have increased the border patrol's presence three-fold. so you would anticipate that they would be arresting more people. the fact of the matter is with the exception of narcotics, drug smuggling, the border is more secure now than it ever has been in the past. does that mean something to the right? like all standardized medicare supplement plans,

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

expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. > a republican state official has resigned in michigan and decided his parting words are directed at you, at you personally. he did it for you. he resigned for you watching the show right now and he wants you to know it. he's very specific about it. i'm serious. that's coming up.

for about six months through

for about six months through the fall and winter of last year, right, the republican presidential primary debates were the best show on television. it was like a really compelling reality show. during its heyday there was a new episode every week and every week there would be madcap antics and or outrage. >> i'm not going to eat barack obama's dog food. >> i will tell you it's three agencies of government when i get there that are gone. commerce, education, and the -- what's the third one there? let's see. >> i can't. the third one, i can't.

sorry. oops. >> take a loaf of bread. it does have five taxes in it right now. >> oh, yeah, i need the government to take care of me. i don't want to use heroin so i need these laws. >> you have a problem with allowing someone to finish speaking. and i suggest if you want to become president of the united states, you have to let both people speak. >> one of the weirdest moments in the run of the republican debate reality tv show came in a debate in september when texas governor rick perry took a brave stand against cancer. >> i hate cancer. >> i hate cancer. bold. also, i like puppies and good weather and afternoon naps. i think your mom is nice. i'm willing to say that in full view of the american people and take the consequences. in declaring his hatred of cancer, rick perry didn't seem to be taking a particularly controversial or crane just

stand but it turns out that actually is a controversial position for him to take. it hurt him. during that particular episode rick perry was being denounced by fellow candidates for trying to require texas girls to get vaccinated at the age recommended by the cdc against the virus that causes most cervical cancer. >> forcing 12-year-old girls to take an inoculation to prevent this sexually transmitted disease, this is not good medicine. i do not believe. it's not good social policy. and therefore, i think this is very bad to do this. >> to impose something like an inoculation on an innocent 12-year-old girl i would certainly oppose that. >> i hate cancer. we passed a $3 billion cancer initiative that same legislative session of which we're trying to find over the next ten years cures to cancers. cervical cancer is caused by hpv. we wanted to bring that to the attention of these thousands of -- tens of thousands of young people in our state. >> rick perry ultimately

backtracked on that policy of vaccinated for hpv, but frankly who was the odd man out in the republican presidential field simply for ever having tried to do something about preventing cervical cancer, which is preventible. this week the aversion to eventing cervical cancer, the idea that trying to prevent it is a scandal, that idea seems to be spreading. south carolina's republican governor nikki haley had a chance to sign a bill that would greatly expand access to the cervical cancer vaccine for girls in her state. in 2007 when she was a state legislator nikki haley co-sponsored a bill that would have required this vaccination for south carolina girls. it never became law. last week the legislature in her state passed a watered-down

version of the same bill and she vottoed it. the earlier version she sponsored, like in texas, would have required the vaccination. the new bill didn't require it, it just allowed the health department to offer the vaccination. so would not require anything, it would just make the cervical cancer vaccine much more accessible in a state that is ranked in the top ten for cervical cancer deaths in the united states. it's just a weaker version of what nikki haley herself wanted a few years ago. but it is 2012 now so she vottoed that bill because being against cancer in the republican party is a scandal now. at least being against cervical cancer is a scandal now. because it's a lady cancer, maybe? there's a vaccine to prevent this kind of cancer, what is the problem?

on february 29th, in michigan, a group of voters drove to the capitol with more than enough signatures for a referendum on republican governor rick snyder's souped-up emergency manager law. it's that michigan law that lets the state install a single overseer to replace all local local elected officials. so your vote for mayor, your

vote for city council, your vote for school board, null and void. the governor will put someone in charge to overrule whoever you voted for. no more local democracy. in february, they delivered the votes to place a repeal of that emergency manager law on the november ballot. now, the deadline for challenging those petitions to put the thing on the ballot was april 9th at 5:00 p.m. and, hey, on deadline day, april 9th at 4:08 p.m., in comes a challenge. the challenge says, stop there, we don't care how many voters signed these petitions. the font size on one line of the petition is too small, and because this is michigan, where democracy has gone a little cockeyed, the group challenging the font size on the petitions turns out to live inside the office of a member of the board of state canvassers. the board that is deciding on the challenge. the board that decides whether the referendum lives or dies. that member, one of two republicans on that board of canvassers, was on both sides of the play, right?

he's both the pitcher throwing the pitch and the umpire calling it a ball or a strike. now again, because this is michigan, and democracy there is apparently a wobbling drunk, one of the democrats on the board of canvassers also has a conflict of interest. she is associated with the people who brought the petitions in in the first place. the powerful people in michigan, a lot of the michigan press says they're okay with this. they're good with this kind of government by mutually assured conflict of interest. maybe so. i'm not so sure whether the citizens of michigan are all that good with it. on april 26th, the board of canvassers deadlocked on party lines, throwing the petitions out, saying there will be no referendum on the ballot for that controversial michigan law. since then, this thing has been in and out of the courts and in and out of the courts with the last ruling being that the board of canvassers actually has to put it on the ballot, but not until there's a chance for one more appeal. in the midst of all of this, with the clock ticking, with multiple cities and school districts under emergency manager authoritarian rule, which could be stopped if this thing's going to be on the ballot, in the midst of all of

this, there is confusion in michigan over what that board of canvassers is doing now, when they're going to meet, what they're planning, how they're going to deal with these court rulings. and in the midst of all this confusion, on this really important issue in michigan, really quietly last week, the republican board member who had that giant, obvious conflict of interest resigned, very quietly. it was first reported on a blog out of michigan. we wanted to check it out. so one of our producers wrote to the guy who was reported to have resigned, republican board member jeff timer. we asked mr. timer if it was true he had resigned and when he had resigned. his answer to us, quoting the whole thing, "true, june 18th." when we followed up by asking why he quit, mr. timher wrote this, "i just want to be liked by the tens of people watching your show." michigan, this is your state government at work. this is it, one sentence, 14 words. mr. timmer. we have tens and tens and tens of viewers, maybe even dozens, and still, we would like to know why you quit.

really. incidentally, the remaining republican says he's happy on the board, but if he, too, quit, the board would have no quorum and could not do anything until the government appointed a replacement, which could run another month off the clock. in its court filings the secretary of state's office says this matter needs deciding by august 27th in order for the repeal to make it on to the ballot. the repeal campaign is running out of time. they do not have weeks to burn here. and they know it. and so do the people who want to stop them. we are expecting the people who want to keep this law and who want to keep michigan from voting on it to appeal their case to the state supreme court by the end of the week. split decision -- the supreme court strikes down key provisions in arizona's controversial immigration law. taking the plunge -- a

wedding party finds out the hard way how much weight a dock will hold. and royal elegance -- it's your chance to own couture headgear once owned by duchess kate, good morning, everyone, i'm lynn berry, those stories and more are straight ahead. this is "first look" on msnbc. we're going to begin this morning with an up and down decision. the u.s. supreme court delivered a mixed verdict, both the obama administration and the state of arizona yesterday, ruling it is constitutional for arizona police to check immigration status. however, other sections of the state's controversial immigration law were thrown out entirely. nbc's steve handelsman has more. >> reporter: both sides had something to celebrate as the high court handed down the