atand that in a new house,tee a fyou probably don't sharece, the same tastes as the previous owner. ♪ [ dolphin chatters ] so when you need a little house painting or a complete remodel, we'll help you get the job done right, guaranteed. get started today at angie's list, because your home is where our heart is.
good evening and welcome to "mtp daily." i'm steve kornacki in for chuck todd. we are expecting any minute now to hear from hillary clinton at the university of wisconsin in madison. she's expected to speak about the supreme court, about the vacancy caused by the death of the late justice, antonin scalia. she's going to be challenging republicans for their refusal to hold hearings on president obama's nominee to replace scalia, merrick garland. we also expect her to name-check both senator chuck grassley and republican presidential front-runner, donald trump. she is going to be calling on grassley. he's the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, she will call on him to do his job, at least has she defines that job, arguing that the court job should be at the top of voters' minds and that voters should be concerned about the kind of nominee trump might put forward.
it's an issue where she appears to have the electorate on her side. our new nbc news/survey monkey online national poll as well as other polls have consistently shown the majority would like to see senators take up the nomination, rather than punting to the next administration. you see the numbers on your screen right there. and to that end, merrick garland, the nominee, was on capitol hill today. he was meeting with two democratic senators, joe donnelly from indiana, and ben cardin from maryland. and in this clinton speech, the one we're waiting for any minute now -- in fact, it looks like it's about the to start now. so let's listen into hillary clinton on the politics of the supreme court. >> >> thank you all very much. thank you. thank you. thank you and please be seated. i'm delighted to be back at this beautiful school and this this wonderful city and to have a chance to talk with all of you.
i want to recognize former governor doyle. thank you so much for being h e here. somebody asked me, so why are you going to madison? >> i said, well, why wouldn't i? i love going to madison. i've been to madison quite a few times. they said, well, that's a place where your opponent is very competitive. i said, yeah, that's true, but i'm here because not only do i want to compete for every vote, i respect the people of madison and dane county. i want to have a chance to talk to you and i want you to know where i'm coming from with respect to one of the most important issues facing our country, as someone who's been fighting for progressive causes my whole life, i think it's important that we take a broad view about what's at stake in
this election. i've been making the case in the campaign that we are not a single-issue country. our next president has to be able to break down all the barriers that are holding us back, not just some of them and there are so many challenges we need to take on that don't always get the attention they deserve on the campaign trail. so today, i'm going to talk about one of those challenges, something that matters a great deal to our future, your future, the future of our country, and that is the supreme court. if you stop and think about it, how many law students are here? do we have some law students here? so you think about this. but if you do stop and think about this, the court shapes virtually every aspect of life in the united states. from whether you can marry the person you love to whether you can get health care, to whether your classmates can carry guns
around the campus. a lot of americans are concerned about money in politics and rightly so. it's a serious problem that we have to address. but supreme court justices are appointed for life. they're not making decisions based on campaign contributions. they're making them based on legal philosophy and in some cases, ideology. and for a long time now, the ideological bent of the court has lead our country in the wrong direction. especially when it comes to stacking the deck in favor of the already wealthy and powerful. if we're serious about fighting for progressive causes, we need to focus on the court who sits on it, how we choose them, and how much we let politics, partisan politics, dominate that
process. and i can't think of a better place for this discussion than right here in madison , because these decisions will affect you. you know, before i was a senator from new york or a secretary of state, even before i was a wife or mother, for that matter, i was a lawyer. >> yes! >> i was drawn to the law for the same reason a lot of young people are. i put my faith in justice and fairness and i saw the profound impact that our justice systems has on people's lives, for better or for worse. and i wanted to help make it for the better. so when i was in law school, i volunteered for the new haven legal aid aassociation. after i graduated, i put my
legal education to work at the children's defense fund. i ran the legal aid clinic at the university of arkansas law school, where i taught, supervising students, providing legal assistance to prison inmates and poor families. and when president carter appointed me to the legal services corporation, which is the largest single provide of civil legal aid in america, it was one of the greatest honors of my life. and we fought hard to convince congress that using the law to help poor families was a just and necessary cause and when he won that fight. we hired an army of lawyers to work on behalf of a million poor clients across the country. helping families avoid eviction, fight discrimination, receive their earned federal benefits, and so much more. but i also learned, when the administration changed and president carter went out and president reagan went in, that
you couldn't ever rest in the fight for justice and fairness and we kept fighting and thankfully, we had increased legal services before that time, because it's been pretty much static ever since. because of these experiences, i come to the issue of the supreme court not just as a former senator, who took my constitutional responsibility to advise and consent seriously, but also as a lawyer who spent years fighting for people and weren't getting a fair deal in our system. and i carry all these experiences with me. all those clients and all those cases, every single day. so today, i want to share some of my thoughts on the supreme court, and then i would love to hear from you. we start with that basic premise that i already stated. the court matters. and it's best, the court is a place where the least powerful voices in our society are heard
and protected. whether they be african-americans trying to vote or people getting an education in the era of segregated schools and poll taxes, or women trying to make our own health care decisions in the face of humiliating laws that would strip that right away. [ applause ] now, this may be hard for you today in 2016 to really believe, but i was in high school and the supreme court decided a case called griswald v. connecticut. that case recognized that women have the right to make the personal choice of whether to use birth control. before that, in some places in our country, like connecticut,
it could be a criminal offense. so that case left a powerful impression on me. along with all the civil rights cases from the 1950s forward, i saw the court as a place where wrongs were righted and where just everyday folks could stand on equal footing with the most powerful people in the land. in reinyears, the court has made a lot of high-profile decisions. some that uphold this progressive tradition, and some that tarnish it. it effectively declared george w. bush president. it cut the heart out of the voting rights act. it overturned common sense laws addressing gun violence. it said that certain employers get to decide whether their female workers can access free birth control under the affordable care act. but it also made same-sex marriage legal nationwide,
preserved the affordable care act -- [ applause ] not once, but twice, and ensured equal access to education for women. the death of justice scalia marked the end of an era. now, as you know, there's a fight over whether president obama should nominate a replacement, as the constitution requires. and that fight is revealing the worst of our politics. the same obstructionism that we've seen from republicans since the beginning of the obama administration, the same disregard for the rule of law that's given rise to the extremist candidacies of donald trump and ted cruz. it's corroding our democracy, and it has to stop. for those of you who may not be following the saga, the story is
pretty straightforward. president obama has done his job and nominated judge merrick garland, one of the most respected judges in the country, to become the ninth justice. democrats admire him, republicans do, too. in fact, a few years ago, when another seat was open on the court, senator orrin hatch of utah, who is not exactly a liberal, said that if the president named judge garland, there was no question that he'd be confirmed. in fact, senator hatch called the judge a consensus nominee. now normally, this is when the senate would do its job, hold hearings, consider the nomination, call for a vote. but republicans say they won't. they won't even hold a hearing. it doesn't matter how qualified the president's nominee is or what the constitution says, or what our country needs.
this is their job, but they refuse to do it. senator chuck grassley, the head of the judiciary committee, could hold a hearing tomorrow, if he wanted. but he says we should wait for a new president, because, and i quote, the american people shouldn't be denied a voice. well, as one of the more than 65 million americans who voted to re-elect barack obama, i'd say my voice is being ignored right now because of their obstructionism! [ applause ] you know, we chose a president. we chose him twice. and now republicans in the senate are acting like our votes didn't count, and that president obama is not still our nation's
leader. now, i'll tell you, those are not high-minded principles. they are low-minded politics. and today i'm adding my voice to the chorus, asking senator grassley to step up and do his job. he should -- [ applause ] he should hold a hearing and he should schedule it as soon as the senate returns from recess. but let's keep in mind, this battle is better than just one empty seat on the court. by election day. two justices will be more than 80 years old. past the court's average retirement age. the next president could end up nominating multiple justices. that means whoever america elects this fall will help
determine the future of the court for decades to come. just look at the court's docket, the cases that it's hearing this term alone. the court is reviewing how public sector unions collect the fees they use to do their work. the economic security of millions of teachers, social workers, and first responders is at take. this is something the people of wisconsin knows all too well, because your governor has repeatedly attacked and bullied public sector unions and working familiy ies have paid the price. i think that's wrong and it should stop. the court is reviewing a texas law imposing unnecessary expensive requirements on doctors who perform abortions. if that law is allowed to stand, there will only be ten or so health centers left where women can get safe, legal abortions in the whole state of texas.
with a state with about 5.4 million women of reproductive age. so it will effectively end the legal right to choose for millions of women. the court's also reviewing whether texas should have to exclude non-voter s when drawin its electoral maps. that would leave out, among others, legal residents, people with felony convictions, and children. the fair representation of everyone in our society, including 75 million children, hangs in the balance. and on top of all of that, the court is reviewing affirmative action and president obama's executive actions on immigration, which called for halting the deportation of dreamers and undocumented parents of citizens and legal residents. it's also put a hold on the president's clean power plan.
either america can limit how much carbon pollution we produce or we can't. and if we can't, then our ability to work with other nations to meet the threat of climate change under the paris agreement is greatly diminished. in short, in a single term, the supreme court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement. and as someone who's worked on every single one of these issues for decades, i see this as a make or break moment. if you care about the fairness of elections, the future of unions, racial disparities, and universities, the rights of women or the future of our planet, you should care about who wins the presidency and appoints the next supreme court justices. and consider, if you will -- [ applause ] . and consider the dangerous turn
the court has taken in recent years. toward protecting the rights of corporations over those of people. now, you may have heard of the case citizens united. the court ruled that corporations have an unfettered right to free speech, just like you and me. that means no limit on what corporations can spend independently to influence elections and, big surprise, a flood of money, from rich people, corporations, special interests, has poured into our politics. citizens united opened the door to the creation of super pacs, and between 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, spending by outside groups tripled. in 2014, the top 200 donors
spent nearly as much as all of 4750,000 donors in the country combined. the idea that money is speech turns our constitution upsidedown. wealth should not be privileged in the courts. it should have no privilege. yet at a time when einequality between working americans and those at the top is starker than ever with, the supreme court has given the wealthiest americans even greater power to affect what happens in our democracy. justice ginsburg says if there were one recent decision, she'd overrule, it's this one. i'm with her and i hope she gets the chance to do just that. now -- [ applause ] people forget this. but the citizens united case
actually began with yet another right wing attack on me. it grew out of a wisconsin case about whether corporations can run issue ads, so-called issue ads, close to an election so we all have a personal stake in this. if the court doesn't overturn citizens united, i will fight for a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money in elections. it is dangerous to our country and poisonous to our politics. but it doesn't stop with citizens united. this court has voted on the side of corporations on the interest of workers, unions, consumers, and the general public in case after case. it's made it harder for
consumers to band together to sue a corporation, even if they are collectively suffering from corporate behavior. so 2 million comcast subscribers in philadelphia were told they each had to hire a lawyer if they wanted to sue for fairer prices. 1.5 million people, working at walmart, each had to hire a lawyer if they wanted to sue for sex zrims. that's a burden that the vast majority of people cannot afford. i know this sounds a little technical, but it points to an alarming trend. the court used to, in the 20th century, anyway, protect the little guy against the rich and powerful. more and more, it's doing the opposite. protecting the rich and powerful against the little guy. one study found that between 2009 and 2012, the one party
most likely to convince the party to hear a case out of all the top petitioner from every part of our society and economy was the u.s. chamber of commerce. so the court was more likely to take up cases concerning corporate interests and then to decide in favor of those corporate interests. if i'm fortunate enough to be president, i will appoint justices who will make sure the scales of justice are not tipped away from individuals towards corporations and special interests, who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or political viewpoint. who will protect a woman's right to choose, rather than billionaire's rights to buy elections. and who will see the constitution as a blueprint for progress, not a barrier to it. so i hope you and everyone across wisconsin and everyone
across america, keeps the court in mind when you vote. some of you may have already decided to support me. some of you may have decided differently. i will keep working to earn your vote. but even if you are decided or undecided, i will be for you, but i ask you this. please, make sure the court factors into your decision. conservatives know exactly how high the stakes are. for years, they have used aggressive legal strategies to accomplish, through the courts, what they failed to accomplish through legislation. they couldn't pass a repeal of the affordable care act. so they tried to get the courts to do it. they couldn't stop the president's clean power plan and they couldn't pass immigration reform and they didn't want the president to act, so they got
the courts to step in. now they are fighting hard to make sure the supreme court includes, as many right-wing justices as possible. as scary as it might be, ask yourselves, what kind of justice would a president trump appoint? or for that matter, what kind of attorney general? what kind of lower court judges? as you know, he believes muslims should be banned from entering this country because of their faith. what would that mean for a nation founded on religious freedom? he wants to round up 11 million immigrants and kick them out. what would that mean for a nation built by immigrants? he says wages for working people are too high and we shouldn't raise the minimum wage. what would that mean for working people? and a court that's already tilting in faefr of powerful corporations? let's be clear about what's really going on here.
the current fight over judge garland is just the latest in a long line of actions aimed at disrupting our government and undermining our president. and the result is an america that's more divide d, more dysfunctional, and less secure. consider how republicans led by ted cruz shut down the entire federal government in 2013, rather than fund the affordable care act or how they almost shut down the government again last fall over trying to defund planned parenthood. remember what mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate said back in 2010. that the single most important priority for republicans was making barack obama a one-term president. now, some people thought that
was hyperbole, but i always remember mayaing angelou's adv. when someone shows you who they are, believe them. right? and today republican readers have been showing us who they are. in fact, for a long time blocking judge garland is just the latest evidence and we should start believing them. if you want to know where that kind of obstruction and recklessness leads? look at the republican race for the presidency. now every day another republican bemoans the rise of donald trump. thbz a trump nomination will set their party back decades. i agree. it will set the republican party back if donald trump is their standard-bearer. but donald trump didn't come out
of nowhere. what the republicans have sewn with their extremist tactics, they are now reaping with donald trump's candidacy. it wasn't long after senator mcconnell said his number one goal was to prevent the president's re-election that donald trump started his racist campaign to discredit the president's citizenship. remember? the birther movement. and ted cruz embarked on his strategy of holding the government hostage to get his way. these things are connected. when you have leaders willing to bring the whole of government to a halt, to make headlines, you may just give rise to candidates who promise to do even more radical and dangerous things. because once you make the extreme normal, you open the door to even worse.
[ applause ] and when you have a party dead-set on demonizing the president, you may just end up with a candidate who says the president never legally was the president at all. enough is enough. it is time for us to take a stand, and you can start right here in wisconsin. your senator, ron johnson, is bragging about blocking the president. he's in a tight race against former senator, russ feingold, an exceptional public servant. during his time on the senate judiciary committee, senator feingold actually helped build a stronger judiciary.
so when you leave here, i urge you to call the office of senator johnson, e-mail him, contact him, if he has a facebook page, go on, express your opinion. tell him to stop playing games with the supreme court. and remember this, are this in november when you choose who stands for you in the senate. the incumbent will vote for corporations and against working people. his opponent will vote for a court that will listen to you. then keep these larger issues in mind when you go to the polls on october 5th. it's time to get back to what makes america already great. respect for the rule of law, statesmanship over showmanship, and people working together across party lines for the good of the nation. [ applause ]
that's what this court fight is really about. that's what this election is about. whether we as a country are able to come together to meet the challenges we face and break down all the barriers holding people back. or whether we will be paralyzed by deadlock and divided from each other by bitter partisanship. at our best, american has united behind the ideal that everyone deserves a fair shot, no matter who we are or where we started out. and at its best, the supreme court has defended that ideal. like in 1954,hen the court abolished segregation in our schools. or 1973, when it ruled that women have the right to make intimate health decisions for ourselves. or 1977, when the court paved
the way for public sector unions. or 1982, when it ruled that undocumented children had the right to go to school. or just last year, when the court ruled that marriage equality was the law of the land. you know, all jim wanted was to marry his partner of 20 years before his partner died of als. they ended up flying to maryland, because their home state of ohio didn't recognize same-sex marriage. john was so sick, he couldn't even leave the plane. but they got married right there on the tarmac in baltimore. and then flew straight home. and when john died three months later, ohio listed him as single on his death certificate. for the partner who had loved and cared for him, this was a
bitter, painful blow. a rejection of the life they had built together over decades. until the supreme court ruled that jim and john's marriage was legal, everywhere in the united states of america. and in that decision, justice kennedy wrote, the nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times, but generations that wrote and ratified the bill of rights and the 14th amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all its dimensions, so they entrusted to future generations a charge, protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty, as we learn its meaning. that decision is the latest reminder of what the court can do when it stands for equality.
or against it. when it makes america a fairer place, or rolls back the progress we've worked so hard to achie achieve. it depends on what the court decides, and it depends on who's deciding. which in the end means it depends on all of us. so think hard about the court. for years, people have tried to make people the supreme court a voting issue, and it's not easy to do. people are lightly concerned about their economic well-being, about the education of their children, about their health care, about their social security payment. about all the other issues that keep people up at night around millions of kitchen tables. but this election hasz ripped
away the curtain and made it absolutely clear to everyone how essential the supreme court is to those decisions, as well. i will keep talking about it and advocating and calling on the senate to do its job. and i hope there will be a great chorus of voices across our land that will do the same. it's our constitution. it's our court. and it's our future. thank you all very much. >> all right. that was hillary clinton in madison, wisconsin, delivering a speech that was officially about the supreme court vacancy and president obama's efforts to fill that with judge merrick garland, trying to get republicans to schedule hearings. ultimately, ideally for the white house to schedule a vote on that. the speech, though, ending up more of a wide-ranging speech. clinton turning it into an indictment of the modern republican party. she says they are, quote,
reaping what they have been sewing for years with donald trump's candidatcy. she's saying that donald trump is in keeping with the republican party that she sees these days. when you have a party that's dead-set on demonizing the president, you could end up with somebody saying that the president never legally was the president. that was the speech from hillary clinton there, demanding that republicans hold hearings and offer a vote on the nomination of merrick garland to the supreme court. i'm going to bring in now nbc's kristen welker, covering the clinton campaign. she's in the room where clinton is taking some questions. this sounded like a basic fire up the base speech. she laid out all the major issues that the supreme court is set to weigh in on the next few years, issues it could weigh in on, issues that are dear to democratic voters and basically said all of those issues hang in the balance this november, based on which president picks that justice.
>> reporter: you're absolutely right. and i'm going to speak quietly, steve, because secretary clinton is answering some questions as we speak. but she has took some of her sharpest jabs to date at donald trump and to follow up on what you were saying, asked this audience to imagine what type of justice donald trump would appoint, ticking through a number of his policy issues on which she has sharp disagreement. particularly his call to ban muslims from entering the united states and his option to increasing the minimum wage. and as you rightfully point out, steve, she said that the rise of donald trump is the result of the obstructionism that we have seen from the republican party. this aimed at firing up the base, but also aimed at fighting the primary fight she is engaged in. you heard her cast this as a battle to make the court more progressive, with decisions related to affirmative action and climate change hanging in the balance. that clearly an attempt to win over some of those voters who might be torn right now between secretary clinton senator sanders.
and of course, this comes against the backdrop of headlines today about her e-mails, an indication it's a controversy that is not going away. chuck grassley jumped on that opportunity today to prebutt her earlier and slammed her for that saying, look, she's going to have to answer questions from the justice department in the near future. i've been talking to her campaign about that throughout the day, and she says, that is something that she would welcome, because they want that fbi investigation to come to an end. the e-mail controversy, hanging over her fight in the primary, and also potentially in the general. but the headline here today, steve, is where you started, which is that she is taking incredibly sharp aim at donald trump here in wisconsin, which is, of course, the next state to weigh in. steve? >> kristen welker, who is in that room. hillary clinton answering questions after delivering that address. thank you, kristen, for that. joining me now is msnbc's chief legal correspondent, ari melber. you were listening to that. what'd you make of it? >> reporter: the big headline to me is, steve, it's not every day
you see hillary clinton calling any republican, let alone the front-runner, donald trump, someone calling a, quote, racist campaign. >> it seems like we are having trouble hearing ari here. we'll squeeze a quick break in. so, we're going to stay here. there's a lot to discuss, i'm glad. we have the panel right here. kerri sheffield, bob herbert, nick confessori here to dissect that speech. >> the white house has been to pretend this is not about other things she is saying it's actually about. she said, it's about procedure and history and blah, blah, blah. she's like, no, it's about power and issues who wins on those issues, us or them. >> and we've talked for years about how this issue, the issue of court nominations, the supreme court, this is one that fires up the republican base and one that gets republicans out to the polls. but if this stays unresolved, this antonin scalia seat through
the fall, this is something that could fire up democrats too. >> i agree. and i have always thought the democrats should have made more in presidential campaigns about the importance of the supreme court going back 15, 20 years. so the scalia thing gives them that opportunity. almost forces them to do it. but i think hillary was operating on a few levels here. one, of course, the primary for her is the wisconsin primary. so it is -- it's an opportunity for her to attack the republicans. it's also -- she gives a speech in wisconsin, which it's really important for her to take this race against bernie sanders. and then another thing, you know, she stands up there with the flags behind her, and she gets an opportunity, talking about the supreme court appointment, to look presidential. >> and she wants those democratic voters thinking, this is a preview of the fall. donald trump will be up there, haib for the republicans, this is what it's going to look lick democrats, if hillary clinton is there, fighting him day to day. what did you see, kerri? >> i do agree with her, i'm terrified at the thought of a donald trump supreme court appointor. i'm part of the hashtag, never
trump, movement. but i do note that 60 to 70% of republicans have voted against donald trump in every primary almost. sob there is a very good chance this could be contested, as we all know. >> but there is a agreement among republicans, all of those candidates, trump or not, that the president should not be appointing to supreme court justice this year. and she's taking aim at that assumption. >> i think she is. and she said, we elected a president, and we elected him twice, but also important to know we elected a senate and elected a senate with republican majorities, a congress with an overwhelming republican majority, not seen since world war ii. even if this were to come up for a senate vote, he probably would get rejected. this could be more political fodder, and you could argue this is just more politicization of the political process. >> why would they reject him? >> i think for all the grounds, as nick pointed out, have been laid out. i found it ironic that she pointed out gay marriage. the swing vote in that case, which i agree, was actually appointed by reagan. the swing vote in the obama case
was appointed by george w. bush. so there's the sublayer that she seems to be ignoring as far as her policy outcomes she's arguing for. on the case of -- she talked about public sector unions and supporting the little guy. public unions? fdr was opposed to them because it was the big guy. public sector unions, average per capita income is higher than private sector workers. they have become corrupt in many, many cases. there were so many layers of irony i heard. >> the other thing that was interesting, she was praising briefly merrick garland, as impeccably qualified of this. i wonder if he's not confirmed, and she were elected, if she would turn around and nominate him. we'll go back to ari melber in the newsroom. we were having some audio difficulties there but you were saying? >> thank you, steve. sorry about the audio. i think the big political headline, obviously, is she's saying donald trump is running a, quote, racist campaign with
birtherism against barack obama. that's stronger language than hillary clinton usually uses or democrats usually use. you hear a lot of private fuming about that and donald trump's roots and a lot of how he moved himself into the mainstream of republican party politics with those kind of attacks and challenging the president on his birth certificate, on his college grades. people may remember, going to new hampshire with it. i thought politically, it was strikingly strong language from hillary clinton on that point. that connects to number two, which is the idea that there is something illegitimate or wrong in the eyes of republicans with this president, and that's why his nominees are being treated somehow differently. of course, as we've reported, republicans strongly object to that, and they say this has been partisan both ways. on the law, on the jurisprudence she was citing in the speech, she was more detailed than usual, talked about griswald v. connecticut, a key women's rights and privacy case. she talked about citizen's united, which we've heard about, but got into more depth, saying, this was one of these big soft
money videos designed to attack me, hillary clinton. she got into the voting rights act and said it was conservative ideology that cut the heart of the voting rights act. so she's doing something that's very different than the washington message from the white house, this has been solicitous in trying to show judge garland as this consensus pick. she did mention that with regard to orrin hatch, but went further and hit the talking points, and what a lot of democrats say is important in this race, that liberal goals hang in the balance in the supreme court and if you replace scalia with someone to the left or center left, it's a big difference, and if you don't, everything else is in danger. it's a much more strident or partisan emphasis she heard from washington. and ultimately, she's betting if she can win, she may put someone who's even more liberal. >> and also maybe younger and could have a few more years of service. >> ari melber, thanks for that. we'll take a quick break here. more reaction, and more analysis to hillary clinton's speech. a lot more going on in politics,
too. some potential big news on the republican side breaking in wisconsin while that speech happened. we'll get to that right after # windows 10 really helps us get the word out about how awesome bugs are. kids learn to be brave and curious and all kids speak the language of bug. "hey cortana, find my katydid video" oh! this is so good. (laughs) if you're trying to teach a kid about a proboscis just sketch it on the screen. i don't have a touch screen on my mac, i'm jealous of that. (laughs) you put a big bug in a kids hands and change their world view. (laughs) incrible bladnow comes with protectionan incredible double your money back guarantee. always discreet is for bladder leaks and it's drier than poise. try it, love it or get double your money back. always discreet.
million americans who voted to re-elect barack obama, i'd say my voice is being ignored right now because of their obstructionism. >> and we're back now with the panel. kerri, bob, and nick to dissect the speech. before we get to that, there's a bit of breaking news i teased before the break. on the republican side, in wisconsin, lots of speculation as to whether governor scott walker will be taking sides and endorsing in this race. our own colleague, hallie jackson, just directing us to twitter on this report from buzzfeed that has a statement from scott walker's campaign committee. they say he'll be announcing his formal decision in the republican presidential primary tomorrow morning, 9:05 a.m. central time, 10:00 here on the east coast. a lot of speculation that scott walker will be endorsing ted cruz in that wisconsin primary. looks like we may be getting an announcement tomorrow morning on that. back to this speech. let's look at the immediate politics of this, kerri. you're a conservative here and know the republican world pretty well. what the obama administration is trying to do here is get
republicans, particularly republicans who have to face blue state electorates, get them uncomfortable, get them to hold hearings. get the wheels moving on this. does this speech do anything to move that long? >> i don't think so, because it's a hillary speech. it's not an obama speech. if it was him coming out swinging then, it could have that effect that you're talking about. but what was happening here, hillary clinton doesn't want to go after bernie, her say, so she'll go after donald trump, and that's a much easier target for her in terms of getting the base. she knows when she walked in and gave her speech to begin, she acknowledged it's hard for her in wisconsin, because the people there tend to be very pro-bernie and very fired up, feeling the burn. for her, this is her way to get that rousing feeling, without having to go after bernie. >> bob, do you think there would be any budging here by republicans this year? >> oh,, i would actually be very surprised if they did budge. when i heard that scalia had died, it just struck me, as it struck so many other people, they'll never confirm an obama appointment. but it's very smart for the
democrats to coo keep the press on. but your thought intrigued me about the idea, whether hillary gets elected, if she would want garland to be her nominee. and when you talk to democrats now, they think the garland nomination is a smart move politically on obama's part. but they really would like to see a more liberal nominee. and the republicans have made noises about perhaps having hearings after the election, but before the new president takes office, because they probably would rather see garland -- >> and some on the left say, the long game there is, after the election, obama can say, maybe hillary clinton, if she wins can say, we tried the reasonable approach, now we're going to go with a real -- >> a young hispanic liberal who's 40 years old, right? i think her speech, you know, shows actually a sense among democrats that they're worried about their strategy. that the president's strategy for dealing with this is good for the white house and good for their needs, but not as good for candidates who are actually
running for election this year. he picked somebody who was defined to suck the ideology out of the equation. to make it as much an easy choice for republicans as a democratic path could possibly make it. she wants to come in and say, no, everyone should be really worried and excited and angry about this. and she has to have that for the election. >> but i don't think the democrats can have it both ways on that. i think obama can have the, like, sort of, middle of the road nominee he wants. and i think the democratic candidates can still talk about these issues that they feel the supreme court has fallen down on. >> final point? >> i find it funny none of the president's nominees have surprised us. the one we've seen that has actually approved, they have not split. they have been reliably liberal. it's actually surprising and i think it's great that he's trying to move more to the center. but i think if he would have been more conciliatory in the past, republicans would be more likely to believe that this would be a middle of the road kind of guy. >> kerri, bob, nick, thanks to all of you. still ahead on "mtp daily," a
♪ those who have served our nation have earned the very best service in return. ♪ usaa. we know what it means to serve. get an auto insurance quote and see why 92% of our members plan to stay for life. donald trump didn't come out of nowhere. what the republicans have seaow with their tactics they're re reaping with donald trump's candidacy. these things are connected. when you have leaders willing to bring the whole of government to a halt, to make headlines, you may just give rise to candidates
who promise to do even more radical and dangerous things, because once you make the extreme normal, you open the door to even worse. >> that was hillary clinton just a few minutes ago, going hard after donald trump and ted cruz. but what's the alternative? well, gary johnson would like it to be him. the presidential candidate joins me next. jishs y service, and that horrible smells are really good at hiding. oh, boy. there it is. ♪ ohh. ooh. [ gags ] so when you need a house cleaner or an exterminator, we can help you get the job done right, guaranteed. get started today at angie's list, because your home is where our heart is. ♪ a 401(k) is the most sound way to go. let's talk asset allocation. sure. you seem knowledgeable, professional. i'm actually a dj. [ dance music plays ]
don't let dust and allergies get and life's beautiful moments. with flonase allergy relief, they wont. most allergy pills only control one inflammatory substance. flonase controls six. and six is greater than one. flonase changes everything. good.how was your commute? yours? good. xerox real time analytics make transit systems run more smoothly... and morning chitchat... less interesting. transportation can work better. with xerox. thank you for calling. we'll be with you shortly. yeah right... xerox predictive analytics help companies provide a better and faster customer experience. xerohello mr. kent. can is rebook your flight?ide i'm here! customer care can work better. with xerox.
. back now with the recent monmouth university poll, having gary johnson polling at 11% against trump and clinton. there are 15 candidates vying for the libertarian party's nomination this year. it's not yet on the ballot in every state. joining me is 2012 presidential candidate gary johnson running again. 11% right now. it looks like me donald trump, if you get this libertarian nomination, donald trump is a good thing for you. >> well, actually, steven, the poll i took more votes away from hillary than i did donald trump, which doesn't surprise me. >> what does that say to you? ? it says that -- it says that hillary and donald trump are the two most polarizing figures in american politics today. and when 50% of americans say they're independent, i think most americans are libertarian. they just don't know it. >> what about donald trump? because look, we understand
there's a lot of republicans who think he's unelectable, too bombastic. but there are issues where you and donald trump have common ground. >> i don't know what they are actually. >> how about the iraq war? he says the iraq war is one of the worst things that ever happened in this country. >> we're in agreement with that. but when he starts talking about deporting 11 million illegal immigrants, that's crazy. we should be embracing immigration as really a good thing. when he says build a wall across the border, that's crazy. when had esays we should kill the families of islamic terrorists, that's crazy. when he says, i'm all for free markets, but in the next sentence says apple should build their iphones and ipads in the united states, that's crazy. >> what do you say to republicans right now? look, there's this stop trump moment. trying to get anybody but trump. if they fail, what's your pitch to them? >> small government. the biggest problem facing this country today is government is too big, it tries to do too
much, it taxes too much. i'm the small government guy. but right alongside that, look, i'm a social liberal. i think civil liberties are really important. i think the fact that you and i have freedoms and liberties that belong to you and i and as long as those freedoms and liberties don't infringe on anybody else, we should be free to do what we want to do. >> what would you say to a conservative who says, i don't like donald trump, i wish he wasn't in this race, but i really don't like hillary clinton and i don't want a liberal democrat as president of the united states. and gary johnson as a third party candidate will take votes from the republican and elect hillary clinton. >> well, it's actually this poll, bearing out the opposite. taking votes away from hillary clinton. speaking with a broad brush stroke, i think the majority of americans in this country are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and recognize also there is a very real islamic terrorist threat but it's not best addressed with
boots on the ground, dropping bombs, flying drones that are killing thousands of innocent people. >> gary johnson, the other libertarian -- >> i know you were pressed for time. thank you for getting me on. >> we just got breaking news as well. the associated press is reporting that the fbi used a mystery method to break into the san bernardino gunman's iphone without apple's help, ending that court case. "with all due respect" starts right now. i'm al hunt. >> and mark halperin. >> let me give an answer for the american people. who cares, who cares what donald is tweeting late at night? >> hello from milwaukee, wisconsin, ak brew city in the badger stated. hillary clinton's