john roberts said that doesn't appear like crums. >> john robert's definition of corruption is so narrowhas nothing to do with the real problems in our system. what is really a problem is all of this influence. it's not bribery, which is essentially all we're left with and is very hard to prove. it is the way in which money shaims the positions that candidates take, even this those positions have nothing to do with what most americans believe should be the law. >> stephen: maybe john roberts has more faith in american people and billionaires like than you do. >> he has a lot more faith in emergency billaire's than i do, but in justice breyer's dissent you have the concern of all the other citizens of the country. when the framers were trying to figure out how the elections should work. there are writings how they wanted to make sure it was broadly distribute among the citizenry. >> stephen: the cap for primary and general election in everyone two-year psyche cell $5200. i like what justice thomas had to say in his addendum to the decision, i assume. he said there shouldn't be any cap. is

john roberts. who disclosed his work on john errol ferguson's behalf when he was nominated by george w. bush to be chief justice of the supreme court of the united states. now, nobody ever contended that john roberts was soft on mass murder or that he somehow sympathized with john errol ferguson for having done that work on that case. john roberts was working for a high law firm. and he ended up working on all sorts of cases. not just the mass murderer. he also did work on behalf of gay rights activists at one point in his career. he represented welfare recipients in washington, d.c. chief justice william rehnquist once assigned him to represent a guy convicted of medicare fraud. and none of those cases mean that john roberts likes medicare fraud or welfare or gay rights. in fact, there's evidence he does not like any of those things. but he is a lawyer. and the sixth amendment to the united states constitution provides that in our legal system, the accused all have the right to the assistance of le

that is what john roberts is saying, while we have influence not as much as we coltd possibly have. >> right, but for you, the rich people, to have all the influence you could possibly have, are you going to leave rest of us with no influence

but a lot of folks say maybe that is where john roberts wants go. gwen: we will watch where john roberts goes becausening that is part to keep an eye on. spring finally arrived for the white house this week. probably hear them exhaling at 1600 pennsylvania numbers rolled in, 7.1 million enrolled in the exchanges lth care and 3 million more qualified for medicaid. that y of the tall tales have been told by there law have been debunked. there are still no death panels. hasn't arrived. nstead, this law is helping millions of americans. and in the coming years it will more.millions gwen: it should be said the republicans are not buying there ust yet and it is possible it may be too soon. with your is a run me metaph metaphor. a lot more of this game it play. gwen: that is why they usually metaphors.ts >> see me run it into the ground. 7.1 million is big. that was the number they wanted from the get go before there troubles. one question at the heart of there before the web site failure was are people going to buy it. will be put out there and will peopl

john roberts tells us the amazing story of the degree to which he went to save the ranch.e, jr.'s turn to fight the battle that had taken up a quarter century of his father's life. in fact he soon had a new case to deal with because wayne, sr. in his final years had gradually built up a new herd of cattle but still didn't have a grazing permit. this time however when the government threatened to impound more of the hage's life stock, there was a new sheriff in time literally. >> i was informed by my deputies they were going to do a cattle seizure. >> he's been sheriff since 2003. >> they didn't have a court order and they were doing it on a signature of a bureaucrat. and i told them, i said, if you get your s.w.a.t. team we'll be face og are s.w.a.t. on the property of mr. hage to prevent you from doing any unlawful seizure. >> why did he want to put himself between the federal government and the hage family? >> because it wu illegal. it was wrong. >> the feds gave up on the idea of seizing more cattle. but in 2007 they filed a civil trespass suit against wayne, jr. with t

the john roberts court has yet to uphold a challenged contribution limit. >> pete williams at the supreme court where today's decision was handed down. pete, thanks. >>> day two of testimony for the new ceo of gm. she came under withering attack for the company's failure to order a recall over a decade ago in time to potentially save at least 13 lives, maybe more. general motors was today accused of criminal behavior by u.s. senators, many of them former prosecutors. but when they demanded more information from the ceo, mary barra, she didn't have much to offer. our report tonight from nbc's tom costello in washington. >> reporter: amy rademaker, natasha wagel, michael sharkey, brooke melton, just a few of the young victims whose deaths have been linked to a defect in half a dozen gm models. >> the families are here. the victims are here. they want to be vindicated. >> reporter: this time in front of a senate committee, the ceo of gm, a 33-year veteran, still could not answer basic questions about gm policies and a decade delay in ordering an ignition switch recall. >> i don't know. i wan

john roberts is live in our atlanta news room on that. john, good day to you.his happens to be a big day for drones. >> bill, it does. because the faa as part of its examination into whether drones can fly widely in u.s. air space just approved the first outdoor test range that's in north dakota. and we got an exclusive look inside one of the other five test ranges at texas a & m university in corpus christi. researchers are wrestling with all kind of issues as to how to safely integrate drones into u.s. air space and what they might be best used for, some hurdles they're tackling, how can drones stay away from other aircraft, address privacy issues. almost every drone has a camera on board. an a danger the drone's gps navigation system could be hacked and the drone sent off course. texas a & m university says that is a big concern. >> if it was in a very populated area, obviously if it's a long drone and someone brings it down it could cause a lot of damage or harm. and we certainly don't want that to happen. >> the researchers say in order to avoid that the c

justice sotomayor took aim at chief justice john roberts oft quoted 2007 opinion in another case that is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. sotomayor who is the nation's first latina justice wrote this refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. to further make her point sotomayor's 58-page dissent included reprints of charts showing declines in minority enrollment after schools in california banned racial considerations and she added we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequity that exists in our society but roberts stuck to his opinion, responding to sotomayor with an additional written report saying it is not out of touch with reality to conclude that racial preferences may themselves have the debilitating effect of reinforcing precisely that doubt and if so that the preferences do more harm than good. this rare public squabble between the justices is an extraordinary public display of the deep ideological divide over rice on the nation's highest court. it's no different than the debates over race that are seen a

on the chiefs -- opposite side cheap justice john roberts who came down hard on them.isn't your technology way to skirt copyright laws? in this hour-long hearing so to speak, there really was -- there was no give to either side. there was a lot of pressure to really prove their case. it is a hard case to prove forae-- hard case to prove for aereo. it is very hard for them to say we should be able to get off retransmitting signals without having to pay for them when there is precedence by cable providers and satellite companies that they have to pay billions of dollars for the content. the technology companies disrupted an established industry. any other disruptors out there that we should be watching when it comes to the cable business and traditional television? >> there are quite a few. tv. the top not just disruptions but also temptations. clan, you cannot get enough of it. gaming on the smart phone and tablet. tv is not the dominant primary medium for entertainment. matter-of-fact, below the digital devices and 18-34-year-olds. tv has a ton of challenges. tv conten

on the flip side, you had chief justice john roberts who came really hard down on aereo.said, a senior technologist a way to skirt copyright laws? this is the -- this is what it boils down to. in the hour-long hearing, there really was -- there was no give to either side. there was a lot of pressure on both to really prove their case. it is a hard case to prove before aereo. many of the people that we talked with this morning said that it is very hard for aereo to say we should be able to get off the retransmission these signals without having to pay for them while there was president by satellite companies and cable providers that they have to pay billions of dollars for that content. >> plenty of the biggest technology companies today disrupted the traditional established industry. are there any disruptors out there that we should be watching when it comes to the cable business? >> there are quite a few. we talk about cord cutting, over-the-top tv. there are temptations. that is really important. for gaming on the tablets, on the smartphone -- you have so many things yo

that is what john roberts said in his opinion. before today, candidates were able to -- individuals were able to donate $123,000 max over two years. that is no longer a cap. basically, if you wanted to donate the maximum out to each congressional candidate, you can now. >> we always talk about getting the money out of politics. then a gets polluted, tainted and changed by whoever has the biggest purse strings. how does this change the equation? does it actually make it all work? >> it is interesting to see. how much of an interest this will actually have will be fascinating to watch over the next couple of months. this takes effect immediately but one of the things that stays in place is the caps on individual contributions. while the aggregates are gone, you can still only give $6,000 to a candidate. those are still in place. so they cannot go hog wild and dumped $1 million on an individual candidate. where you will see the impact right now is taking money away from the secret groups, those 50 1(c)4's. they say this is a good thi

level that represents their significance. >> another big win for the 1% brought to you by the john roberts. chief roberts eliminated the majority decision in the case of mccutchen versus the federal election commission. it's about the further influx of money in the election cycle. here's the thing, is it really going to matter? is it going to matter that now a single person, like alabama business person can spend as much money as he wants on as many federal candidates and political parties in any given election cycle? >> exercising free speech and economic status, all americans are entitled to free speech. this is a first amendment guaranteed right under the constitution. >> so it's off to the races to see who can pick up the biggest numbers. bring on the big bucks. my next guest is trying to change that. introducing legislation that, monday other things, encourages americans to give to campaigns by offering a refundable tax credit for campaign contributions. interim president of the joint center for political and economic study is joining me now. spencer i'm going to start with you and th

the affirmative action debate evolved since john roberts got to the court. pt chief justice direction which issues will come before the court and justice sonia sotomayor, and chief justice john roberts tangle about whether we should be ready for the colour blind society or recognising we are far from there. >> she wrote a 58 page dissent and read it from the bench. >> an unusual mood. >> anthony kennedy read his. >> she said specifically that it evis rated an important strand of laws, voting against affirmative action mich knan voters changed basic rules of process in a move that disadvantaged racial minorities. in effect, does the decision says that minorities can target minorities if they vote in favour of a measure that might harm minorities. >> justice kennedy and the chief that joined the opinion say we are not saying that we approve the rol back of affirmative action, we are saying the dialogue about race can happen in the political process. >> she is saying that is not good enough, spif. and it's interesting the viewers should know we are reading a lo

john roberts is live with more.ell us about the research teams. >> reporter: we can tell you that the alvin has been substantially upgraded sense the earliest pictures. really high-tech inside. the lead researcher on the expedition tis the university of georgia's samantha boyce. she the last time she traveled to the bottom around the well was december 2010. she says the bottom is usually teaming with life, but what she found when she got near the well head was barren desert with nothing alive. that was as heartbreaking as what people were seeing on the surface. >> it's gut-wrenching you saw the old beaches. it's an emotional impact. you see these beautiful, white sand beaches and they're just covered with oil. and you see an oil bird, and people go, oh, that poor pelican. that's the reaction i have when i see oil on the sea bed. >> she was scheduled to go down to the ocean floor this morning. we expect she'll be back up at 6:00 our time. >> did they give you an idea what they were expecting down there, john? >> repo

want, even if it means trampling on rights of a minority the supreme court under chief justice john roberts scholars are saying one more step away from the concept of federal supremacy. what about the duty to protect the rights of the minority when a law has an effect on a group of people? justice sotomayor hit the nail on a head writing in a 58-page decision that it e eviscerates our equal protection for members of historically marginalized groups that rely on the federal courts to protect constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government. right now eight states have laws that affirmative action is okay and we expect more could follow. i'll bring my panel back in to discuss. there's so much in this case that is disturbing. the note that we're color blind all all that. the idea of protecting the minority. >> so at the heart of of this case, the decision was not about whether or not affirmative action should change. it sets up some um pli indications of what's going to happen, however, what's important is

back in 2007 john roberts the chief justice of the united states wrote the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. that was from the majority 5-4 majority in a high school desegregation case. this week supreme court upheld michigan's end of race application at public universities. still with us in new york, howie potter, policy at the century foundation. amanda frost and in sacramento, ward connorly. founder and president of the american civil rights institute. howie potter, has this assault over affirmative action let to more honest conversations about what is at stake and what we're really trying to do for america's graduating high school seniors. that has been a lot of attention to the acceptance rates from minority students places like berkeley's undergraduate program. now they have a 57% mexico-american student body. this is part of the uc system not the lower academic tier program. should we talk about where they'll find a more welcoming atmosphere and one that is likely to nurture their aspirations to finish in four years?

john roberts agrees. is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. remember this former president and the scandal that brought him down? beginning with the post-watergate era, all the way through mccain-feingold in the early 2000s, campaign finance reforms were put in place to try and put checks on the influence of big money in politics. for a while, that might have worked but over the last 12 years, big money has gradually made a comeback. 2012 was the most expensive election season in u.s. history. the septembcenter for responsiv politics estimates $6 billion was spent in total, with outside groups contributing as much as a billion dollars, and according to the sun life foundation, just 1,200 individuals spent $155 million of that total. and now, we have last weekend's first ever adelson primary, where republican hopefuls brought big dreams of political superstardom to vegas in hopes of getting a big check in just one billionaire casino magnate.

the chief justice john roberts writing the main opinion says there is no evidence that contributing theum amount to additional candidates or political parties would lead to corruption. the court's four liberal justices issued a sharp dissent written by justice steven breyer saying the ruling, quote, eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws. campaign finance reformer fred worth haimer says the court was opening the floodgates for big money much like its 2010 citizens united decision which paved the way for massive contributions to independent political action committees. >> they are creating and have created an inherently corrupt system. that's a disaster for the american people. >> reporter: what this means essentially is that there is now no limit on how much a person can spend on a campaign and you can bet that you will see the impact of this ahead of november's midterm election. live at city hall, cate caugiran, kpix 5. >>> yahoo taking new steps this morning to keep the government and others from snooping. yahoo says it has finished a system that encrypts all information trans

a lot of the headlines about john roberts, upholding the mandate. key, the core.t a policy level of the engineering piece. they opened a federalist rear guard action on the law, huge consequences. ezra, where do we go from here. >> they're going to have to make the law better for next year. the website did launch badly. important to say, the folks who need insurance need a good experience. they have a better team in place. they're focused on it. medicaid expansion continues. people can sign up. no end to open enrollment. in terms of getting ready for next year, a lot more insurers competing they want a smoother shopping experience scheduled to bring in 7 million to 8 million folks. >> someone who writes about health care, voted for the health care law, ezra and patrick, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you, ari. >> coming up. heard how a voter asked rand paul why he was supporting mitch mcconnell's re-election. he said he would respond in private. we have the reporter who heard the private answer. and an awkward moment when president obama is asked about

in a 5-4 decision authored by chief justice john roberts the court struck down a law that limited theotal number of politicians that one person can donate to. like citizens united, the name of this case could be associated with the rise of money and politics for decades. it's called mccutcheon v. the federal election commission because a conservative activist shaun mccutcheon sued the commission arguing those donation limits violated his right to free speech. now, under this new ruling, mr. mccutcheon and other high-dollar donors can donate to as many federal candidates and political committees as they want. the case did not, did not alter the donation limits on the total amount people can give to each candidate. now, instead of being limited to about $123,000 spread across candidates and groups, there is no limit under the new ruling on those total contributions in a campaign cycle. senator chuck schumer who was actually a pretty excellent fund-raiser when he chaired the senate democrats re-election effort said in response to the ruling "this decision will take the country back towar

chief justice john roberts in this decision directly responded to sotomayor.wrote, to disagree with the dissents views on the costs and benefits, people can disagree in good faith on this issue but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate. an unusually strong rebuttal there and personal one. joining us now is professor of constitutional law at harvard, university. co-director of the programming law in history and author of the book, courage to dissent, atlanta, and the long history of the civil rights movement. honor to have you here tonight. >> thank you for having me. >> first, just walk us through this conflict here that has, gotten some what personal, though maybe in a positive and revealing way between the two justices. >> well i think what we are seeing on this court is a plurality of justices led by chief justice john roberts, indicating in a number of decisions whether it is education employment or voting that explicit racial classifications have no place in the law. unless they're

. >> this is a huge priority of john roberts. mentioned that famous line from the seattle schools case. which was of course a case in the line of brown v board of education, a case that no politician openly opposes and yet that was a stop sign on that road from john roberts saying you can't do that kind of voluntary integration plan. what is different about today's case, if does not change the status quo across the country. so affirmative action in a certain context is still basically legal. >> but doesn't it put wind in the sails of those who would like to overturn affirmative action policies? >> what it does is give a boost to the political effort to ban affirmative action. michigan being the central place because this was where the original case came out of, the university of michigan had a program that had been tested, that had survived the court's scrutiny and then they went to the the polls. you and you mentioned the sotomayor dissent. she says her view of what happened today, she says the majority of michigan voter changed

writing for the majority chief justice john roberts: >> in the minority justice stein brier who cited the 2010 court decision opening the door for unlimited donations and spending on political issues: >> they wish to dismantle all limits on giving. piece by piece until we are back to the days of the robber barons. anyone or anything. undisclosed and make our political system seem rigged that everyone will lose interest in the democracy. >> welcoming the decision house speaker john boehner. he says donations can flow to the parties and candidates and bypass outside groups who there undermined his authority. it's pushing the money outside the party structure into various forms. and i'm all for freedom. >> it allows the wealthy outside access. this will skew it further. in 201228 of distributions came from 1% of 1% of americans. the cost of elections increased. in 1998 the cost of congressional races was 1.6 billion. by 2012 it was 3.6 billion. for presidential races the cost has almost doubled in the last 12 years, from 1.4 billion to 2.6 in 2012. reform advocates quay with the make-up

. >> as chief justice john roberts said nearly 50 years later things have changed dramatically. >> jon is over! [cheers and applause] of course, the justices were codifying what many of us had known for a very long time. >> america treats people equally. we have a black president. europe even has never had a black president. >> unfortunately for liberals there's no racism in america. there's nor cholera in america than there is racism. >> jon: more cholera, yes, racism has gone the way of (bleep) where you drink. lat lat the important thing is that racism officially dead. >> i want to tell you one more thing about the know about the negro -- >> jon: what just days after being declared dead about it supreme court racism has arisen. it's a week after easter miracle. [ laughter ] not that easter weekend itself didn't provide clues that perhaps racism wasn't quite as dead as we thought it was. >> easter eggs filled with words of hate. >> parents in the west end are outraged after waking up to find easter eggs filled with racist notes. >> jon: huh. i thought the easter bunny looked differen

the court's majority opinion, written by the chief justice john roberts said,