Guests: Raul Grijalva, Brian Schweitzer, Michael Medved, Joan Walsh, Katherine Crier, Wendell Potter
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Good evening, Americans. And welcome to THE ED
SHOW from New York.
Elections have consequences. Today, the Supreme Court handed down two
rulings that will change America, maybe forever.
This is THE ED SHOW -- let`s get to work.
GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: I believe that we have accomplished a
lot and that it was up held by the United States Supreme Court.
SCHULTZ (voice-over): The Supreme Court guts Arizona`s paper please
law, and Jan Brewer is living in fantasy land.
BREWER: Well, today the state of Arizona and Senate Bill 1070 was
SCHULTZ: Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva says he`s torn by the
ruling and he`s here tonight.
The Supreme Court doubles down on Citizens United, in one of the most
destructive rulings ever for the country. Montana Governor Brian
Schweitzer and E.J. Dionne are here with reaction.
And it turns out Republicans love Obamacare, as long as you don`t call
it that. Former insurance executive Wendell Potter on what it means if the
individual mandate dies and the rest of the Affordable Care Act lives.
SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for
Right wingers can no longer hide behind states rights when it comes to
creating radical immigration laws. A ruling from the highest court in the
land proves states can only go so far. The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in
favor of striking down most of the provisions in Arizona`s controversial
immigration law, Senate Bill 1070. The ruling says states cannot override
federal laws on immigration.
Here`s what was struck down: Arizona cannot make it a misdemeanor for
not carrying identification, saying whether or not you`re a legal citizen.
Arizona can`t make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for a
job. Many think that`s a civil rights issue. Law enforcement cannot
arrest someone based on suspecting the person is in the country illegally.
But the ruling also keeps intact the most controversial part of the
law, the papers please provision, allowing law enforcement to check the
immigration status of people they detain.
President Obama said in a statement he was pleased with the overall
ruling but also concerned. The controversial provision is still alive.
"Going forward, we must insure the Arizona law enforcement officials do not
enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans
as the court`s decision recognizes."
The Supreme Court, what could happen here is that they could wind up
taking up this provision again down the road. But right now, it`s up to
the state courts to determine whether the practice is unconstitutional.
Republican Governor Jan Brewer jumped into space-saving mode late this
afternoon. The law she champions basically got smoked by the Supreme
Court. She put on a happy face today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BREWER: The heart of Senate Bill 1070 has been proven to be
constitutional. Arizona and every other state`s inherent authority to
protect and defend its people has been upheld.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Brewer was inflexible in questions with reporters. She was
asked about the majority of provisions of the Supreme Court being struck
down, but Brewer didn`t stray from her script.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BREWER: Today, the state of Arizona and Senate Bill 1070 was
vindicated and the heart of the bill was upheld. I believe we have
accomplished a lot and that it was upheld by the United States Supreme
Court. And that we will move forward and now it has been validated
unanimously by the United States Supreme Court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: You know what this country needs? A real dose of honesty.
Why can`t the Republicans and the Democrats just come together on this
issue and start from this vantage point? We both have failed. Your party
and our party, we haven`t been able to get it done. Can we start over now?
I mean, Jan Brewer is the Baghdad Bob of right wing immigration laws.
I mean, she says the court upheld the heart of Senate Bill 1070, but it
only upheld the right for the law enforcement to ask for documentation.
Brewer is proud of one key achievement, the ability to racially profile
suspected undocumented immigrants.
Republican officials like Brewer and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, you have to
ask yourself the cession, are they interested in real immigration reform?
I mean, if they were, they would be praising the number of immigrant
deportations last year under President Obama -- 396,906. They should be
pleased with the doubling of border patrol agents and technology since 2004
-- something again President Obama is responsible for.
The president is enacting immigration reform even without the help of
Republicans in Congress. His enforcement action regarding children of
undocumented immigrants is another major reform. The president has offered
solutions and policy changes while the Congress has done nothing. The only
thing the GOP has offered really is racial profiling on a state level.
Mitt Romney told a crowd of top donors today, "I would have preferred
to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states, not less." This
is the closest he came to offering an opinion about the Supreme Court
Romney`s wishy-washy stance on immigration has led to scenes like this
-- protesters gathering outside Romney`s fund-raising luncheon in
Scottsville, Arizona, today.
The Supreme Court ruling today shows the importance of immigration
reform, no doubt about it. Arizona was smack-down for trying to have its
own immigration policy in creating new crimes to do what? Target
immigrants. Racial profiling. That`s what it ended up doing.
This is an issue to be decided on the federal level. It`s interesting
how a right wing court said no, no state rights here, guys. It`s got to be
the federal law.
The one presidential candidate that has a comprehensive position on
immigration is the guy that already has the Oval Office. The other guy is
out to lunch with billionaires.
Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question: will Republicans pay the price at the polls for their position on
Text A for yes, text B for no, to 622639. You can always go to our
blog at Ed.MSNBC.com. We`ll bring you the results later on in the show.
Can we start from this vantage point? That both parties have failed
on this issue but it`s an awfully big lift, and this president has really
done something whether you like it or not. Most Latinos do.
Joining me tonight is Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona, who is
also the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.
Congressman, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your
REP. RAUL GRIJALVA (D), ARIZONA: Thank you, Ed. I appreciate you
having me here.
SCHULTZ: You know, this is such an important issue for our country
because if we don`t get this right, where do we move from here? What`s the
next generation do?
But I want to start with the Arizona law and this ruling by the
Supreme Court. It still says racial profiling is going to happen and it
doesn`t do anything to curb that. Are you troubled by that?
GRIJALVA: Now, I think that`s a poisonous aspect of the decision. It
leaves open the possibilities for persons like Joe Arpaio in my state who
sees that as no consequence and civil liberties and civil rights as no
consequence, so he`s -- that`s why he`s in court, to abuse that police
authority that local officials have. We have great people in our state,
sheriffs, police chiefs across our state, who are saying that this law was
wrong from the beginning, and that it was a liability for local
SCHULTZ: What do you make of Jan Brewer`s response?
GRIJALVA: Well, you know, this law was delusional when it began. And
unfortunately, our governor continues to be delusional. The fact that the
core about whose right it is to set immigration law was decided today and
it is a federal congressional responsibility, and she still continues to
believe that because a section, which is onerous, which is poisonous,
continues to be alive in this legislation 1070, that there is a victory.
There`s not a victory. It`s a bad precedent for the country. It is a
bad precedent for public policy, due process, 14th Amendment. And it`s
going to be challenged legally. It`s going to be challenged politically,
and that`s the way it should be, because I really believe that that portion
of it was as constitutional at the rest of them.
SCHULTZ: Well, this was the hot button issue.
GRIJALVA: There`s no question.
SCHULTZ: And so in some respects, those who do have a chip on their
shoulder so to speak would say, good, we can move forward from here. I
mean, don`t you see it that way?
GRIJALVA: Yes, and that`s what I think is the most disturbing about
that portion that the Supreme Court kind of held in terms of the
constitutionality is that it allowed personalities driven by motives beyond
the law like Arpaio and others, to use that discretion that the court has
given them in this interim period to basically take away people`s rights
and abuse people`s privileges.
SCHULTZ: All right. The Bush administration couldn`t do it. The
Obama administration ran into a filibuster. I mean, how much
responsibility is on the Congress now to get immigration reform moving?
I mean, Jan -- I want to play this for you. Jan Brewer is blaming the
Democrats for not getting immigration reform passed. There she is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BREWER: We also cannot forget that President Obama and his party had
both houses in Congress for two years and could have secured our borders
and fulfilled the promise to fix our broken immigration system.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Your response, Congressman?
GRIJALVA: Well, I kind of find it curious. Other than myself and
Congressman Pastor, who we have been consistently for comprehensive reform,
we`ve been for a bipartisan solution, we`ve been for the DREAM Act, we
supported that all through the years, and there`s not one Republican, in
Arizona, in our delegation, including our senators, that has helped in that
In fact, they have set up barriers. I find it ironic that the people
that harp the most about the states need to do it because the federal
government won`t are the same ones that put every impediment in front of us
here in Congress to get it done.
I think there`s a great deal on Congress should be, it`s our
responsibility. We need to take care of it, and it`s time that the
Republicans stepped up and acted as adults and quit exploiting this issue
and exploiting the poor people that are abused by this issue.
SCHULTZ: Ironically, Mitt Romney was in Arizona today. He says she
wishes the Supreme Court would have upheld the state law. What does that
GRIJALVA: It tells me he continues to be out of touch, not only on
the issue of immigration but how to react to an emerging constituency in
this country, a demographic shift in this country, which is the Latino
community. And rather talk about accommodation, integration and working
toward a solution on immigration, he`s caught between pandering and not
knowing what to do.
He`s in the same boat he was in the beginning, and that -- and all of
us in our community realize he has no solution and he has no ideas about
what to do about this.
SCHULTZ: And, Congressman, finally, there are other states that are
involved in this. You know, Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, South Carolina,
other states that have tried to go down this road of passing immigration
laws. What do you think -- what do you think their response is going to be
tonight to this Supreme Court? Where do you think they`ll go from here?
GRIJALVA: Well, the brakes have been put on in the fact they can
preempt the federal government immigration law. The brakes have not been
put on in terms of that section which empowers local law enforcement. I
hope those states realize that this is about due process and the 14th
Amendment. They should wait for all those issues to be clarified before
they turn loose an agenda that is only going to further divide and
economically hurt the states that have similar laws like Arizona.
SCHULTZ: Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona, good to have you with
us tonight. Thanks so much.
Remember to answer tonight`s question at the bottom of the screen,
share you thoughts on Twitter @EdShow. We love it when you do that.
The other major Supreme Court case today could literally cripple
democracy in this country. That`s what I believe. And I`ll share those
thoughts with you. We`re going to look at Citizens United part two. I
mean, that`s what it is.
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and E.J. Dionne join me for the
Stay with us. We`re right back.
SCHULTZ: Coming up, the Supreme Court rules that our democracy will
continue to be sold to the highest bidder after today`s Citizens United
decision part two. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and MSNBC`s E.J.
Dionne will have reaction, next.
Darrell Issa makes a major admission about "Fast and Furious". This
guy is wasting your time and I`ll explain how later.
And it turns out that Republicans are actually rooting for the
Affordable Care Act to be upheld by the Supreme Court, even though they
hate Obamacare. That report ahead.
Share you thoughts on Twitter using the #EdShow. We`re coming right
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.
Something inside me tells me this is the biggest story of the day. I
hope my instincts are wrong. Today, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge
to Citizens United and threw out, threw out a Montana law that goes back to
What the Supreme Court did today was basically tell individual states
that they cannot limit corporate spending in any state or local elections.
It`s the second wave of Citizens United. And you may have to wonder if we
have lost the country. I`m serious about that. Have we lost America? The
voices of America are going to be squashed by the corporations.
The Supreme Court ruled against a Montana law designed specifically to
prevent corruption. Montana`s Attorney General Steve Bullock, he argued
that states should be allowed to write their own laws on corporate
spending. Twenty-two other states in America agreed.
New York`s Attorney General said today`s decision ignored a state`s
interest in protecting their Democratic process from the threats posed by
unlimited corporate spending in campaigns. In other words, democracy took
another hit today. A huge hit.
The Supreme Court wiped out over 100 years of Montana law designed to
prevent corruption. Now, think about this -- the Supreme Court said to the
folks of Montana, you know, you folks up there on the Plains, you haven`t
been doing things right for the last 100 years so we`re going to straighten
The other side likes to talk about government takeover. You know what
this is? This is a government takeover. It`s the Supreme Court imposing
its hard right wing view on a single state in this country.
Now, it means progressives no longer have a fighting chance at the
state level to battle corporate money and, of course, corporate influence.
There is no guess work about what this means because we have already seen
the early aftermath of Citizens United. At the national level, we have
seen how much the Republican super PAC money has dwarfed Democratic super
At the state level, outside money helped Scott Walker outspent Tom
Barrett by a score of 7-1. Every week brings more new of the Koch brothers
influence in state politics. A few days ago, they raised another $400
million from fellow billionaires. I guess you could call it the wild, Wild
West for corporate interests.
Now, in Montana and North Dakota, the oil companies will be free to
elect the best lawmakers money can buy to deregulate everything so they can
do whatever they want to the environment. That`s the way it`s going to go.
That`s just one example.
Now, in every stay in the nation, local issues can now be micromanaged
by conservative billionaires who can pour money into every race at every
level from state houses to local judgeships.
Let`s turn to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. He joins us tonight.
Governor, great to have you with us.
You know, I know you`re a positive guy. I`m a positive guy. You`ve
been in business. I`ve been in business.
I`m trying to find the silver lining of something positive in this
ruling. I mean, they have told you in your state, you know, for 100 years,
you folks have had it wrong. We`re going to make it right so corporations
can come in and just spend anything they want to spend in elections.
What`s your gut instinct and your feeling, Governor?
GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER (D), MONTANA: Well, over 100 years ago, it was
two copper kings who owned all of Montana. They were the two richest
people on the planet. They were both gazillionaires and they owned all of
the politics in Montana. They owned every one of the legislators. In
fact, when we first sent the United States senator to Washington, D.C., he
bribed his way in and they wouldn`t even seat him. We were so corrupt.
So, it wasn`t the Montana legislature that passed this law. It was
the Montana citizens who stood up 100 years ago, passed a referendum and
said we will not allow the moneyed interest and the international
corporations to own Montana anymore.
And so, we ran 100 years of clean elections. And now the Supreme
Court back there in Washington, D.C., they think they know better for us in
Montana. They tell us that now we have to accept dirty, secret, corporate,
and even foreign money pouring into Montana, taking over our -- everything
from the courthouse all the way to the statehouse.
And I`ll promise you this, until we get this reversed, the corporate
interests, and they will be foreign corporate interests as well, they`re
going to own everything from the White House to the courthouse. That`s
what`s in store for us.
SCHULTZ: Does this ruling leave you with any options that are
positive? I mean, look, I know that part of the country, you go to a pot
luck fund-raiser $100 is a hell of a gift in rural America, not just in
Montana. And now, this money is going to be pouring in. They`re going to
be able to cash whip (ph) judges. They`re going to be able to cash whip
elections and legislatures . They`re going to get the laws they want so
they can run roughshod over the people.
If I`m wrong, Governor, please tell me.
SCHWEITZER: You`re not wrong. You`re absolutely right. You know,
for 100 years, we`ve had very low limits. A citizen legislator could be
elected and the maximum contribution they could take from an individual was
$160. They couldn`t take corporate money.
We elected our legislators for between $2,000 and $5,000. That was
really a citizen legislature. We`ve had clean elections in Montana.
And now, the corporate interests -- and they will be international
corporate interests because there are many international companies involved
in the natural resource business -- they`re going to pour their money back
in and buy the cheapest government money can buy.
SCHULTZ: Well, that`s a cheap government because of course the media
markets in states like yours, you know, it`s pretty easy to buy and pony
up, no doubt about that.
Now, the states joining Montana, basically urge the Supreme Court to
consider how fragile the democratic process is in these state and local
elections. Does this ruling really cripple the democratic process? Give
us your future crystal ball, what does this mean?
SCHWEITZER: Well, it`s still one person one vote, and that`s what
they`ll tell you. One person, one vote, and just because we`re giving
corporations the same rights as persons, we`re not giving them a vote.
But let`s face it, money is power. Money buys television
advertisement, and if you have enough money buying enough television
advertisement, you can sway the election. Not just sway, you can buy the
election. And so, there`s not going to be the other side of the story.
So today, we have two-party system. Well, in the future, we`ll have a
two-party system as well. The corporate party and corporate light party,
because anybody who stands up to the dirty corporate, secret, even foreign
corporation money, they`ll squash you like a bug.
The big pharmaceutical companies, the military industrial complex, the
insurance companies -- if anybody stands up to them, they`ll drop $1
million or $2 million or $10 million, whatever it takes, and they`ll just
put you right out of business. And that voice for the people will be lost.
SCHULTZ: A second wave of Citizens United. I think we lost a little
bit of America today. I hope I`m wrong.
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer -- thanks for joining us tonight.
Now, let`s turn to E.J. Dionne, MSNBC contributor, "Washington Post"
columnist, and author of our -- a new book, "Our Divided Political Heart."
That`s a perfect title for this story.
You know, I tell you what, E.J.? I think this ruling is more damaging
than the first one because this one tells states, don`t even think about
trying to do anything different than what we got on the federal level. And
the voice of the people is gone. What do you think?
E.J. DIONNE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: No, I think it`s very dangerous. I
was hoping as Justices Breyer and Ginsburg were, that they might use this
to put limits on Citizens United or at least give states some rights.
These conservatives talk all the time about how much they care about states
rights. This decision is corporate rights, yes; state rights, no.
You talk about elitism, and Governor Schweitzer really made this
point. I mean, you`ve got a bunch of legal theorists on the Supreme Court
telling a state that its system that worked for 100 years, that they`ve
just got to cast it aside because it doesn`t fit with their theory. I
mean, that`s a terrible idea. And it`s totally against conservative
Conservatives are supposed to rely on practical local experience.
DIONNE: This is a radical court doing a radical thing.
SCHULTZ: Radical court, for sure.
Here`s the White House statement. "Citizens United was wrong when it
was decided and as two Supreme Court justices have observed since,
independent expenditures by corporations are threatening the health of our
democracy. Unfortunately, the court today missed an opportunity to correct
This is kind of a wake-up call to America. If we as a people believe
that all voices should be heard in a fair debate, then we should stand up
and do something about this. The Obama administration is positioned in
history to make a difference. Either the country gets it or it doesn`t.
DIONNE: I think they should make a big deal of this. And I think in
this election, people who have all of this corporate money spent against
them should make it a central issue in the campaign. And say don`t believe
all that stuff. The fact that they`re spending that money against me
should make you want to vote for me.
Paul Wellstone, the great late senator from Minnesota, was vastly
outspent in his campaigns and he made some very funny and gripping ads
about the fact he had to talk faster than everybody else because he didn`t
have all that money.
Governor Schweitzer made an important point also that maybe gives some
opening in the future. He kept talking about how international money might
come into his state and elsewhere. There are laws against foreign
contributions to American campaigns.
I think Congress -- people should push as Senator Schumer, Congressman
Van Halen have, to bar foreign corporations from -- foreign-owned
corporations from making contributions. That might help us begin to get a
handle on what is a really dangerous situation for the country.
SCHULTZ: I`d like to see what Republicans would get behind that.
E.J. Dionne, great to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much.
DIONNE: Good to be with you.
SCHULTZ: You bet.
So much more in the next half hour of THE ED SHOW. Stay tuned.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONIN SCALIA, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I have absolutely nothing to
deal with. I really don`t.
SCHULTZ (voice-over): Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia goes off
the rails, criticizing the president.
The big panel on the "Fox and Friends" justice, next.
Darrell Issa lets the truth slip about his "Fast and Furious" witch
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Do you have any evidence that White House
officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled
Congress, and are involved in a cover-up?
REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: No, we don`t.
SCHULTZ: And find out why Republicans are breaking with Michele
Bachmann on health care.
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: Obamacare as we know is the
crown jewel of socialism. It is socialized medicine.
SCHULTZ: Former insurance executive Wendell Potter joins me for that
BACHMANN: This is it for freedom.
SCHULTZ: Justice Antonin Scalia once said a good hard hitting dissent
keeps you honest. Yet today Scalia used the Supreme Court`s ruling on the
Arizona`s immigration law not to offer a legitimate challenge to the
majority opinion, but to take political cheap shots. As one reporter from
"Mother Jones" put it, "if you put Scalia on `Fox and Friends,` you`d have
to squint to notice the difference." Good one.
In his dissent, Scalia complains about the lack of law enforcement by
feds -- by the feds, even though the Obama administration has cracked down
on illegal immigration. Yet Scalia writes, "Arizona bears the brunt of the
country`s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under
siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property,
strain their social services and even place their lives in jeopardy."
Scalia also used the ruling to rail against President Obama`s decision
to halt deportations of thousands of young people brought here illegally as
children, a policy that has nothing to do with the Arizona case. The
president said at a news conference that the new program is the right thing
to do in light of Congress` failure to pass the administration`s proposed
revision of the immigration act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not
As Salon.com describes it, "it`s a passage written by a man who
obviously no longer cares that he sounds increasingly like a right wing
talk show radio host rather than a justice of the Supreme Court."
So it`s no surprise that none other than Rush Limbaugh jumped to
Scalia`s defense earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Scalia is so right on the money
on this. It boggles the mind. All Arizona did was write law that mirrors
federal law that Obama was not enforcing. And the court told them today
they can`t do that. It is -- it`s disheartening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Let`s bring in Joan Walsh of Salon.com, syndicated radio
host Michael Medved, and author and attorney Katherine Crier. Where do I
start? What ever happened to the days of balls and strikes? Katherine
Crier, I`ll ask you, is this the most opinionated we have ever seen a
KATHERINE CRIER, AUTHOR AND ATTORNEY: Well, he`s always great fun
because there`s no question that Scalia is a very intelligent man and he
can write very powerful. That doesn`t mean they`re legally appropriate,
but powerful cases, powerful dissents. But when you look at his varying
positions -- you know, he argues his originalism, and then he says, all
right, we`re talking about state sovereignty. And state sovereignty is
fine when we`re talking about sort of the right wing position on
immigration, but if we`re talking about campaign finance reform, maybe it`s
federal. If we`re talking about medical marijuana laws, maybe it`s
You watch the vacillation and the legal theory changing with the
ideology. And you have to go, wait a minute, there isn`t a legal
consistency here to support the reputation he has.
SCHULTZ: Joan Walsh, what is wrong with what Scalia said?
JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Well, first of all, I mean, to just jump out
of the world of law and the Constitution and precedent and all of the
things that the Supreme Court is supposed to be our guide on, and to smack
a sitting president that way, I really can`t think of another example of a
justice doing something that outrageous. And it`s really as though he cast
off his judicial robes and revealed himself today to be a partisan hack.
I mean, there have been decisions before. He is the man who gave us
George W. Bush. He did use the 14th Amendment, which had been passed to
give rights to freed slaves. He used that to make George Bush president.
And in the process, disenfranchised a lot of black people who didn`t have
their votes counted. That was a special one, and said there could be nor
We`ve got a lot of history of Scalia doing this, but this was the
SCHULTZ: Michael Medved, did Scalia embarrass the court on this one?
MICHAEL MEDVED, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I don`t think Scalia
embarrassed the court. I think what Scalia was doing, to an extent, was
stepping, you`re right, beyond a normal judicial role. But please
remember, the president of the United States, when he had the justices in
front of him at a State of the Union Address, also went way over the line
in attacking the Supreme Court in a State of the Union Address.
I wish the entire process could be less politicized.
SCHULTZ: Attacking? He gave an opinion. He said he was worried
about the ruling. He wasn`t attacking them.
MEDVED: He attacked the ruling. The job of the president, whether he
likes the ruling or not, is to say this is the law, I will enforce it. It
is not to give his opinion.
SCHULTZ: But you`re willing to say that Scalia went beyond?
MEDVED: This is a very unusual --
CRIER: Let`s throw the word activism in there because actually it can
be applied to both sides at various times.
MEDVED: But there`s no activism here because it`s a dissent. And one
of the problems that they had -- there were three different dissents.
There was one by Justice Thomas and one by Justice Alito and one by Justice
Scalia. It was because they couldn`t agree on the basis for dissent that -
- and because this was basically a six to three decision, even though it
was formally only five to three, because Sotomayor was excluded -- pardon
me, Elana Kagan was excluded. So -- because she recused herself because
she had been a solicitor general in the case.
SCHULTZ: Joan, you buy all this?
WALSH: No, I don`t. I agree with you, Ed, that I think what the
president said was very mild about Citizens United. I would also remind
Michael that then Sam Alito mouthed "you`re wrong," insulting him at the
State of the Union. So I don`t see that the president gives up his ability
to criticize a Supreme Court decision. I think that Scalia really stepped
beyond the boundaries of what you do in a dissent.
SCHULTZ: Speaking of that speech and the response from Sam Alito,
let`s talk about what happened today. The Supreme Court rules on Citizens
United, telling 22 states you have to play by the federal rules. You can`t
limit corporations` giving. Katherine Crier, I think this is bigger than
the first ruling.
CRIER: I`m with you. When I heard you earlier on your program going
let`s pay attention to the Montana decision -- I was in Montana a couple
days ago and learned about some pretty interesting stuff about the whole
10th, 11th Amendment argument. And a lot of lawyers were pushing the
Montana attorney general to assert some arguments that weren`t made. And
there are certainly a lot of people at home wondering whether Montana, the
governor and the A.G, asserting that they want to keep that law, did
everything they could do --
SCHULTZ: How could Montana have it wrong for 100 years?
CRIER: They had it right. They`re really not sure. There are some
people there not sure that their own state officials made the best
SCHULTZ: Michael, what does this mean for health care coming up on
MEDVED: Who knows? Anything could happen as far as that`s -- there`s
a lot of speculation now that Chief Justice Roberts today, when he was
announcing these decisions, said we will have the rest of the decisions
that are ready, which may be an implication that they are going to punt and
delay this health care decision until after the election.
SCHULTZ: Wow. That would be a big move.
MEDVED: It would be a huge move, and would be very, very unusual.
And by the way, it would leave the country in the lurch, because there are
a lot of provisions of Obamacare that are supposed to come into play before
they would actually render their decision.
SCHULTZ: Actually it would be good because health care is working.
CRIER: We`re talking way down the pipe, but I do think that playing
it -- playing with this decision is a political football, a politicizing of
the court. They need to get the decision out Thursday and let`s move on.
MEDVED: I agree with you, Katherine. There`s no doubt that would be
better for the country. It would be better for the court. And let`s hope
that they come up with it.
SCHULTZ: How about the consumers? How about Americans? If they
strike down the mandate, Joan, this could screw up the whole law and hurt a
lot of Americans.
WALSH: Yeah, if they strike down the mandate, people have lots of
different opinions about the way the administration is going to come back
at that, Ed. But there`s no doubt that, you know, we`re prepared for
Scalia personally to reverse himself on some precedents that he has found
before, because he seems -- he really seems determines to do whatever he
wants based on whether it`s a right wing -- what the right wing side is.
MEDVED: If I could just jump in, Ed, one of the things that is
notable about this Arizona case is that Justice Kennedy, who was appointed
by President Reagan and justice -- and Chief Justice Roberts, who was
appointed by President George W. Bush, both voted with what you would call
the liberal side in Arizona, in striking down three aspects of the Arizona
And by the way, they didn`t strike down most of it. Most of it wasn`t
even stopped. Most of it was already in play and already there. It`s a
very big long law. There were only four sections that were controversial.
There of them were struck down.
SCHULTZ: One final point I want to make to you especially, Michael,
is that if the Supreme Court strikes down the law, then the Republicans
will have to come up with their plan on the campaign trail, something that
they really haven`t done.
MEDVED: I think it`s a big challenge.
CRIER: And single payer is going to be right there. There are an
awful lot of people lined up to go, is this going to give us a chance to
assert an argument that was absolutely ignored and buried.
WALSH: Medicare for all. We go back to Medicare for all. And that`s
the debate we have.
SCHULTZ: But the Democrats would have to have the guts to push for
universal health care. It wasn`t even at the table the last time. Could
they give us a preview if we have to go down this road again? We could at
least include it in the discussion.
MEDVED: I hope that they do, and I hope that the American people have
a chance to vote on it, because I as a conservative -- I know how they`re
going to vote. American people don`t want single payer.
CRIER: One final quick note, the first federal mandate I could find
was back in about 1789, when the government mandated all able bodied men to
have an entire list, from flintlocks to powder casings to all sorts of
things, in case they got called. It was a federal mandate to spend your
SCHULTZ: Joan Walsh, Michael Medved, Katherine Crier, thanks so much.
Coming up, more proof that the Republican-led Fast and Furious
investigation is nothing but a plot to make President Obama look bad.
We`ll bring you the details. Stay with us.
SCHULTZ: As the Republicans prepare to hold Attorney General Eric
Holder in contempt coming up on Thursday -- that`s when the vote might take
place -- there`s more proof that the Fast and Furious investigation,
nothing more than a witch hunt. Congressman Darryl Issa said there is no
proof the White House was involved in a cover up. Did I hear that right?
He`s putting House Speaker John Boehner in a pretty tight spot, isn`t
he? Last week, Boehner accused White House officials of misleading
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: The decision to invoke
executive privilege is an admission that the White House officials were
involved in decisions that misled the Congress and have covered up the
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Well, I bet the house speaker regrets those remarks because
he was dead wrong and is dead wrong. House Oversight Committee Chair
Darrell Issa was asked about Boehner`s accusation on Sunday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Do you have any evidence that White
House officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly
misled Congress and are involved in a cover up?
REP. DARRYL ISSA, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: No, we don`t.
And what we`re seeking are documents we know to exist, February 4th to
December, that are in fact about Brian Terry`s murder, who knew, and why
people were lying about it.
WALLACE: I want to be clear, we have to get out. No evidence at this
point that the White House is involved in a cover up.
ISSA: And I hope they don`t get involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: There you have it, the top Republican leading the
investigation has admitted there`s no evidence White House officials were
involved in a cover up or is misleading Congress. Now Darrell Issa, you`re
a committee chair. Don`t you have the responsibility to be a leader?
Leadership is something we need to see and hear in Washington these days.
First of all, why don`t you just come forward and say, you know, I
have been wrong. I`m going to call some witnesses that the Democrats want
to hear from. But of course, you don`t want to hear that. All week long,
all last week, we could have pulled out a montage of right wing talkers
saying it`s Obama. It goes all the way to the White House. He was
involved. It`s a cover up.
Instead, Darryl Issa waited all week long to go on the Sunday talking
heads and say, well, we really don`t have any evidence that there was White
House involvement of a cover up. Washington, it`s really working for you,
Tonight in our survey, I asked will the Republicans pay their price at
the polls for their position on immigration. Ninety two percent of you
said yes, eight percent of you said no.
Coming up, the Supreme Court is on a roll. And in three days, it
rules on the Affordable Care Act. We`ll talk to Wendell Potter about what
happens if the Supreme Court throws out part or all of the law.
SCHULTZ: In the Big Finish tonight, the Supreme Court will rule on
the health care law just three days from now. A brand new poll shows just
how popular the law really is, even among Republicans, when President
Obama`s name is not attached to it. Seventy eight percent of Republicans
support banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing
conditions; 86 percent of Republicans support banning insurance companies
from cancelling policies because a person becoming ill; 80 percent of
Republicans support creating an insurance pool and insurance exchanges; 57
percent of Republicans support providing subsidies on a sliding scale to
help individuals in families who cannot afford health insurance.
The Supreme Court has three basic choices. Number one, uphold the
law, strike down the individual mandate, strike down the entire law. Those
are the three options. But even if the Supreme Court strikes down just the
individual mandate, it basically guts the health care law. Without the
mandate, there is no way to pay for the most popular provision that all
Americans should be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions.
I`m joined tonight by Wendell Potter, former communications director
and vice president of Cigna, now with the Center for Public Integrity, and
author of the book "Deadly Spin."
Mr. Potter, good to have you with us tonight. Those really are the
three basic choices that are available here to the court. If the court
strikes down the individual mandate, but not the requirement on pre-
existing conditions, isn`t that a huge problem going forward?
WENDELL POTTER, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: It`s a huge problem
because, for one thing, the insurance industry will make it a big deal.
And they will be pressuring their friends in Congress and the
administration to gut the rest of the bill. They will argue that without
the individual mandate, some people simply will not buy insurance, even
with the subsidies, and that that will mean probably the healthiest and
youngest will not participate in the pool of people who need coverage.
And that will mean that premiums will go up for the rest of us. So
the insurance industry has a campaign already ready to go in case the
individual mandate is declared unconstitutional to persuade all of us and
lawmakers that it can`t work.
SCHULTZ: They have also spent a ton of money telling the American
people that it`s a lousy law. And that`s had an effect on opinion in some
circles. What is the best possible outcome as you see it?
POTTER: For the whole law to be upheld. I think that even if it is
upheld, we know the opponents of reform will still spend an enormous amount
of money to try to weaken the law, to try to get the consumer protections
stripped out. But the best case scenario for consumers, for average
Americans, for most all of us is for the entire law to be upheld.
SCHULTZ: If the individual mandate is killed, and as you said, maybe
there will be a lot of Americans that won`t buy into it, it`s going to
totally screw up the Congressional Budget Office projections and the whole
effort here was to bring costs down by getting everybody covered. So what
would be the --
POTTER: That`s right.
SCHULTZ: What would be the game plan if they strike down the whole
POTTER: Well, we`d be back to square one. And it would be enormously
difficult for advocates of reform to mount a campaign again. We know that
when the Clinton plan failed, when it never got enough votes, it was years
and years before there was enough will among lawmakers to try again. And
we just, I don`t think, have the ability to mount another campaign to get
the kind of reform we really need. We will be losing an enormous amount.
SCHULTZ: What choices does President Obama have in trying to save
other parts of the law if this happens?
POTTER: Well, he`ll have to work with Congress to try to make sure as
much of the law goes forward as possible. There are some who believe that
with the subsidies still in place, that people will buy coverage that the
insurance industry says probably will not. And I tend to think that may be
correct. It`s a fallacy to think that people don`t want to be covered.
They really do. They just can`t afford to buy the premiums that insurance
companies are charging these days.
SCHULTZ: Quickly --
POTTER: Or they can`t get it at any price.
SCHULTZ: Do you think the Medicare expansion will survive?
POTTER: I sure hope so, because that`s a critically important thing.
That is one of the chief ways of providing more people with coverage. So
that`s very, very important.
SCHULTZ: Well, we have seen a lot of politics come out of this
Supreme Court. It`s pretty much a crap shoot on how they`re going to go
this time. We`ll see.
Wendell Potter thank you for your time tonight. We`ll talk again.
Thanks so much.
That`s THE ED SHOW. I`m Ed Schultz. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts
right now. Good evening, Rachel. Great to have you back.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>