tv The Daily Rundown MSNBC April 1, 2013 6:00am-7:00am PDT
chick-a-fill or something. >> go to the ballet house. >> those have good prices. >> go to the other side of the state. you'll love it there. it's way too early. >> right now it's time for mr. daily rundown himself, charles todd. >> charles in charge. well, it's no joke. april will bring an immigration bill to capitol hill. it's still the famous florida freshman who could make or break the whole thing. plus, a deep dive into yet another big issue that the supreme court will consider this year, the role of affirmative action in higher education. should the court change the way schools pick their prospects? also this morning, what's really going on in north korea. are the latest threats just a lot of talk or something more serious? we'll go live to seoul for the
latest. it's opening day here in cincinnati at great american ball park. today is monday, april 1st, 2013. >> this is "the daily rundown," and here's chuck todd. >> play ball! >> thank you to steven and andy there in cincinnati, home of america's first professional baseball team and the place where baseball should open every day. it used to always be the first pitch until baseball started this sunday night business. but it's opening day. it's a good day. but let's get to my first read of the morning. april will be a big month in washington. next week the senate will consider democratic legislation on guns. the president will finally send his budget to congress. and the gang of eight will unveil the great compromise on immigration legislation. how precooked will that legislation be when it's introduced as early as next week? and will florida senator marco rubio remain onboard? remember, he's the bridge to skeptical conservatives and the lynchpin to securing a big enough senate vote that is necessary to give speaker john
boehner the cover he would need. after difficult negotiations, there was an agreement friday morning on a visa program for nonseasonal low-wage workers. democrats greeted that news with enthusiasm. republicans were more cautious. being mindful of how weary the base is to anything that looks like a back room deal. is a deal done? >> well, with the agreement between business and labor, every major policy issue has been resolved. i am very, very optimistic that we will have an agreement among the eight of us next week. >> we're much closer with labor and business agreeing on this guess worker plan. that doesn't mean we've crossed every i or dotted every t or vice versa. we've still got a ways to go. >> remember happy talk by lawmakers about interest groups backing a bill, created much of the early suspicion about health care. and this weekend's good news on immigration was in essence a
back room deal. no elected officials really involved. republicans are very aware of the tight rope they're walking in an era where the first question on the mind of some is was there a quid pro quo. just in time for the sunday shows, florida senator marco rubio issued a statement throwing cold water on the inevitability of a deal, saying that while he is encouraged about the agreement between business and labor, "reports that the bipartisan group of eight senators have agreed on a legislative proposal are premature." the statement was rubio's second go slow warning in two days. on saturday, he released a letter warning judiciary chairman pat leahy of excessive haste, writing "a rush to legislate without fully considering all views and input from all senators would be fatal to the effort of earning the public's confidence." translation, conservatives need the ability to potentially kill this in committee if they want to. it's rubio's job to appease that portion of the republican conference. but will he be comfortable staying in the gang of eight? rubio is the puzzle piece in
this group of eight who mean 75 to 80 senate votes. if rubio walks, they can get to 60. but good luck getting a lot more than that. and good luck getting a bill with a path to citizenship through the house. republican control, remember. schumer dismissed the idea that rubio's concerns could get in the way of a deal. >> there will be little kerfuffles, but i don't think any of us expect there to be problems. i don't think he'll walk away. he's been an active and strong participant. he's had a lot of input into the bill. obviously his views are not the same as the other seven of us. every one of us has different views. >> the agreement that business and labor have agreed to in principle solves the "future flow problem" which helped sink an immigration deal in 2007. it created a so called w visa program. 20,000 v. sas would be available the first year. that number would increase annually to a maximum of 200,000.
the number available would depend on economic conditions. immigrant workers could change jobs, and after a year, workers could petition for permanent status. employers who have laid off workers within 90 days could not qualify for the program and visas wouldn't be available to employers during a strike or a lockout. a new bureau of immigration and labor market research would make recommendations to congress about the program and have a role in setting the visa cap. farm worker unions and employers haven't greed on how to structure an agricultural visa program. but the biggest sticking point will be how border security is measured. lindsey graham said on sunday that once legislation is written, it will pass both the house and the senate, but other republicans were less confident that hang-ups over the border issue won't end up blocking a deal. >> it has to be drafted. it will be rolled out next week. yes, i believe it will pass the house because it secures our borders. >> we've had trouble getting
good metrics out of the department of homeland security. we're going to have to have that before we move further. >> eight guys if the room saying the border is going to be secure is not enough. the fact is the board of security is real. >> while last week was all about democrats falling all over themselves to not be the last one announcing support for same-sex marriage, now it's a question of where the republican party goes on the issue. it's clear it will be impossible to win the democratic nomination for anything, not just president, next time around, next time there is open races, without early and unquestionable support for gay marriage. and a handful of democratic officials who choose not to support it will likely mean the last elected in their states, or last democratic elected party official to not support it. but a majority of republicans still oppose same-sex marriage. and are left struggling with the politics of the issue. here's arizona senator jeff flake yesterday on "meet the press."
could you support a republican presidential candidate someday who supported same-sex marriage? >> oh, i think that's inevitable. there will be one and i think he'll receive republican support, or she will. >> but while flake said he could support a future presidential candidate who supported same-sex marriage, he says he does not support it himself. a colleague of yours called it evolving on the issue. are you evolving, to use her words, on this issue? >> i believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. i still hold to the traditional definition of marriage. >> flake added that he couldn't imagine changing his mind on gay marriage before ever leaving office. despite the shift in polling, particularly among younger republicans, you can count the number of elected republicans in congress who support same-sex marriage on one hand. and while one former party chair is pushing the party to moderate its message on the issue, another former party chair said
sunday that the party will only go so far. >> the platform right now calls for a federal constitutional amendment to ban it. you know, there may be a debate about that. i don't think you'd ever see the republican party platform say we're in favor of same-sex marriage. >> so what he's essentially saying is the party won't come out and say maybe they'll someday not be in favor of banning it, just not be in favor of supporting it. or stay silent on the issue. meanwhile, social conservatives are starting to fight back. former pennsylvania senator rick santorum said look, the republican party isn't going to change. if we do change, we'll be the wig party, in reference to a conservative party that went away. another former presidential candidate who is the standard bearer for christian conservatives in 2008, mike huckabee scoffed at the idea that conservative cultural values are to blame for the party's recent losses, saying of both mitt romney and john mccain, "nobody would say that these were the guys that just
light 'em up at the national right to life convention." all right, let's move on to north korea. its leader kim jong un says his country will continue to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal despite interactional sanctions. it's unclear what it is other than just more sabre rattling. is it a ploy to solidify his military credentials at home and draw the u.s. back to the negotiating table, or is it a really serious threat? the white house is treating this cautiously. and is sending f-22 stealth fighter jets to south korea to join ongoing military exercises. joining me now is nbc's chief foreign correspondent richard engel, who is live for us in seoul. richard, essentially it seems that the obama administration is trying to take this threat somewhat seriously because they don't want to pooh-pooh it too
much, warning that they are if they are too dismissive of this young leader, he might do something rash or stupid. . >> reporter: i think the idea here is that this is a bluff. that the north koreans want money, they want direct negotiations with the united states. but the danger is that there could be a miscalculation. the north korean leader has escalated this so much, he's not just saying he's going to continue with his nuclear program. he's put his entire country on war footing. he says he's going to attack the united states with nuclear weapons. he's running 24-hour propaganda. and the concern is if you do nothing, or you provoke him even further, then you could have an unpredictable response. he has also cut off the emergency telephones. you know, those red lines -- the red phones that go between capitals in case there is a nuclear crisis and you need to get in touch with the leader directly. he's cut those phones off.
so i think caution is certainly the right approach. but the analysis is that north korea doesn't want to just go to war. it's trying to extract some benefits and that this is a power play by kim jong un to solidify his position within the country. he's still a young leader. he's untested. he's 28, 29 years old. and he's doing this to rally his people around him while he shakes up his inner circle. >> what was amazing about your reporting earlier this morning was you had gone around seoul and there was a collective shrug of the shoulders among south koreans about all of this sabre rattling going on in the north. how does south korea want the united states to respond to this? >> reporter: well, there's very mixed feelings in south korea. today when you walk around the streets, everybody is just blowing it off. this is all bark, there's no bite. the north has done this before. but when you really start
pushing on the issue and you start asking south koreans in opinion polls how today feel about their long-term security prospects, they are worried and a majority of south koreans say they expect eventually there could be a military conflict with the north, and most troubling, one opinion poll said that about 2/3 of south koreans want to have either their own nuclear weapons, which could lead to a nuclear arms race across northeast asia, or they want the united states to bring back tactical nuclear weapons and put them on the korean peninsula. so over time, yes, they do recognize the north as a big threat. but on a day-to-day basis, they don't want to think about it. >> all right. richard engel in seoul for us. richard, thank you very much. well, even on opening day, folks, when we say the hill, we're not talking about the pitcher's mound. we've got two congressmen just a bit outside of their usual stomping grounds.
democrat adam schiff and republican luke messer will be here in our studio to talk about some of the potential curveballs to compromise. but first, a look ahead at today's politics planner. it's all baseball, folks. yes, there is some serious business going on at the white house. what we all want to know is where is the president going to be at 1:05? is he going to be on south capital street right off the anacostia river, doing that left-handed pitch of his? we'll see. you're watching "the daily rundown" only on msnbc. [ kate ] many women may not be absorbing the calcium they take as well as they could because they don't take it with food. switch to citracal maximum plus d. it's the only calcium supplement that can be taken with or without food. my doctor recommends citracal maximum. it's all about absorption.
[ "the odd couple" theme playing ] humans. even when we cross our "t"s and dot our "i"s, we still run into problems -- mainly other humans. at liberty mutual insurance, we understand. that's why our auto policies come with accident forgiveness if you qualify, where your rates won't go up due to your first accident, and new car replacement, where if you total your new car, we give you the money for a new one. call... to talk to an insurance expert about everything else that comes standard with our base auto policy. [ tires squeal ] and if you get into an accident
is moving quietly towards its own form of immigration reform. with me now adam schiff and indiana republican congressman luke messer. few for both being here on opening day. a red sox fan. are you allowed to admit that? >> i am. >> they're okay with this? >> eastern upbringing. >> that's okay, you're close. you can get away with it there. so happy opening day. let me start with you with immigration. where's the house on this, and what do you think big dif differences are going to be? everything i understand, the biggest difference has to do with what the path to citizenship looks like. >> i think that's right. as much as some of the senators have been signaling caution in the senate, that's probably doubly so in the house. immigration has become up until this past election, the real third rail of american politics, especially in the house. very tough issue to deal with. still going to be difficult for us. difficult for me to see us getting the senate bill or
something like it through the house unless the speaker deviates and allows to go without a majority conference. but that pathway to citizenship is the toughest issue i think in the house. and it's obviously an essential component. >> is that a fair assessment? i know the proponent to the gang of eight said okay, that's nice. but path to citizenship -- >> it starts with security. you have to have a plan that we will have that border security. but beyond that, it's the pathway to citizenship. the real issue here is we have to make sure that those who have broken the law don't have a better path or an easier path. >> no one is suggesting that they have a better or easier path, are they? >> no, i don't think so. >> both bills had -- >> what that means in the current law, as i understand it, is if you came here illegally, you would have to go back for ten years, for example. i think the real question here is the length of time. i think most are starting to
recognize that we need to get people out of the shadows and have a working guess worker process. but i think there's a big disagreement right now on whether that path to citizenship is going to be five years or ten years. >> is ten a fair compromise? where are you? ten okay? >> i think if people could apply -- if they can work right now and apply for citizenship in ten years, i think that could be fair. >> ten is a lot longer than i would like to see and i think most democrats would like to see. at the same time, we want a comprehensive immigration reform. and i know that there are going to be things in the house package, certainly in the senate package. probably a little better package that i don't like and that many democrats don't like. but we need to bring, as luke said, we need to bring these 11 million folks out of the shadows. and have them put on a path to citizenship. and this is going to be part of the give and take. i think this is probably the toughest issue, that and whether there are triggers that allow the citizenship process to go
through. >> tell me this, there's going to be a bill that they want to go through committee, get through and pass. but is it -- should we be all doing what we're doing, which is watch this senate gang of eight and if it gets 75 votes in the senate, that's the realistic bill? >> clearly the conversations in the senate are far more developed right now than they are in the house. you don't have a group of people peting. issuing press releases. >> true, although there has been a group meeting, a bipartisan group. >> that's absolutely right. but i think if you see a bill come out of the senate with a broad consensus, there's an opportunity in the house. i think it's important we recognize here, no one has a right to come to america illegally, but there are economic reasons for us to deal with this issue. there are reasons of compassion to deal with this issue as well. i think we have an opportunity as a people to work together. >> we have an awkward situation coming up where the president is going to be releasing his budget after the senate and the house
have passed budgets. we've never had something like this before in this modern era. so the president's budget. do you want it to be -- what message do you want him to send through the budget? reaffirm where the democratic principles are. or should it be the beginnings of an opening offer to the compromise? >> i think it should reflect really a balanced approach. >> so reflect what you guys have already done. >> what the president has put forward this the past, that includes new revenues. it also includes additional spending cuts. takes a balanced approach that will get us to a balanced budget. but i don't think that the president can essentially negotiate against himself with the budget. and too often, that's the position that republicans will want to put him in. make him make the first step. >> so he should not have changed cpi. he should not do the medicare reforms in this -- >> i don't think so. because the republicans have
criticized him, for example, for not embracing simpson-bowles. had he, that would have become the floor. one of the gop senators told me who works in the gang of 6 on this -- a different gang. when the president said something positive, but what they were doing, it just killed their work. so whatever he puts into the budget becomes the floor to negotiate. so i wouldn't have him go too far in the budget himself. it won't be reciprocated. one last point, chuck, on the immigration. just wanted to cap. that is, i think that the only way that the immigration bill ultimately moves forward is if the senate package is taken up without amendments. if it's allowed to be amended in the house, it will just kill it. and that's it. >> is this the time to start the negotiations for the compromise, or is it -- you know what, look, set the spending levels that you want for the different agencies because the appropriators do need that aspect. and let's have a negotiation in a couple more months.
>> i would believe that the house budget is a pretty balanced approach. >> obviously you believe that. >> increases over ten years. 40% over the period. but i do think the president has an opportunity to lead here. it was a great moment of outreach when he came and met with the house republican caucus. he said during that meeting that if you looked at his website, you could see that he's for medicare reform and things like change at cpi and the like. the point was made you wouldn't have to go to his website to see that he's for gun control. you wouldn't have to go to his website to see that he's for immigration reform. i think if he leads, this is another area where there's real opportunities for major events this summer. >> i've got to leave it there. congressman schiff, good luck to your red sox this year. congress messer, good luck to your reds. this new kid, what is his name? jackie bradley jr. up next, new signs it's hillary clinton suiting up for
2016 or just ready to make a little money? plus, we're talking opening day. but first, today's trivia question. who is the most recent president to not host an easter egg roll? the first person to tweet the correct answer to @chucktodd and @dailyrundown will get the shoutout. the answer and more coming up.
on my radar this morning, a decision on the death penalty. hillary clinton's new speak gig. and america's favorite pastime. but first, it's a manhunt in texas. it is ongoing as authorities launch a massive investigation into the murder of a texas district attorney and his wife, kaufman county d.a. mike mclelland and his wife were fatally shot in their home over the weekend. the killings come just months after a kaufman county assistant district attorney was gunned down. and there's even some concerns that there's a connection to
what happened in colorado ahead of the prisons there. and speak of colorado, prosecutors are expected to announce today if they will seek the death penalty for james holmes. the suspect accused of killing 12 and injuring 70 in the a aura movie theater shooting last july. the district attorney said the suspect was willing to plead guilty and spend his life in prison in order to avoid the death penalty. prosecutors dismissed the offer and called it a publicity stunt. "the new york times" reports that former secretary of state hillary clinton will make her first paid appearance since leaving her post. a paid speech will be before the national multi-housing council in dallas, texas, april 24th. clinton will be represented by the same agency as her husband, who reportedly as made as high as $750,000 for a single speech. and let's play ball today. today, of course, is opening day for baseball. yes, there was a game last night, blah blah blah. but come on, today is opening day around the country. the yankees and the mets have
home openers. both teams are expected to honor the community of newtown and the memory of those killed in the shooting at sandy hook elementary school. sponsor for mayor bloomberg says he plans to attend both games. no word on which game he will attend first. meanwhile, former reds manager lou piniella will throw the first pitch in the bronx. joe torre will toss out the first pitch in cincinnati. in d.c., the nationals will face the miami marlins in their first game of the season at 1:05 this afternoon. no word if they're going to have a presidential type of first pitch. today is the debut of a new fourth president, mr. taft running in that race. the opening bell about to ring on wall street. the markets kick off the start of the second quarter today in record territory. the first quarter ended up being the dow's being in 15 years. today, investors will be watching for new data on manufacturing, construction, and auto sales.
and don't forget what friday brings. the march jobs report. on deck here on this opening day, if you dive into the future of affirmative action. should college admissions be color blind? the supreme court is wading into this controversial issue, and it's time for round two of senate madness. our online contest, hitting history's most consequential u.s. senators against each other. all of our number one seeds are still in the running. vote early and vote often. right now, these are live pictures i'm about to show you of the white house, where guess what, it's easter egg roll day. everybody gets a free egg roll. i'm kidding. the president and first lady are expected to make an appearance there in just a few hours. you're watching "the daily rundown" only on msnbc. ever heard of a lil' something called weight watchers online? ♪ i was adding on pounds eating my feelings ♪ ♪ but weight watchers saved my behind ♪ ♪ crash, bam, alakazam
blockbuster hearings of same-sex marriage, the supreme court has agreed to wade into another hot button issue, affirmative action. it's the subject of today's deep dive. the court just agreed to take up a second case now involving affirmative action in school admissions. this one is regarding a state initiative in michigan. that's after hearing arguments in another affirmative action case last fall. in some ways, the two cases mirror each other. in the first, out of texas, the question is to what extent race can be considered in college admissions. in michigan, the question is whether voters violated the constitution in approving an initiative to bar race as a factor in college admissions. the rulings could have a sweeping impact on the issue and practice of affirmative action, a phrase first used by president kennedy in 1961, by the way. it was in 1965 that president lyndon johnson made the case in a speech at howard university. >> you do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by
chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, you are free to compete with all the others. and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. >> the legal fight over affirmative action in schools has long focused on whether it violates equal treatment. 1978, the court ruled against a separate admission process for minorities. essentially race can be one factor in admissions, but not the deciding factor. 25 years later, justice sandra day o'connor leaned on that reasoning in casting the deciding vote to uphold affirmative action in admissions at the university of michigan law school. but she also wrote that affirmative action shouldn't be permanent, and that it must be limited in time. these new cases ask whether that time is now. when the case involving the university of texas admission
policies went before the court in october, several justices questioned whether we still need affirmative action at all. >> at what point, and when do we stop deferring to the universities' judgment that race is still necessary. >> we should mention this isn't just an academic question for these justices. affirmative action played a key role in the lives of two of them, sonya sotomayor and clarence thomas. but they see the benefit differently. sotomayor called it a door opener. both cases could end up as 4-4 ties. so what does that mean? how could these two cases change affirmative action programs in this country? steven joins me now.
first of all, help me understand why the court before deciding texas decided to take on michigan? >> well, the timing is strange. they could well have waited, and i think it was widely expected that they would. the issues in a sense are different enough that the justices probably felt they should go ahead. the texas question is about a specific affirmative action plan. the michigan question is about the power of voters to ban the use of affirmative action. the only direct connection is if they're taking the michigan case kind of assumes that they're not going to abolish affirmative action. >> i was just going to say, is that what you take out of it? that if they made that -- that that's probably what's coming. >> there would be no reason i think to take the michigan case if they were planning to overrule the earlier affirmative action decisions and say race may never be used. >> so when you see -- it was
argued with the texas case, the decision on michigan. and i know the court -- and we're never supposed to believe that the court worries about its image and the politics of it. but sometimes i look at something like this and i assume huh, they're trying to, quote unquote, split the baby. that they're going to dry to roll back affirmative action in one place but not completely outlaw it in another place and that's why they take the two cases. >> and the political impact of the two decisions may have exactly that effect. i mean, in the texas case, the court seems quite likely to in some way cut back on affirmative action. the michigan case -- you know, either way, if they say that opponents of affirmative action can ban it, i think that feels political activity in the next election cycle. if they say opponents can't ban it, then it allows for more lawsuits challenging the bans that exist in about six states. >> 4-4 ties. what would that mean?
>> 4-4 tie in both of them leaves the last opinion in play, so it would leave the texas plan operative, and it would leave the michigan ban struck down. so that would be a kind of big pro affirmative action effect. >> when it comes to affirmative action, there's been some -- jim webb, the former senator in welcome back, says it should only apply to african-americans and there are some others that believe that's how narrowly that affirmative action should be defined. could we ever see the court somehow use either one of these cases to try to make a more narrow definition? >> i don't think the court is going to do that in in case, but either texas or michigan. but the court has raised that concern in some employment related affirmative action cases, that the definitions were sometimes too broad and took in groups that didn't necessarily need that protection. >> when does kagan have to stop
recusing herself? because this -- you could always make a connection. so she didn't on health care, but she did on these issues. when you look at this, is there a pattern of what she recuses herself on? >> if she was directly involved while she was at the justice department, she can't participate. she's been less than totally open about what standard she's using. >> you think she should be more open? >> yeah, i think it would be better if we understood what rule she's following more clearly. >> all right, stephen wermeil, always good to have you here. you know, we're not going to make you walk home. >> happy opening day. >> sorry about what you think may be a tough season for your yankees. our gaggle is getting ready to play ball. we're talking culture wars as the fight over gay marriage and immigration heat up. msnbc's chris hayes, he's moving to primetime. don't miss the premiere of "all
in" tonight at 8:00 p.m. i know he wants to know this next issue. it's turkey lentil. that's the opening day soup. turkey lentil. you're watching "the daily rundown." oh, he's a fighter alright. since aflac is helping with his expenses while he can't work, he can focus on his recovery. he doesn't have to worry so much about his mortgage, groceries, or even gas bills. kick! kick... feel it! feel it! feel it! nice work! ♪ you got it! you got it! yes!
aflac's gonna help take care of his expenses. and us...we're gonna get him back in fighting shape. ♪ [ male announcer ] see what's happening behind the scenes at ducktherapy.com. of mild to moderate alzheimer's disease is exelon patch. now with more treatment options, exelon patch may improve overall function and cognition. your loved one can get a free 30-day trial. and you can have access to nurses. it does not change how the disease progresses. hospitalization, and rarely death, have been reported from wearing more than one patch at a time. the most common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fall, loss of appetite or weight, application site redness, and urinary tract infection. the likelihood and severity of these side effects may increase as the dose increases or if patients weigh less than 110 pounds. people at risk for stomach ulcers who take certain other medicines should talk to their doctor as serious stomach problems such as bleeding may worsen. patients may experience slow heart rate.
all the cases in the world won't change one basic truth, that prevention is better than cure. and that's particularly true of aids, for which right now there is no cure. >> daily flashback, it was a big day at that time. 1987, president reagan made his first public speech on the aids epidemic. reagan called aids public health enemy number one at the time and said he was determined to find a cure. a potential for political and legal chaos looms large as the supreme court considers two case on same-sex marriage. could once again pit blue states
against red states, state governments against washington, and could even create a wedge within the republican party as more young voters begin to support same-sex marriages. let's bring in our monday gaggle, casey hunt, jamal simmons, and michael steele. happy opening day. >> happy opening day. >> we have an orioles fan. >> tigers. >> that's right. michigan guy. >> you're a tigers fan, too. >> i'm actually an orioles fan. >> interesting. she's from michigan. >> i am originally. >> that's all right. i'm a dodger fan, so what are you going to do? casey, it's interesting, when you're watching last week, democratic members of congress tripping over themselves. and support gay marriage like before the argument started in the supreme court so they didn't look like the last person in the democratic party. the republican party, the republican members of congress wanting to signal tolerance when it comes to same-sex marriage,
but not support. >> exactly. as jeff flake told you yesterday -- >> seemed to struggle with the second part of the question. had no problem with the first part. of course i'll support somebody. well, what about you? he didn't like answering it. >> and that was -- well, it's a huge switch from just a few years ago, that that would even be something that would seem so obvious. of course i can support that person. flake is a mormon, which makes that second half of your question a little bit probably more difficult than maybe not completely representative of where other members of his party might be. >> that's a fair point. and religion is certainly an issue here. but particularly taken by an op-ed that mcmanus wrote. and it's not an ied lodggicadge ideological column at all. he says what happens to two men who marry in new york and move to salt lake city. will they still be married? will the kids have two children
under utah law? will their social security benefits travel with them, even though they've moved to a state where their marriage isn't vaide valid? don't even think about the issue of divorce. that's like a real world issue. >> that's a real world issue and that's the world that we're going to see i think unfold the next few years. i think the supreme court will punt it back to the states where it belongs. >> you think it belongs in the states? >> absolutely. i think each state is going to decide this. even where you have some 30 states that have already -- >> they're going to redo some of those. >> that's fine. but this is the landscape for the future. i think this is where the american people want this to be, too. i don't think the country is at this point where they want some federal constitutional mandate on marriage. i just don't see that out there. >> can you imagine literally -- i guess if this was the way it goes, then we're going to have about 21 states that are going to be for same-sex marriage and have laws that support same-sex marriage and have about 29 states that will end up having a ban. >> right.
and i think that's where the doyle mcmanus column makes the most sense. we have to have some kind of federal involvement so there's a standard. you asked this question, maybe what do the conservatives do to get around this. if i was a conservative political analyst, i might say maybe you want to separate these issues and talk about the religious covenant of marriage, and then there's a legal construct of marriage, which may be something separate. >> i was wondering about this, can you split that? >> there are a number of states who have tried. >> that's what the whole civil union idea is which is to create -- we know that there are going to be partner benefits. >> but you're a republican, you want to be able to a congregation and say listen, we can believe what it is that we believe, but the state is going to have a legal right to call whatever couple -- >> i think you're right there. i think that is the construct of the future where you mitigate or take away the fear of an assault on the institution of marriage
as a religious -- >> but what is the assault? >> i think the assault -- i think people feel it's a redefinition of marriage that's been time-honored, and not just here in the u.s., but -- >> but i mean, it gets redefined all the time. >> you start to redefine something as foundational as that, where do you stop? >> he said well, then what's going to stop somebody in utah from something for polygamy? that's where he goes with this. is that where this conversation heads? >> i think the supreme court has waded into something that has changed so quickly that it's almost totally different from what they thought that they were taking on. >> i'm sorry, i do not have any sympathy for them. they're the highest court. they have a tough job. they should have to deal with it. we're going to take a quick break. we asked who was the most recent president to not host an easter
egg roll? president harry truman. the white house easter tradition was cancelled because of food conservation efforts. i'm kidding. but from '48 through '52, white house renovations made the south lawn a construction no place t hold the egg roll. how about that? congratulations to today's winner, jonathan boucher, he will get a free egg roll in the mail. we will be right back. [ male announcer ] there's a story behind the silver of philadelphia cream cheese. it always begins with fresh, local milk, blended with real wholesome cream. going fresh from the farm, to our fridge, in just six days. because we believe in fresh taste. that's the way we set the standard for intensely rich, luscious flavor. so our story of fresh taste always ends... deliciously. when it comes to taste, philadelphia sets the standard.
only hertz gives you a carfirmation. hey, this is challenger. i'll be waiting for you in stall 5. it confirms your reservation and the location your car is in, the moment you land. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz. diarrhea, gas, bloating? yes! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues... with three strains of good bacteria. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'.
>> i think only time will tell in whether or not he is going to walk away. you have seen in the senate over the past month or two a group of conservatives that have put some pressure on rubio, especially in this regard. >> jeff sessions, it's mike lee, it's that crowd. >> ted cruz. >> what's going on? >> even rand paul. rubio is very concerned about positioning himself. in the beginning when he came out for this, he did a conservative talk video blitz. he was the conservative who was selling it. and now you have seen ted cruz, for example, said that, you know, obama wants this bill to crater so that he can use it as a wedge issue later on. that is something going on on the right that rubio has to be aware of. >> rubio, how -- what -- how is he doing this? you think he is playing the role well so far? >> i think he is playing it as best as he can right now. he is in an an untenable situation because he is caught between ambition and reality on the ground. and i think you hit it right on the head. you have got the new voices that are beginning to rise in the senate, cruz and rand. and they are having a lot of
sway here. and i think he is going to have to navigate very carefully the next months. >> jamal, remarkable watching schumer be so careful and supportive of rubio on this? >> trying to carry him like a fragile egg. >> egg roll day, marco rubio's name -- losing him probably means the bill is dead? >> incredible voice on the right you in the house, i'm hearing people are very flood trying to get something done. the question is what does path to citizenship look like and do they get -- >> got to get cruz and rand on board with that >> well, or do you just have to have them stay quiet? >> stay quiet is good. >> boehner ignoring the hashet rule in the house? >> 75 votes, he does. shameless plugs? >> opening day. shameless. nats and oriole he is. >> wow, you can be for both? >> the both. >> you are the network. jamal? >> wendy goldberg, taiwan allen
and alex woodward with their kids here at the easter egg roll. manager >> struggling. kasie, what do you got? >> trey burke. >> trey burke. >> might win me the whole pool. >> i thought i was gonna be saying the same thing about a guy named shane. enjoy your annual who was puffy rhodes day. that's it for this edition of the run down, thoughoughoughie the greatest opening day ever in chicago. chris jansing next, bye bye. i'm meteorologist bill karins a lot of changes going on the month of age the northern half of the country chilly and cold, the southern half really warming up, starting to get those thunderstorms, more frequent basis. today new orleans to florida go this week, heavy rain from texas
and oklahoma back into the southeast, but bundle up in the great lakes today. it's chilly. very logical thinker. (laughs) i'm telling you right now, the girl back at home would absolutely not have taken a zip line in the jungle. (screams) i'm really glad that girl stayed at home. vo: expedia helps 30 million travelers a month find what they're looking for. one traveler at a time. expedia. find yours. ♪ i've got the power people lose 5x more weight following the weight watchers approach than trying on their own. you can too. ♪ ♪ you've got the power ♪ ♪ oh, yeah ♪ get the power the new weight watchers 360 program. ♪ whoo! join for free and check out the new risk free guarantee today.
because it works. [ male announcer ] from our nation's networks... ♪ ...to our city streets... ♪ ...to skies around the world... ♪ ...northrop grumman's security solutions are invisibly at work, protecting people's lives... [ soldier ] move out! [ male announcer ] ...without their even knowing it. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman. that's the value of performance. do we hano.a mower? a trimmer? no. we got nothing. we just bought our first house, we're on a budget. we're not ready for spring. well let's get you ready. very nice. you see these various colors. we got workshops every saturday. yes, maybe a little bit over here. this spring, take on more lawn for less. not bad for our first spring. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. get planting with package seeds. now buy one, get one free.
for over 75 years people ...with geico... ohhh...sorry!. director's voice: here we go. from the top. and action for over 75 years people have saved money with gecko so.... director's voice: cut it! ...what...what did i say? gecko? i said gecko? aw... for over 75 year...(laughs. but still trying to keep it contained) director's voice: keep it together. i'm good. i'm good. for over 75...(uncontrollable lahtuger). what are you doing there? stop making me laugh. vo: geico. saving people money for over seventy-five years. gecko: don't look at me. don't look at me. good morning, i'm chris jansing. this morning it appears all the major roadblocks have been worked through. senators in the gang of eight are just trying to iron out the details for a comprehensive immigration reform. but keep your eye on senator marco rubio, one of the members of gang of eight crucial to getting a deal done. he is urging everyone to slow down, releasing several statements oveth