tv The War Room Current June 27, 2013 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
>> michael: coming up, america celebrated the gay marriage rulings late into the night and woke up this morning with a hangover and a smile. then it turned over and saw rick perry in the bed and screamed in horror. i'm michael shure, you are in "the war room." >> michael: this has, indeed been a historic week. the supreme court announced major decisions on gay rights and the voting right act: we
want to start tonight with a big step backyards for women's rights. all thanks to texas' cowboy boots in cheap governor rick perry. democratic senator wendy davis filibustered the bill for 11 hours, then the visitors shouted so loudly that the senate couldn't even vote. perry claimed that abortion clinics were protesting the bill because they're just in it for the money. >> if the abortion industry decide the expense of running
clean, safe facility outweigh the money they could make, that's entirely their problem. >> michael: a decision that's already been made for them. just like this bill would do for women. perry also reconveneed the senate for another emergency session in july. the emergency being that they didn't pass this law. and he can keep on doing that, reconvening the state senate according to state law. today wendy davis responded on cbs news. >> no one knew for sure whether the governor would call us back for another session on this particular topic. i'm disappointed that did he but it shows his continued interest in intruding in the privacy of women and their decision making. it's big government intruding in private lives in texas. and texas values don't cut into that very well. >> michael: later in his speech today perry took aim at davis
directly and perhaps the most offensive way he could have done it. >> the daughter of a single woman. she was a teenage mother herself. she managed to eventually graduate from harvard law school and serve in the texas senate. it's just unfortunate that she hasn't learned from her own example. >> michael: learned from her own example? like she's a child? wow, governor, even you surprise us sometimes and learned what, governor? that the governor can't count to three? that women should have a choice to live out their own destiny? some how i don't think that's what perry meant. and this, the man who pushes abstinence while closing abortion clinics.
>> the louder they scream the more we know we're getting thumbin' up. >> michael: if forced to have a bill it doesn't want, the legislative body does have a way to shut that whole thing down, it's called the filibuster although perry won't let them use it. quote, without dignity tarnished the highs office he holds and reflects a dark and negative view. he has been tarnishing that office for a while now and that's why we as a country did not give him a higher office. davis is 100% right. christina pelosi, as always, welcome back. what a week, christina. i see you're wearing your "keep your laws off my body" button as appropriate in this debate. this uproar in texas is coming on the heels of a big week in
news. looking forward to the next term of the supreme court, could we see a valley challenge to roe v. wade? >> first of all what governor perry said was insensitive to every man, woman and child in america. he got it exactly backwards because senator wendy davis chose life. you would think he would be happy. >> michael: that's a great point. she did choose life. and she did choose exactly what rick perry would mandate that she do any way. >> right, the third part that we have to remember is that what we're talking about here and why so many women and so many men around the country were fascinated by what went which davis did and stood up for her while she was standing up for all of us saying, wait a second, you can't ram these decisions through without people seeing in the light of day what choices you want to make on behalf of other people. this bill was so restricted and
demanding, for example that doctors who perform surgeries need to have surgical rights at other medical facilities, also even if you used a bill, the morning after bill, a plan b for example you still had to have surgical visitation rights even though it's not a surgical procedure. this really went too far. and in a state of texas where frankly our veterans are crying out for more ruler hospitals and ruler health clinics to say that we're going to impose restrictions on women's health clinics and then at the same time saying we are not going to help veterans or their families, this is a state shutting down medicaid and denying the obamacare expansion at a time when it would really help. this is really an extreme threat to women's help and it must be stopped. and second, when it comes to the
challenge of roe versus wade. that ban on abortion at 20 weeks when if fetuses are able to masturbate they must also be able to feel pain. that's is a direct challenge to roe versus wade. we'll see texas and other places going against roe v. wade. >> michael: and that would be an example for other states who want to follow that same path. texas is a complicated state. it's a huge part of our immigrant population but it does send some of the most conservative members of congress to congress. ted cornyn, rick perry is now saying he's delaying whether he's going to run for governor after the special session. people are saying maybe wendy davis will run for governor for
texas. it would be a logical move how she she has a sudden celebrity. you wrote the book on this. what would you say in red state texas. >> first of all, it's a purple state. wendy davis needs to continue the stand she took for the voting rights act which the supreme court got this week, and which by the way saved her senate seat to begin with when she was running for city council in fort worth, and only to a challenge of the roting rights act was that community able to come together and have a district in which wendy davis could even be serving in the senate. she has to make a voting rights argument. i wouldn't be here if it wasn't for voting rights. we wouldn't have any civil rights women's rights without
voting rights. the second stand she needs to take against republicans and independents of texas to say look we need to come together in a multi partisan way and replace rick perry in a with someone who allows texas to express their own values. second focus on texas and not the country, stay local. >> michael: have your 15 minutes and then go back to work. i love that you think that texas is purple. i really see it as a red state until i see otherwise. organizing for america is there i love that, but i still see texas until i guess through literally rose colored glasses as it were. >> don't forget there, is annie's list, it's ten years old, and celebrates it's 10th anniversary, which is fantastic. they're doing a lot of work. you can win in a red or purple
state if you have a common-sense problem-solving agenda as wendy davis does. i wouldn't necessarily discount it it would take a lot of organizing, but it's a winnable race. she'll raise the money and she'll have a lot of men and women behind her and then the question is this the kind of campaign she wants to run. the 11-hour filibuster. >> michael: well that's true, too, as uphill as this was she seems like the perfect person to do it. you brought up the voting rights act. there was great news from the supreme court. the day before, i didn't think so. it was a devastating couple of days, but hearing about the voting rights act upset me and a lot of progressives were upset about it, and a lot of americans were upset by it. your mother is going to be calling what she's calling the
john lewis voting right act. tell us about that and how we take what happened in the courts and will congress be able to do anything about it? >> well, first i would say one of the most heart wrenching pictures was john lewis watching the vote come down on television in his office. and you could see bobby kennedy and pictures of him and john lewis in his younger days, and where he was leading triumphant marchs where he had been beaten within inches of his life by segregationists. >> michael: i should say that eric cantor has said he will have to think about how he's going to march because he took one of those trips to selma and walked across the bridge. >> i think what you find are two ideas out there. the first idea is that we absolutely have to have this
notion that the department of justice has a say in making sure that we block blatantly unconstitutional and discriminatory effort of voter i.d. the same time the filibuster going on you also had the attorney general of texas saying they're automatically going to go in and enforce unconstitutional voteer i.d. law. the first thing we have to do is do a 50-state strategy, what are the voter laws in each of these 50 states, and do they past muster. there have been bipartisan amendments in 2006 that president bush you signed into law, and there is hope. many are saying that it is likely that you would have to do this without any particular set of states or jurisdictions like
shelby county itself being set aside for special scrutiny. i still think there should be heightened scrutiny for those counties and jurisdictions. >> michael: not to mention the justice department wanted to add districts and communities not district of states to that list as well. this exempts places that would already have been added in the next year or so to that list. it's not just looking back to the 50s and saying these near do wells to be on the list. >> congress has to act for that to happen. >> michael: that's what i'm saying congress has to be part of it. >> as you point out based on today in the last seven years since the last amendments were passed over 700 situations were blocked and changed, whether they were voter i.d. laws or whether they were redistricting
maps, whether they were gerrymandering situations going on whether there were particular rules as to eligibility, voter rights, a whole number of rights involved where they were able to step in. they'll have to be bipartisan support for this. i think making it the john lewis voting right act. >> michael: give it identification, and try voting against john lewis. that's why when voting for president you should always think about the supreme court as well. coming up on the show tonight it has already been an history-making week, and we'll show you now how the senate got in on the fun. plus a long list of under card decisions did not get much play in the media, that doesn't mean it won't impact your life. we will tell you why. and this guy is looking less like mr. smith and more like
mr. bean. it doesn't mean that the nsa are the boy scouts. lee fang will be here. honest. they know that i'm not bsing them for some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know i'm going to be the first one to call them out. cenk on air>> what's unacceptable is how washington continues to screw the middle class over. cenk off air i don't want the middle class taking the brunt of the spending cuts and all the different programs that wind up hurting the middle class. cenk on air you got to go to the local level, the state level and we have to fight hard to make sure they can't buy our politics anymore. cenk off air and they can question if i'm right about that. but i think the audience gets that, i actually mean it. cenk on air 3 trillion dollars in spending cuts! narrator uniquely progressive and always topical the worlds largest online news show is on current tv. cenk off air and i think the audience gets, "this guys to best of his abilities is trying to look out for us."
>> if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> michael: well, the voting rights act and doma dominated our conversation, the supreme court issued other rulings that
should grab our attention. last friday they made it more difficult for employees to sue for harassment in the workplace. they narrowed the definition of supervisor to be one who has the ability to fire or hire. justice kagan brought up the hypothetical case of harassment of a boss. he subjected that secretary to a living hell. but since the man does not have the explicit power to hire or fire her she can't sue for harassment any more. earlier this week the supreme court ruled 5-3 in favor of american express in a case brought forward by a small business owner. it makes class action litigation much hard for bring about and the court ruled in favor of comcast even though smaller
companies lost business even though the cable monster held a a monopoly in philadelphia. the five current justices are among the most pro business we've had in the last 65 years. unfortunately, you could say this past court session was business as usual. to talk about this disturbing pattern we welcome mike pap antonio from ring of fire. thanks as always for being here. >> how are you? >> michael: i'm great. i always have to have someone like you to explain what the courts are done really happy with the decisions yesterday. really disturbed about the voting rights act, but let's talk about some of the other cases that aren't getting as
much press. in 5-4 decision the court ruled in favor of a pharmaceutical company when a drug left a woman blind and covered in lesions over 65% of her body. how did she lost that case after enduring such a tragedy? >> this is one where a woman was so horribly injured by a generic day she's on a feeding tube. she's legally blind. she endured steven johnson syndrome where your skin burns off. it burns from the inside out and then calcified. horribly injured. the jury awarded her
$21 million. the company saw--it's just an nsaid something that she was taking for shoulder pain that we all might take every day but this generic company knew there had been a long list of adverse events, including the steven johnson syndrome. they knew in other countries this product the special warning went with this product. they didn't give the warning or follow anything that any company should have to protect the consumer. the u.s. support said that's okay. we're going to give them immunity. you've all about killed this woman, she's barely alive, but we'll give you immunity. 80% of all the drugs consumed in america are generics just like the one the supreme court gave immunity on. it's completely a court bought and paid for by the chamber of commerce and this is highlighted by that. >> michael: that's very clear. when you think about this they
effect directly the public. why are these cases not getting more attention and what can be done to make the public more aware of them? this represents everyone in the country? >> if you don't have media like your media like the show that you do, you have traditional media that pays attention to the shiny things. the doma is very important but the supreme court, they're very good at misdirection. this court is very wise in how they go about doing this. they've taken away the voting rights act. they subjected women and minorities to further workplace discrimination. they have taken away class actions where the average person has a right to have some relief in court. they've completely closed the doors on that.
they've strengthened arbitration that closes down the jury system to where they close the door to the courthouse for the average american in place of arbitration. but the traditional media is so brain, michael they lack depth so badly. the producers that are working in the huge organizations, it's like they simply don't understand what a story really is. this story that i just explained is going to affect 70% of the american public is taking some type of medication. 80% of those are generic medication. the supreme court said a company can kill you cripple you, blind you, it could cause a stroke and cause blindness and neurological damage and you can't sue them. that person, that victim becomes a ward of the state. a taxpayers then have to take care of that person for the rest
of their lives. the company that produced the dangerous drug knowing that it's dangerous. in the last two years i've handled cases where the generic manufacturer knew, removed the drug from the market. they had thousands and thousands of adverse event reports that showed that the product was killing people but the generic are drug makers of america kept it on the market because they were so certain that the u.s. supreme court was so wholly owned by the u.s. chamber of commerce that big business was going to win and consumers were going to lose. the numbers of generics enincreased because they knew that this roberts court has become such an extension of the chamber of commerce. >> michael: it couldn't be more serious. we pointed out listen, having a show like this, and having the luxury to talk about these cases, you don't have to have a show like this to do this.
you can have a show that shows the outrageousness of this court and the overreach of this court. you saw this as the court that gave citizens united corporations are people. they've ruled in this way now in the consistent way and it's a really frustrating thing to observe. tell us, mike, about other big supreme court cases that are big that we might not even know are big that are coming down the pike that we should be aware of. >> well, one thing that you're going to see michael slowly but surely, the u.s. supreme court--the u.s. chamber of commerce is asking the supreme court to do away with jury trials. what they're doing is trying to replace the right for a person to go to court not for a corporation to go to court, the way they're doing this is they're mounting the fight to where the average consumer can't go to court for the jury trial because they're relegating them to something called arbitration. they want them to move to
arbitration because arbitrators are wholly owned by industry. they'll have three or four arbitrators that come from industry and they'll always rule for corporate america. what you're see something this robert court has a clear intent, and the u.s. chamber of commerce is playing that out little by little trying to do with people's access to the courts to where when you buy a car and the car is defective and it kills you, kills a member of your family you're relegated to go to an arbitration panel that is owned and operated by the very people who made that car. you're going to see that more and more. your class actions, they're disappearing because the u.s. chamber of commerce knows if you do away with class action the corporation can steal $200 at a shot from a million people, and there's never any regress because you can't go to court for that $200 to get it back. but you can bring a class action to make them pay that way. they're going to close down class actions too.
>> michael: it really is an extraordinary evolution that we're seeing in this court. if you don't think elections matter if you think you would rather have mitt romney, as much as this president pisses you off sometimes, if you would rather have mitt romney over the supreme court, it makes you think. the supreme court is alive and kicking, and after the break we'll give you the latest on the snowden ultimate may ultimatum with journalist lee fang. stick around.
he has those documents. he's released some of them. not all have been released. the damage that's been done essentially goes to the fact of some of these programs. we don't yet know what other documents he may try to dribble out there. >> michael: president obama said he's not going to personally get involved in the diplomatic game of arrangeing snowden's extradition. he believes that all the intel programs are lawful. we welcome lee fang to the show, a contributing writer to the nation and a reporting fellow with the investigative fund at the nation's institute. welcome inside "the war room," lee. >> thank you. >> michael: is president obama now down playing the whole need to get snowden? >> you know, he might be, but you know, to the point that he's
not personally involved in the negotiations to capture snowden you know who knows. maybe he's not personally, but certainly the d.o.j. the state department, they're pressuring some of these governments and at the same time its kind of hard to trust what obama says on at least whistle blower issues. one final point it came out earlier in "newsweek" that ed snowden made copies of all of his files. some of them have not been released with glen greenwald and presumably with the "the guardian" in london, even if he is captured, those files are out there. >> michael: it's really about punitive and example rather than the information. we keep learning more about snowden now. and the website from
january 2009, and this is after the new york sometimes published an article that included some classified information. live to this, snowden using the screen name "the true who ha" road wtf "new york times." are they trying to start a war? jesus christ they're like wikileaks. they're just reporting dude. snowden adds, they're reporting expletive. s then he says who is leaking this. they should be shot in the balls. this is ed snowden talking about the ed snowden in the future. >> presumably he has had hundreds of chats im, in real life and on the phone. cherry picking these few conversations isn't a fairway to portray him.
i don't care about ed snowden's fascination with anime his girlfriend in at the end of the day it's about his spying. >> michael: i hear you say those things, and in an ideal world we will say who cares who the merger is, look at what he brought us, but journalism does focus on characters as well. where does the responsibility of a journalist lie? to ignore who ed snowden is, and he's inviting us on this worldwide tour in a way. it's one that he presumably doesn't really want to take but we're following it. where does the role of the journalist to come in there? >> for the public interest. that's it. a lot of folks are motivated by page view clicks, some type of notoriety.
but the only responsibility is for the public to shed light on government, private sector abuses and to do things that expose corruption or misuse of power. that's the story. and it shouldn't be ed snowden his anime or anything else. >> michael: right, the public's interest. playing the devil's advocate. what does the public interest in knowing about this guy. >> if he likes anime or his girlfriend and has certain pictures up on the internet? how does that affect the public? it doesn't. it doesn't influence you and me. what does influence you and me are these spying programs. >> michael: and let's get back to that. you heard the president allude to the fact that snowden could have more documents glen greenwald as we know said as recently as today in an article in "the guardian" there will be
more information released. what could be released now that would shock you? we've heard so much now. what could be next? >> i went to a cybersecurity conference in san francisco a few months ago. a lot of government contractors were there. a lot of cybersecurity firms that are in the same world as booz allen hamilton, and i think the type of spying technology that is already available to many of these companies and i guess also to government, is much beyond what has been reported with "the guardian" story. to be able to sneak into someone's computer and steal their private files just being outside of their house and using different technology, it's vast and i would be interested to see if the government is really employing these types of technology for domestic purposes or a mass surveillance type of way. >> michael: that could be one of the next real revelations.
you wrote about the tangled web of pundits government contractors and the apparatus of national security. they're more intertwined right now, and is that morrison that we thought may have been just a month ago? >> this is kind of a secondary consequence of outsourcing. government responsibilities to the private sector. it creates a number of conflict of interest problems because lots of companies that are seeking business before the government they've got lobbyists, consultants they've got the media. the whole conversation gets polluted with money. we're seeing that problem here. where we see this problem in wall street, talking about the environment, cybersecurity is the same way. >> michael: we were just talking to mike papantonio about the
courts, and how they're wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate america. you talk about money coming into this my friend and colleague cenk uygur talks about getting money out of politics all the time. is that a straw dog in a way? what if that is not real? money is not going to come out the way it needs to make it pure, what is plan b. >> money and politics are not a simple issue. for these supreme court battles it's not just the money that helps lobby the senators who confirm the justices. if you look egregious supreme court decisions this week. a lot of them are mirroring the demands of walmart and the national restaurant association all of them are filing these amicus briefs. >> michael: we need to look at the briefs themselves to
>> michael: this is the day we've been waiting for. the senate passed the landmark immigration bill 68-32, finally pushing it to the republican-controlled house of representatives. 14 republicans joined all the democrats in approving the legislation, and no democrats voted against it. the whoever hall focuses on the following issues. border security. pathway to citizenship legal immigration, interrier relationship and temporary visa. harry reid said this. it's a landmark legislation that will secure our borders and help 11 million people get right with
the law. the majority leader mitch mc mcconnell by saying this bill may pass the senate today, but not with my vote and in its current form it won't become law. it does not insure true border security because those here here i wilyihereillegally came before the border. >> we're going to do our own bill before the order and it will be legislation that reflects the will of the majority and the will of the american people. >> michael: the will of the republican majority and the will of the american people. i'm pretty sure we'll never get those things to match up ever, mr. speaker. as if we haven't fought an impossible enough battle already. joining us from atlanta is jason
johnson. he's professor at hyrum university and chief political correspondent of politics 365.com. welcome back to "the war room"." >> it's great to be here. >> michael: we like having you and there are interesting things to talk about across the board oh. yesterday, the amendment to the border security passing with 15 republicans. the g.o.p. support for something similar in the house is really unlikely. speaker boehner said, i have no intention much putting a bill on the floor that people in this room do not believe secures our border. it's not going to happen. what would be an acceptable bill for g.o.p. house members. >> i don't there is an acceptable bill. we can start playing taps right now. this bill is going to die in the house. the motivation in the senate to passing this bill has to do with larger economic political and presidential aspirations of
senators. senators are thinking about running for president. they're thinking about winning their states where the larger latinos are growing. republicans don't care about that. their districts are gerrymander gerrymandered. this thing is dead on arrival when it hits the house. >> michael: yes, and i guess the way they have to think about it, or some of them have to think about it, you're so right in a bigger picture way that their party in order to get the majority in the senate, they're going to have to support some things that americans are going to want. those districts as gerrymandered as they are are going to change over the course of time. it's so frustrating to see it happen the way it does. the main concern for republicans is the pathway to citizenship. to say that it will harm the economy. but according to the center of americans progress. it would elevate wages of legalized immigrants by 25% and increase the waging of u.s. workers as well.
even douglas holts eakin agrees with these numbers. is there any truth to the rest of the g.o.p. fiction we're hearing? >> let me see, the biggest fear of a pathway to citizenship is a pathway of voting and voting for democrats and putting republicans out of office. that's what they care about. this ridiculous nativism that is going on, it has its roots in racial bias and general hostility to bringing more people into the american public. and that's what it really boils down to. everyone knows if you start making everyone citizens, and they have to pay taxes and they have to get paid above the table instead of below the tables, it lifts the votes. this is about economy. >> michael: maybe you'll get some republicans to vote for it. i would go further. i would say it's just pure out and out racism that creates even
an immigration issue to begin w and the economy is a straw man. the straw straw dog by the way, a good movie but straw man. the whole idea now that the supreme court voted the way they did on voting rights, let them in we'll just stop them from voting because we have the court. there's that way of looking at it. maybe that will get the republicans to do it. >> to be perfectly honest, the republicans are at a critical point right now. you have millennials who are ensconced in the voting system. you have this huge specter of a hillary clinton, who is extreme extremely popular with the latino population running in 2016. they need to make a change with their party or face extinction for another eight years. not doing anything about the voting rights act being eliminateed. keeping latinos from becoming
citizens. continuing to fight these ridiculous battles, these are the things that will keep the republicans in trouble. they rely on gerrymandering to protect them, but this will have consequences at the voting booth. >> michael: it can't not. that's what happens. same-sex marriage, voting rights affirmative action headlineing the news of the week. why are we having these 19th century fights and not winning them handily. >> because they're kicking and screaming into the 21st century. it's a waste of time. there are people who can't stand it and can't believe it. gay marriage is a classic example of this. i don'ti don't think that the majority of democrats are in favor of gay marriage. i don't think president obama is thrilled with gay marriage.
i don't think if one of his daughters came out of the closet, i don't think he would be happy about that. but it's about personal liberty and what kind of personal liberty is the government going to allow the people to have. the republicans fighting those battles are simply fighting against liberty and that's something that will never win you votes. >> michael: i don't know if i agree with you about the president, but it doesn't matter because it is about liberty. your thesis is exactly right. i'll switch topics because you're talking about something that is on the minds of a lot of americans p that's the trayvon martin trial. the key witness martin's friend who was on the phone with him when he was killed. she was only 18 years old at the time. what is your interpretation as the way the defense and the american public is treating this witness. >> people's reactions to her has everything to do with why we're
watching this case to begin with, it has to do with profiling. she's not a particularly educated plus-sized dark-skinned african-american. the moment she got on stage on twitter feed, facebook, online, people are saying, oh my gosh, she's not credible, look at how she's dressed. other people are saying, look, she looks like any other teenager. she's a high school teenager. of course she's surly. of course she's not happy to be there. anyone who gets on stage and says a boy i had a crush on got killed, and now i have to relate that story for four and a half hours while being cross-examined. it crosses gender, race, and whether you have kids or not. >> michael: and you don't have to be a kid to hate being badgered by an attorney in cross-examination. >> yes. >> michael: you tweeted this this morning come monday, are
we really going to explain the plaque experience? a white guy is following a black kid in the early evening. tell us about this tweet. what are the most frustrating thing about this that speaks to the racial divide that still exists in this country. >> the absolute ignorance on the part of defense. george zimmerman by law is innocent until proven guilty. but when the defense asks the young woman how do you know how it was racial. she says, this white guy is following my friend. if you are an african-american teenager, if you're a black adult, getting followed around in stores and parking lots is not uncommon. the tone deafness is one of the reasons why we still haven't had enough progress in this country in how race is lived in the nuanced way that it's experienced by older people, younger people, and it's not something you understood by the defense. >> michael: and it shines an embarrassing light on that, that
hadn't been lined before. that's a great take away from that. jason johnson of politics 365. we look forward to the next thyme you're on the war room. will brett erlich make you laugh or cringe before you head into the weekend. we engage in our daily game of chance. plus our trivia, the answer to "the war room" epic trivia question. who was the first sitting american president to visit africa. if you think you know, you're on the clock now. [ ♪ music ♪ ]
on africa soil was franklin roosevelt in 1943. the army corp filmed roosevelt and he met with winston churchill on that trial. fdr became the first sitting president to visit sub-saharaen africa. no other president would visit africa until 1978 when president carter traveled to nigeria and liberia. now that you know that. it's been a long week, and i now know need a good laugh. but now we have to head down to los angeles and our own brett erlich. >> what a pleasure it is to be disparaged on television, thank you. i thought that the first president was teddy roosevelt in
"night of the museum" but i was wrong. when the supreme court decisions are handed down things in america are changed but one thing will remain the same. that is the running of the interns. let's take a look at the flavor ited as to a news broadcast. >> what you see now this is how we find out when these decisions come down. all of the interns here is our intern now with the decision. the court has just handed down it's ruling in the california proposition 8 case. >> as modern as our supreme court justices seem to be in those ancient looking robes behind those enormous looking columns, believe it or not they don't e-mail the decisions out. they give the decisions to interns who then have to run over 300 feet slash 100 yards. they have do a mad dash, there are photos of them. >> it's not quite pomplona but it's fascinating. >> it is not running of the bulls. it is not even the running of the paper bull, it's just the
running of the decision. it's amazing. it's great because they wear dress shirts and women wear dresses but they're allowed to wear tennis shoes, and they wear these bright-colored tennis shoes and they are sprinting. if you watch the video that we just showed some of them are not running as fast, and i'm disappointed in them. >> michael: it angers me too jeff. >> brett. >> michael: brett. >> let's move on. rand paul, after a decision on prop 8 and doma, the "countdown" begins when someone is going to say that one thing that everyone talks about when you discuss the broadening of the definition of marriage, and then someone calls them out. it's funny because the person calling out rand paul on it was fox news. let's take a look. >> you went on glenn beck's show this morning radio show, and
you made a comment that you're going to take some flack for, i quote, i think this is a conundrum. if we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further. does it have to be humans? do you want to comment on that, senator? >> how fantastic. he distanced himself from it, but to hear fox news say, do you want another go at that? >> michael: they've taken it further is unbelievable. >> right, and you wonder why rand paul is going to the possibility of animals but i heard that his high school girlfriend dumped him for a french poodle, and if you look at the hair you can see the similarities. >> michael: she had a type. >> next up there are two new means on the internet emerging from aaron hernandez who was arrested and charged with murder and they spring from two photos that were taken around the time. the one on the left is the photo tmz has of him taking self
portrait of himself with a handgun. and that's quite incriminating. and the other one was this one when he was arrested his hands are behind his backings and apparently he was shirt less and they thought that would be embarrassing, so they put a shirt over his already-cuffed arms making him look like he does in that photo. and then hernandezing is where people take tickets of toy guns and spray bottles which i look because it takes the edge off. and then people hernandezing at work and with friends and people having their children hernandezed, isn't that sweet. >> michael: i'm surprised we didn't see you with a t-shirt. brett, thanks for making us laugh all week long. we'll be losing four of our best colleagues and producers, joanne will be leaving, brook, just, and laurel will be moving on to
[ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> welcome to the turks. cenk is off and i'm mark thompson. what a day we have. the full range--the full breadth of news today. we'll talk about the nsa, a smear campaign, and all sorts of things in politics, but we begin with the police blotter. before i get into this murder investigation which itself is taking on these bizarre twists i'll introduce our panel. hermela aregawi is here, and our legal expert, as you might expect, to weigh in on a murder investigation,