showdown at the u.s. supreme court, where arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration seemed to get quite a sympathetic reception from the justices. the obama administration contends the law steps on powers that are exclusive to the federal government, but as cnn's kate balduan reports here, there may be a majority of justices who see things differently. >> reporter: inside the courtroom, the conservative majority appeared to lean toward upholding at least part of the arizona law. just antonin scalia suggesting if the federal government isn't doing the job, states may be justified stepping in. asking, "what does state sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?" the justices focus on the law's most controversial measure, that law enforcement check people's immigration status if the officers have reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally. the white house and its supporters argued that intrudes on what is exclusively federal authority over immigration. >> the justices are concerned about a system of mass incarceration that's going to catch u.s. citizens and immigrants who are lawfully in the united states. >> reporter: but for the obama administration challenging the state law, it was another uphill battle. chief justice john roberts indicated the arizona law is meant to help by alerting federal immigration officials to who is in the country illegally, nothing more. and he questioned washington's commitment to solving the problem. quote, it seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not. even liberal justice sonia sotomayor bluntly told solicitor general part of his argument wasn't, quote, selling very well. adding, "why don't you try to come up with something else." and a signal that the justices are aware of just how politically divisive this issue has become, the chief justice made a point to ask the government lawyer, even before he began making his argument, to clarify that the government's challenge has nothing to do with racial or ethnic profiling. instead, being solely focused on the narrow legal question at hand. the solicitor general agreed, but the remark really seemed to be, john, designed to head off any possible criticisms that the justices may face in an election year. >> i suspect, kate, those criticisms will come anyway, once they issue a decision down the road, most likely in june. among those -- thank you, kate. and among those who think this is a tough day in court for the federal government and the obama administration is our cnn senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobin. why? >> the justices just did not seem sympathetic to the argument that this was an invasion of federal power. all the justices who spoke, including the liberals, seemed to say, look, all this law does, at least the part that they were talking about, is it identifies who is in the country illegally and then informs the federal government that those people are in the country illegally. it doesn't force the government to do anything. it doesn't tell the federal government to do anything. so federal power is not disturbed. that seemed to be a broad consensus, perhaps even a unanimous consensus of the court, and that's not good for the position the obama administration was taking. >> and nine justices, but in this case, the math is a little different because of justice kagan, right? >> right. justice kagan recused herself, she didn't say why, but presumably it's because she participated in some of the deliberations about this issue when she was solicitor general. that just makes this an even more uphill case for the obama administration, because she tends to take positions that are sympathetic to her former colleagues in the justice department. >> and jeff, this case is about state versus federal power. where's the line? the health care challenge is about state versus federal power. where's the line? how important is this court going to be on that question when we get these two and a couple other decisions? >> well, this is just a term of epic, epic importance. frankly, i think this case is less significant, because the issues are more narrow, they're more technical. the health care case is about the power of the federal government, period. in an area where the federal government has been operating health care for decades. that case could redefine the nation of the federal government. this case, i think, is much more about how the government, the federal government and the states operate at the margins. it's important, but i don't think it's nearly as important as the health care case. >> our senior legal analyst, jeff toobin, thanks for your help and insights. in the next half hour, we're going to speak to the arizona governor, jan brewer. she was there and she said she came out of today's supreme court hearing very encouraged and very confident. that conversation a bit ahead. moving to politics, newt gingrich plans to suspend his presidential campaign next week and endorse mitt romney. this morning, fresh off a five-state campaign sweep last night, mitt romney phoned the former speaker to ask for his support. in north carolina today, gingrich said he's working out the details of his campaign's traditi transition. >> i am committed to this party, i am committed to defeating obama. we will find ways to try to be helpful. i think it is pretty clear that governor romney is ultimately going to be the nominee. and we'll do everything we can to make sure that he is, in fact, effective. >> it is now, without a doubt, mitt romney's republican party. let's consider the challenges ahead. cnn's chief political analyst gloria borger and joe klein. mitt romney gave a big speech in new hampshire last night. he said it was his pivot to the general election. he knows the president is making the case that the republican economic plans are not fair to middle class and working americans. listen to governor romney. >> we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the very taxpayers they serve. and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next. >> how important, gloria, is it that governor romney changed the dynamics of this fairness fight? >> i think it's really important. i think what they've decided to do is start playing offense instead of defense, when it comes to the fairness issue, and what you're going to hear from mitt romney over and over again is that there are unfair ways in which the government operates and so he wants to kind of play a little on the president's turf. i think it's risky, particularly given the polling that shows that americans are -- that a majority of americans are with the president when it comes to the tax issue and the fairness issue on taxes, for example. but i do think it's sort of a look at what's to come, that he's not going to lay back and say, okay, that's the president's turf, not mine. >> and part soft same conversation, joe, a play on words we became quite familiar with back in 1992 in the clinton campaign. he said president obama's going to try to distract and divert, but it's about the economy, and we're not stupid, governor romney's point. how effective or how much more do they have to do, i guess, to get command of the economic argument? >> well, i think it's his strongest argument. that and the ability to manage the government. when romney came in, remember, last year, at the very outset, that was his pitch. and it was a very strong pitch. and then he allowed himself to be dragged into all of these right-wing social issues and a lot of other diversions, speaking of diversions, and in his stump speech and his campaign had lost its focus. if, you know, if romney has a chance, i think he has a very good one, it's going to be on the issues of how you're feeling economically and do you think the federal government is out of control. >> and so the message is one thing, the economics will be at the front and center of that. what about the mechanics, gloria, including the great luxury, the president of not having a primary challenge. look at these numbers. cash on hand as we speak today, the obama campaign, $104 million, plus a little change. the romney campaign, $10 million and a little change. the president of the united states has $94 million in the bank than his opponent. how much does that matter? >> i think it does matter an awful lot. but i think mitt romney has a lot of opportunity now to raise an awful lot of money. i think he'll be raising a lot of money off of wall street, if i had to guess, and i think you'll see the republican party and mitt romney be at much more parody with the democrats and president obama than they were, say, in 2008. i think it's a completely different playing field right now. and i think mitt romney is going to be very close to parody with the president. >> you hear only good things when you talk to republicans. they say they have a very good relationship integrating with the national committee. they expect to not -- you know, they have a lot of challenges ahead to raise this money, but -- >> mitt romney could have 47 cents in the bank and still be fine because of super pacs. i mean, that's going to even the playing field. republicans are going to have a gazillion dollars to throw up against the president and the president's having some trouble raising must be from his big donors in the past. >> fascinating campaign, 195 days from today, you vote. joe klein, gloria borger, thanks for being here to help tonight. day three of the john edwards' trial. the former presidential candidate is charged with using campaign money to help cover up an affair. and today we got new details of how some of that cash was allegedly spent on his mistress. according to edwards' former aide, andrew young, more than $30,000 was spent on her car, more than $35,000 for her rental house, and $40,000 just for cash expenses. our joe johns was in the courtroom listening to all the testimony today. and joe, you learned a lot today about the unraveling friendship and relationship between andrew young, that former top aide, and senator edwards. >> reporter: that's true, but i also think the other thing we learned, john, is about how people surrounding john edwards and even john edwards himself seem to be just a little bit delusional about what kind of situation they were in in the early months of 2008, after it became pretty clear that they was not going to become the presidential nominee for the democrats, they started talking about him becoming the vice presidential nominee, which frankly was kind of shocking, given all the problems he had with the media following him around, trying to find out his relationship with rielle hunter and whether he was the father of the child. it sort of all blew up in two points, we heard, in testimony today from the prosecution. one was when rielle hunter and john edwards were photographed at the hotel in los angeles, the beverly hilton, together. that caused huge problems and made donors very concerned that he wasn't going to survive this. and then a little bit later, when they decided they had to do something else, they actually went to one of the big money donors, bunny mellon, and asked for $50 million. she got very mad at them and said they were just using her for her money. finally, end of the day, with andrew young on the stand, testified, a lonesome road here in north carolina. he and john edwards had it out. john edwards would not clear his name and say rielle hunter had had his baby, and the rest is history, of course. andrew young wrote a tell-all book about it and here we are, john? >> a lot of sordid details as we get to the key question, whether campaign finance violations. joe johns tracking that. and tonight the presidential race enters a new phase. as president obama prepares to take on mitt romney, we're focusing on the issues that will decide the election, starting with jobs. and later, the arizona governor jan brewer explains why she feels very confident after today's big supreme court hearing on her state's immigration law. see life in the best light. [music] transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses. according to the signs, ford is having some sort of big tire event. i just want to confirm a w things with fiona. how would you describe the event? it's big. no,i mean in terms of savings how would you sum it up? big in your own words, with respect to selection, what would you say? big okay, let's talk rebates mike, they're big they're big get $100 rebate, plus the low price tire guarantee during the big tire event. so, in other words, we can agree that ford's tire event is a good size? big big with his sweep of five primaries last night, the republican national committee now ready to call the former massachusetts governor mitt romney the presumptive republican nominee. so game on between the romney and obama campaigns and the message machines. both men previewing their general election message on issue number one, the economy. listen. >> what do we have to show for 3 1/2 years of president obama? it's still about the economy, and we're not stupid. >> this isn't about class warfare. we want every american to succeed. that's the point. i want all of you to be rich. i want all of you to be successful. >> so who do the voters believe have the right strategy? joining me here in new york, glenn hubbard, an economic adviser to the romney campaign, and in chicago tonight, austan goolsbee, the former chief economist for barack obama. first, austan, fairness has been a big question in the campaign. i was just talking to gloria and joe klein about this. i want you to listen here, governor romney trying to take on the fairness divide, essentially posing his version of the ronald reagan question, are you better off than you were four years ago? >> we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the very taxpayers they serve. and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next. >> that's different sound than i expected there, but you get the point, austan. he also said, what do we have to show for 3 1/2 years? is it easier to make ends meet? is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? how does the president answer that question with when governor romney tries to make it a referendum on his record? >> well, if you burn down the back half of your house, it's probably not the right time to complain that it takes too long to rebuild it. i mean, the policies, that it strikes me, that governor romney's proposing are multi-trillion-dollar, high-income oriented tax cuts, which are exactly like what we did in the 2000s, which did not work. so until somebody's providing evidence of what mitt romney's proposing actually would generate different results than it generated the last time we did them, i don't think that that's going to be the strategy that we take. >> well, glenn, come in on that point. because essentially you have two narratives here. governor romney is going to say, nice guy, not up to the job, especially on the economy. president obama is going to say, this is back to the future. been there, done that. electing romney is going back to the bush years. where were all the jobs then? >> well, it's not back to the future. what governor romney has proposed is radical tax reform. it is not a net tax cut. there's a lot of base broadening that goes as well. but what it is is pro-growth and pro-investment and pro-jobs. that's forward looking and that's where he is. >> austan, your friend here, mr. hubbard, wrote a piece in the "wall street journal" today, essentially saying that president obama wants to raise everybody's taxes. true? >> no, wiof course not. look, the thing that glen -- glen and i have been friends for a very long time. i thought he went way over the line today in the "wall street journal," claims about the budget that nobody, including the nonpartisan congressional budget office, agrees with. they were numbers that are not accurate, so i don't think that it's true at all. >> is what you wrote not credible? your numbers not accurate? >> there were two points i made in the piece, one was to take the obama department's own revenue actions and show they don't raise enough to make much of a difference in the fiscal struggle. the second is to say if you want to keep the president's higher spending, that means you've got to take a strategy to cut spending, that's governor romney, or you have to raise taxes on other people. that's not economics, that's just math. >> austan? >> well, take the math that comes from the congressional budget office. it show ifs you adopt the president's budget without raising taxes on the middle class, it stabilizes the deficit and debts as a share of gdp, going out over the next ten years. the answer coming from the romney camp, as i read it, and i'm not working for the campaign, and i don't think people should listen to an ex-obama administration official or a romney campaign operative. go look at the congressional budget office report yourself. and what you can see is that while the obama budget is trying to stabilize the debt-to-gdp ratio, the romney budget, according to objective budget observers, is blowing up the deficit. it's crushing social security and medicare by more than 25% while simultaneously putting in $3 trillion of tax cuts. so to say that they're broadening the base when the base broadners they've discussed are one-tenth to have the cost of the tax cuts, just doesn't make any sense. as i say, it's just not mathematically correct. so i really don't think they should be pushing that argument. >> a quick rebuttal there? >> the goal is not to stabilize debt-to-gdp at an already very high level, the goal is to bring it down. >> then why increase the deficit? >> romney would bring down gdp back to 20%, to where it used to be, and do so without raising taxes. we can do that. that's just simple arithmetic. but we cannot accommodate the higher spending without raising taxes. >> the defining question in the election, gentleman, thanks for your help tonight. still ahead here, deadly chaos makes a mockery of the syrian government's promise of a cease-fire. so what should the world do now? but next, why there's sudden hope for a little girl that's been missing since 2007. it was very delicious. could you please taste car insurance y? this one is much more expensive. ugh. it's really bad. let's see what you picked. oh, geico! over their competitor. you are a magician right? no., oh. you're not?, no., oh, well, give it a shot. i am so, so sorry. it was this close. for a hot dog cart. my mother said, "well, maybe we ought to buy this hot dog cart and set it up someplace." so my parents went to bank of america. they met with the branch manager and they said, "look, we've got this little hot dog cart, and it's on a really good corner. let's see if we can buy the property." and the branch manager said, "all right, i will take a chance with the two of you." and we've been loyal to bank of america for the last 71 years. where they grow america's favorite wpotatoes. idaho, everyone knows idaho potatoes taste great. but did you know they're good for you too? they're high in vitamins and potassium. and idaho potatoes are now certified to carry the heart checkmark from the american heart association for foods low in saturated fat and cholesterol. so they're good for my family, and for yours. heart smart idaho potatoes. always look for the grown in idaho seal. welcome back. here's kate balduan with the laidest news you need to know. >> marine sergeant gary stine has been did discharged with an other