gracias maria elena:la seleccion mexicana hizo su debut en la copa america y no pudo romer las estadisticaslivia tuvo la oportunidad de abrir el marcador con el toque de ricardo pedriel que choca en el palo...a los 41 una nueva & ocasion de gol para los bolivianos...el remate de ronald raldes que ataja el portero mexicano corona...ahogando el grito de gol.y a los 66, por poco anota el tri, raul jimnez se pierde un claro remate de cabeza...que pasa cerca de la porteria boliviana.esta vez no estuvieron presentes ni el chicharito, ni carlos vela ni gio dos santos porque herrera decidio reservara sus principales figuras para la copa oro de la concacaf... mexico continuara su paso por la copa america enfrntando al dueqo de casa la proxima semana vuelvo contigo maria elena ♪ ♪ ♪ marÍa elena: gran controversia el caso de una redada controversial. captaron cÁmaras y ha provocado crÍticas sobre la forma que se han comportado. (disparos) >> Éstas son las imÁgenes que muestran a 8 gentes de la policÍa de santana california. para romper una cuerda de metal e irrumpir a punta de pistola en un dispensari

the romer decision, critically important. all decisions written by justice kennedy all 5-4 decisions unfortunately. it is a great judicial legacy of recognizing human dignity, human liberty, the rights of all americans to have equal protection of the laws. charlie: justice roberts on another decision yesterday about obamacare wrote the majority opinion disappointed many conservatives. he said if you are among the many americans of whatever sexual orientation who support expanding it, celebrate the opportunity for new expression of commitment to a partner. celebrate the availability of new benefits. but do not celebrate constitution. it had nothing to do with it. david: i agree with everything he said except about the constitution because the constitution had everything to do with it. constitution guaranteed equal protection of the laws. the constitution provided people cannot be treated unequally based on any characteristic whether it is race, gender sexual orientation. every american has the right to equal protection of the

you know there have been a number of gay rights decisions starting in 1996 with the romer decision. but what strikes me about romer and lawrence and windsor, is how incremental these decisions have been. the court has resisted reaching the natural conclusion that gay people should be entitled to this heightened protection. and i suspect that they will continue to resist it in this case. if that's true, that has profound implications for the future. while it mean that same-sex couples will be allowed to marry, it also won't mean that states won't be able to engage in other forms of anti-gay discrimination. sam brownback, for example, recently rescinded an executive order saying the state wouldn't discrimination against gay people in its own hiring. that might be constitutional. at least under what the supreme court has said, after they rule that marriage equality is the law of the land. so i mean, i guess, you know, the short answer to your question is, i think it's likely that the narrow victory will be a complete victory. that will get marriage equality in all 50 states, but it is

there have been a number of gay rights decisions, starting in 1996 with romer, but what strikes me is how incremental the decisions have been. the courts have resisted the notion that gay people should be entitled to heightened protection. i suspect they will resistant in this case. if that is true, that has profound implications for the future. while it means same-sex couples will be allowed to marry, it also will not mean that states won't be able to engage in other forms of discrimination. the kansas governor recently rescinded an order that said the state will not discriminate gay people in its own hiring. that may be constitutional after the supreme court rules that marriage equality is the law of the land. i think it is likely that the narrow victory will be a complete victory. we will get marriage equality in all 50 states. but it is much less likely that the court will recognize what the constitution commands, which is that discrimination against gay people of any kind by the government should be treated with skepticism. mr. melber: you mentioned the federal government's oblig

. >> we're talking with alex romers of national journal. this may be a short-lived victory for senator rand paul. what happens late this week in the senate. >> a procedural vote tomorrow and then late tomorrow night into wednesday for final passage on this. there's going to be some amendments also offers as well that could actually, in terms of senator paul's eyes, actually weaken the u.s.a. freedom act but we still expect for the most part the house passed bill which passed overwhelmingly to pretty much be passed later this week. >> joining our canon hill, alex roger whose falling all of this for national journal. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> the senate returns tomorrow morning at 9:30 eastern with a vote to move forward on the u.s.a. freedom act scheduled for 10:30. 60 votes would be required for the measure to advance. next we'll show you some of the debate on the senate floor. >> mr. president, i want to speak about the fisa bill, but before i do, i want to express what is one every one of our hearts of ou

there have been a number of gay-rights decisions starting in 1996 with the romer decision but what strikes me about roemer and lawrence in windsor is so incremental these decisions have been. the court has resisted reaching the natural conclusion that gave people should be entitled to this heightened protection. and i suspect that they will continue to resist it in this case. and if that's true that has profound implications for the future because while it will mean that same-sex couples will be allowed to marry, it will also will not mean that states won't be able to engage in other forms of anti-gay discrimination. to sam brownback of kansas recently rescinded an executive order which said the state would not discriminate against gave people in its own hiring. that might be constitutional, at least under the what the supreme court has said after their marriage equality is along the line. the short answer to your question is i think it's likely than their victory will be a complete the victory that will get marriage equality in all 50 states. but that it is much less likely that the court