Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Monday June 30th, 2014

Read the transcript to the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

June 30, 2014

Guest: Rep. Keith Ellison, Mike Papantino, Terry O`Neill, Connie Schultz,
Brent Coon

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. I`m ready to go. Let`s get to work.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A major Supreme Court decision.

TOM GOLDSTEIN, SCOTUSBLOG FOUNDER: It is definitely a ruling that`s
against the union.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It could be a big headache for big labor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I guess you could call it a financial blow that was
dealt to labor union.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The case Harris vs. Quinn.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Governor Quinn was wrong when he finds an executive
order naming a state employee solely for the purpose of unionization.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Public sector unions cannot collect fees from workers
who object to being affiliated with the union.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But that doesn`t deal them the deathblow.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re calling you the union destroyer.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER, (R) WISCONSIN: The first step is we`re going to deal
with collective bargaining for all public employee unions .


WALKER: . because you use divide and conquer


SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching.

You know, we have talked about it on this program time and time again but
now the Supreme Court is in on the act. There is clearly an attack on
workers in this country.

Let me start by asking you a question tonight. Have you ever considered
yourself, in your job, a partial employee? This is an outrageous ruling by
the Supreme Court brought to us by Conservatives who don`t respect workers
in this country. That`s the quick take.

Here`s what happened. Today, the Supreme Court dealt a, I think, crippling
blow to unions in this country. The decision is the culmination of
decades-long attack on working class Americans. The court ruled that
partial government employees can`t be required to contribute to unions.

Justice Alito, appointed by Bush, wrote home care aides who worked for
disabled person with Medicaid are partial public employees. Really? The
person at home getting that care, do they think that they`re being provided
partially? The justice has basically said that collecting fees violates
workers` first amendment rights. No, actually he just took them away.

The case was brought by a group of Illinois healthcare workers who objected
to union membership. They didn`t want to pay. The financial impact to
unions could be devastating down the road. Now, this means middle class
Americans could be hurt in the long run. These people need a voice there`s
no doubt about it.

Now, we have shown you this chart. This is about income inequality as
well. We`ve shown you this chart many times on the Ed Show. The top one
percent, the income is through the roof while of course middle class wages
have flat-lined. Now, why is that? Well, the reason the Vulture Chart
exists is because of the attack on unions and workers in this country which
has been effective.

Unions are the backbone of America. They give a voice to workers that
don`t have one and this would have been the case in this situation with
home care providers. Unions keep workers safe and wages competitive. As
union membership drops, so does the share of middle class income in this

Since the early 1970s, union membership has decreased dramatically. The
conservatives are winning this battle folks. There is a coordinated right-
wing attack to move that chart even lower. For Republicans, it`s all about
political power and of course it`s about the money. If Republicans can
kill unions, there will be fewer Democratic voters. It`s a fact. This is
the mission of the conservative movement in this country to destroy the
infrastructure or the Democratic base.

Before the 2012 election, Karl Rove revealed the Republican master plan.


KARL ROVE, FMR.SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: If you take a look at in 2009,
the unionized workforce made up 12.3 percent of all the workers in America.
In 2010, it had dropped 11.9 percent of the workforce. They lost 612,000
union members in 2010 alone. Now, think about it, every one of those
612,000 people had literally perhaps several hundred dollars worth of union
dues going into the political coffers of their union to spend on politics.

So, yeah, you keep having couple of hundred thousand people each year for
half a million people leave the labor union movement every year. And
pretty soon, you start having cramp in the political budgets of these
unions. It has a direct effect on the presidential election.


SCHULTZ: It`s all about the money.

You know, Republicans hate unions because of the boots on the ground, the
organization, the organized social networking that is taking place. Unions
are a driving force in getting people out to vote for Democrats. And make
no -- really no mistake about any of this. If it weren`t for the union
vote in this country, President Obama would have lost to Mitt Romney. You
could talk about organizing for America all you want, you leave those union
folks home, you leave those folks not going door-to-door, you leave those
boots on the ground gone, you leave that social networking out, Obama

Now, after Citizens United, Republicans, well, they got their money. But
Democrats have the people power and this is what`s being attacked here.
Righties are now trying to put the last nail in the coffin. In recent
years, we`ve seen an assault on unions and organization from Scott Walker`s
radical anti-union law, to right to work states across this country, the
threat is real and it is coordinated by big money Republicans and special
interest. It`s your voice folks.

24 states have now passed right-to-work legislation. Tell me how that
helps workers. It doesn`t. These states don`t require public sector union
workers to pay dues. The court made the big step towards nationalizing, I
think, right-to-work legislation today. The ripple effect from this
decision will be felt for years to come. It could cripple unions
politically and it will impact every American worker.

Now, in this particular case, it`s the home care workers in Illinois. Have
you ever been associated with a home care worker or ever seen them at work?
Maybe someday someone`s going to be providing for you and I guarantee you,
you`re going to think, "They`re damn important." But they`re only partial
employees according to this conservative Supreme Court.

The fact is it pays lousy. The representation is very weak except in some
parts of the country. They need a voice. And today, a conservative court
made sure that their voices are going to be a hell of a lot harder to hear,
because they have said, "It infringes on the right to free speech to make
sure that they are organized and pay union dues." It`s about the money and
it`s all about what Karl Rove was talking about.

And this also underscores that George W. Bush was one of the most effective
conservative president this country ever had. Tax cuts for the wealthy,
blow up the federal budget deficit to the point of no return and of course
now we`re fighting over entitlements, we have to have offsets, and he put
two conservatives on the Supreme Court. You saw the action of those
conservatives today.

We`ll have the story on war on women a little bit later on this broadcast
tonight. But the fact is about workers and about depressing wages, this
was a big blow to union organization and workers and in this case the home
care workers. Now, in some states, it`s a little bit different and we`ll
get to that.

But first, I want you to get your cellphones out. I want to know what you
think. Tonight`s question, "Does this ruling convince you conservatives
want to destroy workers` rights in America?" Text A for yes, text B for no
to 67622, you can always go to our blog at We`ll bring you
the results later on in the show.

Now, for more, I want to bring in Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota.
Because in the state of Minnesota, home care workers are organized, they`re
paid better, they have a voice, they`re well-represented. Congressman,
good to have you with us tonight, I appreciate your time.

Give us your thoughts, Keith, on this ruling by the Supreme Court today.


Well, it`s certainly a bad ruling. It violates, I believe, the president
and -- but it`s not going to stop us from organizing, it`s not going to
stop us from reaching out to people, working people, all over this country
and build a stronger voice.

As you know, Ed, they may have more money but we got more people and
organized people beat organized money. But these organized people do not
beat organized money. So we`ve got to organize people. You know the clip
you ran on to Karl Rove? Thank you for doing that. People have got to
know this is part of a larger plan and there was nothing legal or fair
about this decision. It simply was a little nugget in the plan to
disempower American workers so that we are at the mercy, the tender
mercies, of the corporate powers.

The fact is it`s a bad decision .

SCHULTZ: The bottom line .

ELLISON: . but we`re not going to be stopped and we`re not going to be
slowed down.

SCHULTZ: Well, this is a classic example of .


SCHULTZ: . chip away, chip away, chip away until you get exactly what you


SCHULTZ: Today was a big chip off the old block that the conservatives are
trying to destroy. Now, this is about income inequality, this is about
workers in Illinois that should have a voice .

ELLISON: Yes, it is about .

SCHULTZ: . that should have an opportunity to -- yeah, go ahead.

ELLISON: Yes, it is about income inequality. If you chart the way that
union density has declined over the years, you can track the decline and
stagnation of wages on the exact same chart and they attract together.

This is a blow to working people but it`s not just the economic blow, it is
an economic blow but it`s even more than that, it`s a political blow. It`s
trying to parlay the economic damage of suppressing wages and pushing down
the right to collective bargaining into a political advantage at the poll.
See, these people know they can`t win in a fair fight. So what are they
doing? They`re trying to suppress the vote, damage unions, damage
organizations that elevate the voice of working people.

And so .

SCHULTZ: Congressman .

ELLISON: . you know, what we`ve got to do, we`ve got to get a
reinvigoration. We can use this.

SCHULTZ: Congressman .


SCHULTZ: . is this an activist court? Is this a court that has gone
overboard against workers?

ELLISON: Well, Ed, you and I both remember well when people were accusing
the Supreme Court of being activist judges and any judge that help working
people are any judge that was fair on issues such as discrimination was an
activist judge. These are the most activist judges we have ever seen
whether it`s Citizens United, or hobby lobby which also came down, or
Harris vs. Quinn, this Supreme Court is extremely busy and doesn`t have
much regard for president at all.

In fact, in this case today, Harris vs. Quinn, Alito -- Justice Alito --
well, you know, it`s hard to call him Justice Alito but Mr. Alito actually
took a swing at a boot (ph) which is a case of many, many years of
president but spoke disparagingly about the case, "Thank goodness, it`s
still the law."

SCHULTZ: Congressman, I want to switch topics if I may. Earlier today,
President Obama announced a major move on immigration reform. The
president of course is convinced that Republicans will not pass immigration
reform this year. So, in regard, the president said today that he`s using
in an executive order to move resources to the border. Here it is.


of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security, it`s bad
for our economy, and it`s bad for our future.

So, while I will continue to push House Republicans to drop the excuses and
act and I hope their constituents will too, America cannot wait forever for
them to act. And that`s why today, I`m beginning a new effort to fix as
much more immigration system as I can on my own without Congress.

As a first step, I`m directing the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
Attorney General to move available and appropriate resources from our
interior to the border. Protecting public safety and deporting dangerous
criminals has been and will remain the top priority but we are going to
refocus our efforts where we can to make sure we do what it takes to keep
our border secure.


SCHULTZ: This is a very interesting move by the president. I think he`s
basically saying, "Boehner, you want to sue me? OK. I`m going to prove to
America that you`re not getting anything done on immigration reforms so I`m
going to move by executive order, moving resources from internally in the
United States now down to the border."

Congressman, what`s your take on this? What do you think of this move?

ELLISON: Well, the House Speaker, Mr. Boeher, has left the president with
very little other choice. I mean the United States of America is a country
that needs a new path on immigration reform. The Senate has passed a bill
a year ago. The speaker has told us that he`s not going to take any action
to help improve the situation, so the president has to.

So I support the president`s effort to try to do what he can to alleviate
the pain, the pressure, and the problems associated with the Republicans
refusal to act on immigration reform, you know.

And by the way, Ed, immigration reform would certainly help our economy.
The Congressional Budget Office has studied this issue as many things have
and the verdict is in, immigration reform would improve our economy, would
help put money in our nation`s coffers, would help improve the social life
of our America`s families, it would do a lot of good but we`re just not
seeing any action by the House Majority Leader -- I mean, the House

So the president needs to step up and I hope that, you know, the president
does take bold action because even if Speaker Boehner tries to sue him,
what it will show is that it`ll reveal even more clearly that the
Republican majority is more into obstruction than they are in progress for
the American people.

SCHULTZ: Well, the president`s approval rating obviously is not as good as
it has been in the past. But the facts are that this is an obstructionist
Congress, Boehner won`t bring things to the floor for a vote, the American
people want immigration reform and so the president who said that this was
a year of action is taking action. But is this -- what do you think
Boehner`s reaction is going to be to this? Will this move Republicans at

ELLISON: You know, I certainly hope it will move Republicans but when I
think of all the things that the American people want an overwhelming
numbers that Republicans have not acted on, you know, I wouldn`t hold my
breath for their action. 90 percent of Americans believe we need gun
background checks. The House Majority won`t do anything.

Upwards of 90 percent of American workers say that they would join union if
they could or they believe that workers should have a voice on the job yet,
you know, we see anti Davis-Bacon and the sort of move like that. I mean,
there are so many things that the American people want that they`re just
not getting. And quite frankly, this Republican majority does not
represent the will of the American people.

SCHULTZ: All right. Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota with us
tonight on the Ed Show, I appreciate your time so much. Have a great
fourth, enjoy the week. Thank you, Congressman.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter at Ed Show and also on Facebook,
like us on Facebook @wegoted as well and also at Ed Show. We want to know
what you think obviously.

Coming up, a major blow to separation of church and state opens the door to
workplace discrimination. The Rapid Response Panel weighs in on today`s
Supreme Court ruling for hobby lobby.

But first, Karl Rove`s imperial accusations and selective memory.

Trenders is next. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: What`s hot and what`s not. Time now for Trenders. Check us out
on twitter@edshow and of course at wegoted. Like us on Facebook. You can
get my podcast at, it`s growing everyday and of course in their 10th year and

And the Ed Show Social Media Nation has decided and we`re reporting. Here
are today`s top Trenders voted on by you.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The number three Trender, flight fright.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: An emergency landing for a United Airlines flight.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ladies and gentlemen, please calm down.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And after, an emergency escape slide opens while the
plane was in the air.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A mid-air mishap leaves L.A. bound passengers
grounded in Kansas.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We heard a big bang and a hiss.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it just filled the whole area back there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Passengers thought maybe the door had opened. It was
actually an accidental deployment of the slide.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The first thought I had was, "Gosh, I hope there`s no
one in the restroom because they`re not getting out for sometime.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The number two Trender, go fish.

SCHULTZ: Have you made plans to go fishing this summer?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I like fishing. Yes.

SCHULTZ: Big Eddie`s North Country lodge

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re going to need a bigger boat for this fish.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you quit it?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m trying to swim here.

SCHULTZ: Ice-out walleye`s north of the border.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you`re going to need a bigger boat.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And today`s top Trender, empty suit.

JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: Not does the president regularly
ignore the law, he brags about it.

OBAMA: So, we take these actions and then now, Republicans are mad at me
for taking these actions.

SCHULTZ: Executive orders are part of the job for the president of the
United States.

ROVE: This is imperial power. This is George III.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Karl Rove compares Bush and Obama`s executive power

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you honestly say that you believe this president is
going further than President Bush did in exercising this executive power?

ROVE: Oh, absolutely.

SCHULTZ: President Obama has issued the least amount of executive orders
in recent history.

ROVE: The constitution says in Article One, the legislative branch is the

OBAMA: I want to work with you but you got to give me something.

ROVE: It is not safe. The legislative power is shared between the
president and the Congress.

OBAMA: But they`ve decided they`re going to sue me for doing my job.

ROVE: This is some monarch to say, you know, "I am the law."


SCHULTZ: Joining us tonight is America`s lawyer, Mike Papantonio, host of
the Ring of Fire radio show. You hear him on progressive talk stations
around the country.

Mike, in fairness, I think you have been calling balls and strikes on
President Obama since day one. I mean, you hold them accountable. I think
I`ve been in that neighborhood as well going all the way back to the public

But on this one, isn`t it clear cut that the president has not used
executive orders as much other presidents? And Obama`s use of executive
order is under -- why is it under so much scrutiny by Republicans when
obviously he has used fewer than previous presidents? Your thoughts on
this. The numbers don`t lie.

MIKE PAPANTONIO, RING OF FIRE HOST: No, the guy out front on this is Rove.
Karl Rove is really the out front guy on this. And Karl Rove used to have
enough polish to separate himself from the Republican riffraff that`s
destroying the GOP. But something happened to Karl Rove that`s why we`re
hearing Rove out front on these talking points in places like Fox News.
Something happened after his televised meltdown in the last election.

We saw firsthand on camera as he became unhinged. He almost became
despondent about being wrong. And if people that observed Karl Rove that
night came and saying Karl Rove is different now. He`s willing to put
himself in that same class as Palin, Bachmann and Ted Cruz that`s why he`s
the guy out there saying -- talking about the imperial presidency. He is
the mouth piece even though Ronald Reagan used I think 380 executive
orders. You had Bush used 291 executive orders and here you have Obama
with about 180.

Rove and the people who surround Rove have always had a problem with the
truth. But right now on this issue, it`s hard to tell a lie because the
numbers speak for themselves

Look, Bush`s executive orders .


PAPANTONIO: . were absurd. Bush went as far as trying to shutdown stem
cell research with an executive order. He used it to side-step the Geneva
Convention by way of executive order. He used it to destroy the
possibility of having to look at presidential records. This was the most
active Republican group we had ever seen. And so this talk about imperial
presidency is something that even Karl Rove can`t tell a lie about. And
when he`s out front talking like this, you have to say, "Something`s
different. He`s just not right. He`s rolled himself .


PAPANTONIO: . in to that same kind of talk that just seem so fringe and so

SCHULTZ: Into the detail of it, Rove explained the way Bush`s use of
executive orders by saying that the president has a broader authority when
it comes to waging war. Now, he of course was picking on the president for
that of immigration.


SCHULTZ: Using was as the excuse. What about that?

PAPANTONIO: Well, I mean it`s not just -- the attack on Obama right now
and is broader than anyone`s specific issue. It`s really an attack getting
ready for Hillary Clinton. The next thing we`re going to hear is that
Hillary Clinton is one of the loyal enforcers of this imperial presidency
idea that the Democrats have moved towards this notion that they want a
king rather than a statesman.

And so, we`re going to start here in this with Hillary Clinton. Look,
there`s no talking point right now, Ed, that is too sophomoric for Fox News
to deliver. There`s no talking point. They`re too sophomoric for the GOP
to embrace as they are this talking point. The problem with this talking
point is it`s too easy to see through the lie because .


PAPANTONIO: . all you have to do is look at the numbers and the numbers
are startling .


PAPANTONIO: . when you make a comparison.

SCHULTZ: Well, let`s go to today`s action. Today, the White House said
that the president is going to take executive action on immigration after
John Boehner said that there would be no vote on immigration reform this
year. So the president took him at his word.

Do Republicans have any right to criticize the president on this? When
they clear earlier or standing on the way of progress where if you pull
this, the American people want something done on immigration reform. And
now, the president made the move today. What about all that?

PAPANTONIO: Very smart move by the president. Obama is saying, "Listen,
he is shedding a light on how dysfunctional this Republican Congress is."
He`s saying, "They won`t do it. They won`t do their job." And so we have
to have grown ups come in and handle this problem. It`s like home alone,
they`re inside the beltway.

So, Obama is separating himself from these children by saying, "I have to
take a leadership position. They elected me to take a leadership
position." And immigration, frankly, Ed, is the perfect issue for him to
take some leadership on.

SCHULTZ: All right. Mike Papantonio, America`s lawyer. Good to have you
with us tonight, Mike, I appreciate your time.

Still ahead, what today`s Supreme Court decision on hobby lobby means for
the separation of church and state? Rapid Response panel weighs in on

Plus, Louisiana`s science farce, a local candidate for the United States
Congress is testing the temperatures on climate denial.

But next, I`m taking your questions. Ask Ed Live just ahead here on the Ed
Show on MSNBC. We are right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Appreciate all the questions. We
have time of a couple every night. We love hearing from you. Tonight on
our Ask Ed Live segment, our first questions comes form Dave, "Has the
Supreme Court lost all legitimacy?"

Well coming up on the back half of this show, we`re going to be talking
about the war on women. And I would think that women in this country would
think, "Gosh, do they understand birth control? Do they understand
fairness?" Yeah, I think to progressives and fair minded Americans that
this Supreme Court is been a eye opener to a lot of Americans, they clearly
are agenda driven, they are bent to the right, big time and they`re not
fair to workers, they prove that today.

Our next question is from Jeff (ph). Interesting question here, "Do you
take a shower after work?"

Yes, I do. In this home studio here in Detroit Lakes, I`ve got high
intensity lights right here, we turn the air conditioning to 66 degrees
because it gets hot in this room but I end up sweat and pretty hard at the
end of this program. So eastern time at about five after six, if you`re
really concerned about that, big Eddy is taking a shower just down the

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next.

market wrap. Well market end higher for the month and the quarter but mix
on the day. The Dow falls 25 points, the S&P off a fraction, the Nasdaq
though, adding 10.

General Motors finish lower after they denounced another set of recalls
effecting 7.6 million vehicles with faulty ignition switches. It says it`s
aware of three death, eight injuries and 7 crushes involving into vehicles.

Other some encouraging news on housing, pending home sales jumps more than
6 percent last month.

That`s it from CNBC, we`re first in business, worldwide.



MITT ROMNEY: Corporations of people my friend. We can raise taxes at --
of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to
people. So, where do you think it goes? What happens? People got this.
OK, (inaudible) my friend.


SCHULTZ: Well Mitt Romney of course lost the election but he won with the
Supreme Court. Welcome back to the Ed Show. People laughed right in his
face in 2011 when Mitt Romney try to convince a crowd, corporations or
people. Well today the Supreme Court ruled businesses have the right to
religious freedom under federal law, extending first amendment protections
to corporations. Today, corporate personhood is no longer a laughing

In Burwell versus Hobby Lobby, a divided Supreme Court ruled five to four
that closely held corporations can not be required to provide contraception
coverage for their employees. Hobby Lobby, a Christian owned craft supply
store had challenged the Affordable Care Act`s contraception mandate, on
the grounds that it violated their religious freedom by requiring them to
pay for contraception methods, they find morally objectionable.

Conservatives are out in full force this day calling this a win for
religious liberty, don`t be fooled. This ruling isn`t a victory for the
millions of American who practice different faiths. Their right to
religious freedom is already protected by the first amendment. This is a
victory for people of faith privileged enough to own and operate a for-
profit corporation. This is a victory for conservatives in the war on
women, which is now being fought by some of the members on the highest
federal court in the United States or America.

As the final interpreter if federal constitution law -- constitutional law,
the Supreme Court set a dangerous press event today. No matter how
narrowly this decision was written, it opens the flood gates for litigation
enabling employers to deny other forms of healthcare to their employees on
religious grounds. Out founding father sought to create a government with
a wall of separation between church and states. Today some of that wall
came crushing down.

Joining me tonight in our Rapid Response panel, Terry O`Neill, President of
the National Organization for Women and Syndicated Columnist Connie
Schultz. Great to have both of you with us tonight.

Terry, you first, are you surprised? What was your reaction in today`s
ruling? I mean, clearly most Americans think that this is a move of

discriminatory Ed. And I think it`s very important to remember that
unintended pregnancy kills, it is literally deadly. Unintended pregnancy
is highly correlated with infant mortality, maternal mortality and it`s a
significant risk factor for domestic violence homicide.

The man on the Supreme Court who ruled against women in the Hobby Lobby
case simply disregarded the welfare and lives of women and of infants. So
to suggest that there`s somehow religion can be used as a justification to
block women from accessing birth control, which is basic healthcare for
women, is absolutely outrageous.

And my prediction is that having taken the Supreme Court down the road of
being simply another activist, political organization, John Roberts is not
going to have very much influence over the long run of the legal of the
constitutional law of this country.

SCHULTZ: Connie Schultz, certainly what your thoughts on this but doesn`t
-- isn`t this slippery slope? I mean, where is this going to end? Is this
just the beginning? Your thoughts?

CONNIE SCHULTZ, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well that`s part of the problem we
don`t know, we don`t know just how far reaching this decision could be.
I`ve been hearing a number of stories this afternoon including Aaron Blake
in the Washington Post that really outline just how many companies we`re
talking about when you talk about this closely held companies.

When you look at the long-term thought Ed, I must say I`m every hopeful
that this is nudging us in the direction of single payer, because that is
going to be the way to prevent this sort of discrimination against women.
And let us not forget that what the Hobby Lobby and family oppose with the
owner, it was oppose to, based on his beliefs was forms of birth control
that do not cause abortion, that was not based on science.


C SCHULTZ: So we start with that (inaudible), that false rendering of what
the medication does and then we make it -- he has closely held the leave,
whatever that suppose to mean and we`re depriving women of birth control.
And if you make it harder for women to get -- to have access to affordable
birth control, you will have more abortions because there will be more
unplanned pregnancies.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. You know, Terry, does this put the government between you
and your doctor?

O`NEILL: You know, it puts women`s bosses between them and their doctor
Ed. And it`s very difficult to see as Connie said and as other have said,
how is not a huge deeply troubling decision for employees all across the
spectrum. It does not protect employees from their boss deciding, well I
don`t like blood transfusions or their boss deciding, "Well I don`t like
the LGBT community, I`m going to withhold healthcare from them." It.


O`NEILL: .is very troubling because it is a slippery slope in that way.
But I think it`s also really important to remember.


O`NEILL: Sorry. You know, a apartheid.

SCHULTZ: You know, the court the -- go ahead.

O`NEILL: A apartheid in South Africa was justified on religious grounds.
The Southern Baptist convention justified slavery and later Jim Crow in
segregation on religious grounds. There are some religious beliefs that we
no longer honor in our government and the Supreme Court is simply wrong to
honor gender bigotry that Hobby Lobby stores and (inaudible) are promoting.
That`s just wrong. It`s bigotry to keep women away from having basic

SCHULTZ: You know, obviously the court deciding that religious freedom
Restoration Act applies to private, commercial enterprises, I would imagine
there will be a flood of objections and lawsuits coming forward. Hey, what
about us? You know, I mean, every company`s going to be setting up saying
that now. And no other court has ever made that determination Connie.
What does this mean for the future of separation for church and state?

C SCHULTZ: Well that gets to the next of the question and I have to tell
you as a Christian, I am so offended by the notion that to be a Christian
means you want to harm women. And as -- much of the polling as shown to
majority of Americans who identify as religious Americans, people of faith
also oppose this ruling and oppose it before it came down.

So I want to make it clear here that they`re not speaking for all
Christians, Hobby Lobby, when you decide to go after this essential women`s
right to her reproductive freedom and to basic medical care. Look at the
options now, if your not covered by a private insurer, if you`ve enrolled
in the exchange recover or you`re going to be dependent on organizations
like plan parenthood, I`m assuming -- I talked to number of people who plan
parenthood today. I`m hopeful that a lot more contributions are going into
them for this very purpose, to cover the healthcare of women who will not
be able to afford it.

SCHULTZ: And of course what is this mean for women employed by
corporations who deny contraception on moral grounds, it means that women
are going to be hurt. So I would then sure to say that science.

C SCHULTZ: Well in this whole world.

SCHULTZ: Go ahead, go ahead.

C SCHULTZ: I`m sorry Ed, I apologize for that. It`s just that I don`t

SCHULTZ: No, no.

C SCHULTZ: .we ever seed an inch to them on this notion of the moral high
ground, that to me would be the point.


C SCHULTZ: .of this impart, because I consider myself a very moral person.
If part of my morality means taking care of America`s families and that has
to mean taking of America`s women.

SCHULTZ: And for this Supreme Court to allow ideology to get in the middle
of all of that, I just think is repulsive and.

C SCHULTZ: Yes it is.

SCHULTZ: .I thin it`s going to -- you know, I mean this really, if there
was any question about whether there`s a bunch of ideology (ph) on the
right, sitting on that court, this one certainly answers it, doesn`t it?

O`NEILL: You know Ed, I think it does. The Supreme Court has jumped a
full pledged into the war on women, they are now waging more on women. And
I would tell you, if the equal right amendment were part of the
constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court, I don`t believe could
have decided Hobby Lobby the way it did and I don`t think it would have
been able.


O`NEILL: .to decide the buffer zone case the way it did, where it said,
"Buffer zones, no, not for women seeking reproductive healthcare or
abortion care but yes, buffer zones` protecting Supreme Court justices
themselves at the Supreme Court building. With an ERA they wouldn`t have
been able to do that.

SCHULTZ: Science lost today, no doubt and so did women in a big, big way.
Terry O`Neill, Connie Schultz, great to have both of you with us tonight on
this very important subject, no doubt, thanks so much.

Coming up, the effects of the BP deepwater horizon spill are still being
felt in the Gulf. No one is talking about the resources, because we`re
seeing all these wonderful commercials. Brent Coon joins me to discuss the
lasting impact. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, climate shame, Lenar Whitney. The
raging climate denier would say Louisiana congressional seat. She wants to
win in her latest television commercial. Whitney says, she`s blown the lid
of climate change.


LENAR WHITNEY: Recently in my announcement speech for congress here in
Louisiana, I said something very provocative. I said that global warming
is a hoax. Any 10 year old can invalidate their thesis with one of the
simplest scientific devices known to man, a thermometer, a specter is
haunting America. It is perhaps the greatest deception in the history of

Energy security is real, Global warming is not. It is merely a strategy
design to give more power to the executive branch, while increasing taxes
in a progressive dream to regulate every aspects of American life.


SCHULTZ: Wow, she`ll be a star on Duck Dynasty pretty soon, don`t you
think? Saying that you can disprove climate change with a thermometer, is
like saying you`ve seen the cleanest barrel of oil.


SEN.MARY LANDRIEU, [D] LOUISIANA: A critical in my view piece of
infrastructure that will transport safely the cleanest barrel of oil
produced in North America.


SCHULTZ: Must be a Louisiana thing. Either way denying science hurts
Louisiana`s environment. If Lenar Whitney thinks waving a thermometer will
ease the facts, she can keep on pretending.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. This is the story for the folks who
take a shower after work. An oil spill shutdown a major interstate highway
causing traffic issues for residents in Patoka, Illinois today.

Official say a leak occurred in one of the lines at the holding area for a
half a dozen major oil refineries who process crude. Now, this highway
closure is an immediate impact of a spill but an environment impact can be
long lasting. A perfect example of that of course is happening in the Gulf
of Mexico.

Four years, four years after the deepwater horizon disaster, BP has been
running television commercial saying that the Gulf is open for business.
These ads are very misleading at best.

BP officially ended its clean up from this spill in June of 2013 but the
condition of the Gulf coast is far from clean. In 2013 alone, 4.6 million
pounds of oiled material was collected out of the Gulf. That`s right, 4.6

Now BP did not clean up after itself. Now it`s trying to get money back.
Get this. Now they`re trying to get money back from businesses who claimed

BP wants a federal judge to order restitution for what the oil company says
are hundreds of millions of dollars in overpayments. The greedy oil giant
thinks its odd money when businesses in the Gulf were still suffering.

The largest shrimp buyer in Louisiana explained just how bad it is.


DEAN BLANCHARD, LOUISIANA SHRIMP BUYER: It`s ridiculous. I mean, you got
stuff like on 60 minute show and the people are collecting money. We
haven`t collected none since in 2010 but what they`re not showing you, they
got documentaries like Vanishing Pearl that are showed that BP people just
$5,000. That made -- they`re living on the Gulf.

It`s a shame what they did. I mean, it`s -- there`s a lot of people
suffering now. And everyday we got to see it. I mean BP ought to be
ashamed for themselves and the government ought to be ashamed on themselves
for allowing it happen.


SCHULTZ: And of course the situation hasn`t change. Oil companies are
trashing the environment and not cleaning off after their own message.
What other conclusion could we come to?

Brent Coon, attorney joins us again tonight here on the Ed Show. Brent,
good to have you with us.

This is utterly amazing that BP record profits money offshore, you got
right on down the list, they are the corporate world and they are claiming
overpayments when businesses in the Gulf are still suffering financial lost
because of the spill. Capsulize what is unfolding here for us Brand.

BRENT COON, BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES: You know Ed, good question. First,
we`ve probably have two or three points to make there. First, from being
on a show number of times and all the commentators you got before dealing
with BP, they really should change in the name to BS. Because as we know
in this case, in the many cases we`ve been involved in before, BP has once
again lied to the courts, they`ve lied to Congress, they`ve lied to the
claims that`s in the victims and they have repeatedly lied to the press
about what`s going on.

And because they have so much money to engage on those practices and to
lied on the press, most people do not know what`s really going on because
they tend to believe what is being reported by BP and what is basically
bought and paid for advertising. So here`s what we do know, we do know
that BP announce a settlement two years ago, they have not paid 75 percent
of the claims submitted in that process two years later. They have instead
appeal those issues to the very Supreme Court you were talking about
earlier, which is very conservative and which is very sympathetic to big

While they have paid all the small portion of those claims, they`ve now
going back and filed the motions with the original Trial Court to get the
money back from the people they`ve already paid. So one, they haven`t paid
many people and two to the extent they have. They have filed this crazy
motion asking for their monies back.

In addition to that, there`s a separate settlement program that BP runs and
of the case that`s submitted there, tens of thousands that they have too.
So, what do you do with a company like that? When our government continues
to allow them to operate while they are convicted felon, they were
convicted felons of manslaughter, for killing all of those folks in Texas

They`re on probation for that when they blew up this rig and yet our
government still lifted a Debarment and allows them to drill even today,
even while the Department of Justice is suing them. They`re still allowing
them to produce oil and make money.

SCHULTZ: And so, finally Brent, what we`re seeing here is a big
corporation and multi-national saying, "We`ll show you how deep our pockets
are at the end of the day. We can beat the working guy. We can beat those
families. It`s just going take a little bit time and we`ll starve them
right on out." Is that what`s happening?

COON: Well sure, they`re worn out everyone. They`ve worn out the court
system, they certainly worn out the claimants and discourage them from even
trying to pursue their claims anymore. And when look at the mess they`ve
left, we know that there is more than a billion pounds of this Corexit
mixed emulsified oil still in the go for Mexico.

Most of this oil by BP was deliberately driven down into the substrate,
into the subsea and on the bottom of the ocean to get out of the visibility
of the media so they could hide and lie about how much the spill. You may
remember when they were testifying in Congress, they sworn that.


COON: .it`s only a thousand barrels a day spilling. And in fact it turned
out to be.


COON: .over 50,000 barrels a day.

SCHULTZ: The story will continue. The environmental impact is a show in
itself and we`re going to -- we`re right on down that road, this is the
next big story that has to be uncovered, what is happening to our
environment and the Gulf.

Brent Coon, it is great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your
help telling the story. Thank you so much.

That is the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. Politics Nation with Reverend Al
Sharpton starts right now.

Good evening Rev.


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>

The Ed Show Section Front
Add The Ed Show headlines to your news reader:

Sponsored links

Resource guide