Live Breaking News & Updates on Now msnbc supreme court
Stay updated with breaking news from Now msnbc supreme court. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
over but will land on the side of recognizing the right of same-sex marriage. >> they have the option to announce it tomorrow or monday, which is their last day for announcements. with the funeral of state senator clementa pinckney and the president speaking at the funeral, a large, important event, is that the kind of thing where the court would say even if they planned to release it on friday, let's wait, let's let south carolina have that day. let's release it monday? >> no. the justices don't think like that. when they are ready to go, they go. they just don't concern themselves about what is happening in the rest of the world with almost no exception. >> tom goldstein, thank you for joining us tonight. appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> we will have coverage of that funeral for state senator clementa pinckney here on msnbc tomorrow. the funeral is scheduled to start at approximately 11:30 a.m. our coverage will continue both
bytes from justice kennedy. they maybe in contrast to each other and me maybe the one who decides it. >> this definition has been with us for millennia. and it's very difficult for the court to say, oh well we know better. same-sex couples say of course we understand the know billty and sacredness of marriage. we know we can't pro create but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we too have dignity that should be fulfilled. >> which of those thoughts is more likely to guide justice kennedy. >> the second. justice kennedy has been a hero to the gay rights movement. he's been the justice in the center of the court that provided the fifth vote for recognizing laws that discriminate against homosexuals are a form of discrimination. he really mulls the questions over but will land on the side
recognizes things like this within a few months and they used to always pass these bills called technical corrections. that sentence should be fixed a little bit and even people that voted against the bill will would vote for the technical correction. because it should be what they technically intended. >> i think we are hung up on the specific language. i think what was so strong about the chief justice's opinion is he steps back from that and looks as the statute as a whole. it doesn't matter how messy the process was. one of the interesting ironies of the way the case comes out is of all of the members of the court it is justice scalia who says don't bother me by talking about legislative history and what happened in committee and who said what, blah, blah, blah, just give me the statute. chief justice quoted the scalia opinions, give me the statute as a whole. give me a statute as a coherent whole.
on campaign finance. you could say they did it again on the voting rights act. but this time as linda said this was such a flimsy case that if the court really would have brought unbelievable discredit on itself and i think threatened its own legitimacy if it had tossed obamacare on this reading of those few words. >> russ sullivan first of all, congratulations. you must be breathing easy tonight. you are overseeing the staff on the senate finance committee drafting this language legislative counsel drafting the language another committee involved in the senate a lot of the language got merged over in harry reid's office and somewhere in that hallway between the finance committee and harry rooet's office, this error occurred. it seems plainly -- anyone who's been around legislation can recognize it as a drafting oversight, a drafting error. and the supreme court figured
relationships, they have true families that involve real love, that it does amount to discrimination so say they can't have marriage equality. >> i want to listen to two sound bytes from justice kennedy. they maybe in contrast to each other and me maybe the one who decides it. >> this definition has been with us for millennia. and it's very difficult for the court to say, oh, well, we know better. same-sex couples say of course we understand the nobility and sacredness of marriage. we know we can't pro create but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we too have dignity that should be fulfilled. >> which of those thoughts is more likely to guide justice kennedy. >> the second. justice kennedy has been a hero to the gay rights movement. he's been the justice in the center of the court that provided the fifth vote for recognizing laws that discriminate against homosexuals are a form of discrimination. he really mulls the questions
of recognizing the right of same-sex marriage. >> they have the aoption to announce it tomorrow or monday, which is their last day for announcements. with the funeral of state senator clementa pinckney and the president speaking at the funeral, a large, important event, is that the kind of thing where the court would say even if they planned to release it on friday, let's wait let's let south carolina have that day. let's release it monday? >> no. the justices don't think like that. when they are ready to go they go. they just don't concern themselves about what is happening in the rest of the world with almost no exception. >> tom goldstien, thank you for joining us tonight. appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> we will have coverage of that funeral for state senator clementa pinckney here on msnbc tomorrow. the funeral is scheduled to start at approximately 11:30 a.m. our coverage will continue both before and after that service. president obama will be delivering the eulogy there.
looks like that is part of this that could never be figured out is how down the road would the democrats and the people who supported it be getting credit for this. >> i think russ sullivan's right. that wasn't really the focus and that's probably a deficiency in the thinking that went on at the time. that's very true. not enough was considered about how do you sell this to the american people? how do you persuade people this is good for the country? that this will, in fact, reduce the growth and cost of health care for everybody? i'm convinced myself that it accomplished that to a substantial extent. but people don't know it. >> linda greenhouse, before we go, i'd like to get your reaction to the court's other important decision it announced today about the fair housing act
decisions and also in other writings in his book. by the way, i'm an uneducated person. i never heard of jiggery-pokery. he accused them engaging in jiggery-pokery and said it was applesauce. justice robert wrote in every case we must respect the role of the legislature and take care not to undo what it has done. i think that was a real fear the conservative majority may do the very thing that justice roberts said they shouldn't. you could argue in the citizens united case undoing years of law on campaign finance. you could say they did it again on the voting rights act. but this time, as linda said, this was such a flimsy case that if the court really would have brought unbelievable discredit
thing. i assume you were not surprised that the supreme court figured out what you were trying to do. >> i really wasn't surprised. i think chief justice roberts said it well. congress was trying to reform the markets. it wasn't trying to destroy them. clearly the interpretation that justice scalia was advocating on the court would have substantially destroyed markets for health care in many states. >> linda, i want to go back to you on this. although the chief went on at length about those kinds of details about what would happen, it was all done in service to his legal argument of, and his position of finding -- basically the structural integrity of the bill that required that it be interpreted the way he did. >> right. as you pointed out earlier, this is really conventional statutory
court very surprisingly reached out and grabbed this case and put it on their docket and the time of the argument this spring dozens of briefs came in. i think these briefs provided an education for the court about why those five words, you know was it an error or not an error, blah, blah blah. that doesn't matter. what the briefs do is educate the justices about what this law is about. why it matters and who it matters to. it matters to the insurance industry. it matters to catholic health care industry. they filed a brief, the hospital system. a wide range of people from some red state governors filed a brief. there was a real educational process that went on. i think that was reflected in the chief justices opinion. >> quick break. don't anyone move. we will be right back with one of the senators who was there at