0 good afternoon. and it is a very busy wednesday. with just 48 hours to prevent a series of devastating cuts that will certainly slow down our economic recovery and may even tip the nation back into recession. but we begin this hour with a moment which proves that the good folk of the nation's capitol have no sense of irony whatsoever. almost 60 years after rosa parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in montgomery, alabama, the president and congressional leaders from both parties unveiled a statue in honor of the late civil rights pioneer. >> rosa parks' singular act of disobedience launched a movement. the tired feet of those who walked the dusty roads of montgomery helped a nation see that to which it had once been blind. protect blacks and hispanics from state and local governments who might have been tempted to suppress that right. it is section 5 of the act that requires jurisdictions in 16 states to secure approval from the justice department before changing voting laws. interestingly, the law was used effectively just last year to protect voters in states like florida and texas. but despite these very recent examples, chief justice john roberts has said things have changed in sne south. he says the voting rights act now raises series constitutional questions. but here's the response of one man who paid for his right to vote with blood, sweat, concussion, and tears. >> we still need section 5 and that's why we're here today standing up for the voting rights of all americans. >> let's turn now to pete williams who joins us live from the supreme court. pete is our justice correspondent. as i understand it, this is an opportunity for the supreme court to consider whether racial discrimination at the voting booth is still a serious challenge for voters and whether the voting rights act is still necessary. you've been following the day's proceedings. what's your impression of how members of the court see the issue? >> my impression, martin, is that at least five members of the court have doubts about the constitutionality of this law. what they're concerned about is not the idea of the preclearance requirement. it's the practice of where it's applied. the question here is is the area covered by the law a close enough fit to where the problem is? now, the court's more liberal members say it is close enough. if you look, for example, at the states covered by the law in the south, even though they account for only 25% of the nation's population, they account for over half of the successful voter discrimination lawsuits. suggesting it's working where the problem is. but chief justice roberts, for example, pointed out that massachusetts has a worse record of registering and getting blacks to turn out to vote than mississippi does. suggesting that it doesn't fit where the problem is. so that's what i think the question is going to come down to here, martin. is the court going to strike the down the preclearance requirement? or perhaps the coverage map part of the law and send it back to congress and say if you still care about this, then draw us a new map. that is certainly how it looked after the oral argument today. it's always tricky to predict based on what you hear in the courtroom. and who knows what will happen when the justices all get together and actually stair at the abyss about whether they really want to strike down what everyone agrees is the most successful civil rights law of all time. >> justice correspondent pete williams, thank you, sir. strongly. and the voting rights act was put in force because there were so many people being discriminated against. and so i disagree with him wholeheartedly. then there was something else that was said by one of the justices -- conservative justices. they said they didn't believe that the congress should -- are in a position to decide the question regarding section 5. that's quite insulting. we do have three branches of government. i think we can decide quite well -- and keep in mind, martin. we just reauthorized the voting rights act back in 2006. 98-0 in the senate. and 300 and something to 33 in the house. and that was just in 2006. the question is what's happened since 2006? and i would submit that we need to look at what happened in 2008. the election of barack obama. >> jonathan, the congressman raises that as an issue, 2008. but isn't it the case that in 2012 what we've just been through is plentiful evidence of people trying to suppress the vote whether in alaska, texas, north carolina, ohio, florida? pennsylvania. i mean, how many times did that happen? >> it happened a lot. and it happened so much that people in 2012 were thinking wait a minute. what year are we in? we hadn't seen that kind of effort to suppress the vote in a very long time. the idea -- now, look. it's a good thing that the justices are asking tough questions, the right questions. andrea mitchell earlier in the afternoon did an interview with eiffel. and she said the liberal justices on the court also asked for tough questions of the solicitor general who's arguing on behalf of the government. against the shelby defendants, if you will. so as pete said, we can't read too much into what -- into the conservative justices' questions. but when you have antonin scalia talking about racial entitlement, that should send a shiver through people's pines about what could happen. >> isn't this an attempt to institutionalize gerrymandering. because we've already seen gerrymandering of congressional districts. but if this were allowed to happen -- if this voting rights act were struck down, this would give an institutional flavor to the ability of suppressing the vote wherever you like. >> if section 5 or the entire voting rights act were to be struck down, then what that for all intensive purposes says is the state legislatures can then go in and change their state election. >> no reference to the federal government. >> absolutely. federal government under a republican or democrat would have virtually no say in what those districts looked like. you can't beat 'em, cheat 'em. cheat them out of their electoral rights. disenfranchise them, and that's the way republicans can win. >> i think there's little question about that. when we look at this past election. of course martin, you know my committee has been looking into this whole voting situation looking at true to vote going around challenging registered voters and at the same time challenging people at the polls. and we saw of course the efforts getting a bit of early voting or reducing it substantially. and in many instances folks saying that is their intention. it was their intention to make sure that african-americans and hispanics did not vote. clearly if there was a time for the voting rights act and section 5, it is now. >> right now. >> if it was not in place, we would have to create it. >> absolutely. jimmy, what happens if section 5 of the voting rights act is knocked down? does it go back to the congress? and what happens when it's considered by the congress? >> when they passed the 15th amendment it gave congress a huge amount of latitude, if you will, to do whatever they need to do legislatively under that amendment to the constitution. if the court strikes down section 5 and even worse section 2 which applies to the entire country, then the congress would have to go back in and would have to rewrite essentially a brand new voting rights act. and if that's the case, you have a democratic senate not with the fill bust -- without a filibuster proof majority. you have a republican led house. again i go back to what i said before. a congress under republicans in the house and democrats in the senate would have to rewrite the act, it would look starkly different than in 1965. >> do you agree? >> absolutely. and not better at all. >> jimmy williams, jonathan capehart, and congressman elijah cummings. congressman i know you rushed out from a vote to join us. thank you. >> my pleasure. next, a republican congressman who doesn't think sequester cuts enough. truly. stay with us. >> whenever you're on television particularly live television where you can't edit and do it again, you got to tell the folks everything. >> quite frankly you are the worst excuse for a journalist i've ever seen. >> i am the what? i can't hear you? >> the worst. ♪ ♪ vo:wiplus wireless speaker,rhead bold is the proud sponsor of singing in the shower. this is so so soft. hey hun, remember you only need a few sheets. hmph! [ female announcer ] charmin ultra soft is so soft you'll have to remind your family they can use less. ♪ charmin ultra soft is made with extra cushions that are soft and more absorbent. plus you can use four times less. hope you saved some for me. mhmm! you and the kids. we all go. why not enjoy the go with charmin ultra soft.