0 the reason is not the words or their spelling or the english language in which this is written or spoken about. no. it's about its meaning. that the united states congress will ensure that people get to vote in places that they weren't before. and that does not refer only to the segregations of the past. it refers to the people out there in state capitals today sitting at bars and poker tables shouting the latest gimmick. the electoral impact of blacks in tennessee. they outbid each other with glee with their latest legislative squirm to convert into electoral minorities by denying the blacks the right to vote. right, justice scalia. it's not an entitlement. we're talking about the vote. not some government benefit. pete williams is the justice correspondent for nbc. thank you for joining us. you're such an expert on this. i have to ask you to think about and speak about the commentary from justice roberts, the chief justice and justice scalia today. what was that all about? the five conservatives seemed to be quite skeptical. not only scalia and justice roberts but perhaps the critical vote justice kennedy. he said the times changed. he seemed to be skeptical that the law has not kept up with that change. now, it's hard to predict, chris, but it does appear the voting acts right is in trouble tonight. now, what will the supreme court do? if they do look over the abyss and decide they are going to strike down part of the most successful civil rights act ever, they may not strike down the preclearance requirement. that if you're a covered state you have to get permission from the federal government before you make any changes in your election laws. they could strike down the formula, the coverage map. and send it back to congress. but that would be politically explosive for congress to say okay let's see. now which areas do we want to cover under the law and which areas don't and shall we start including massachusetts and harrisburg as you mentioned? should we include all the areas in the south? that's the problem. >> thank you. thanks for leaving that with us. that's the hot potato. i just spilled my coffee here. let's go with our guests now to talk about what this all means. we have julie fernandez right here. let's go to that right now. let's go to julie fernandez right now. former deputy attorney, assistant attorney general and eugene robinson. thanks for joining us right now. let me ask you about this whole thing. if they kill it because it's unfair to certain states because it includes older states with civil rights histories in the past, but they're basically killing anything. so what they're saying is it's not perfect, so kill it. isn't that a bit inconsistent? in other words we won't have anything left. >> it's very inconsistent. all the justices in the court acknowledge that section 5 is a very successful statute. and they asked hard questions about whether or not the coverage mechanism is still appropriate. but i think that we -- those of us working to protect the voting rights act itself, we have good answers to those hard questions about the continued pervasive racial discrimination that's going on in the covered jurisdictions about the flexibility of the coverage formula and the mechanism for deciding who's covered. and about how there are ways to address voting discrimination outside of the covered jurisdictions. i think the -- >> let's keep this simple. you're a lawyer. you're lawyering me here. >> i'm sorry. >> the bottom line is if you're black out there and you want to vote and you live in pennsylvania and they've been screwing around with voter i.d. cards or you live in florida and they're screwing around getting rid of sunday voting. what is killing voting rights going to do to those people? help them or hurt them or do nothing for them? don't you kill the whole spirit of the federal government jumping in on these cases? >> if you get rid of section 5 on the voting rights act, you get rid of the most effective tool we have to stop voting discrimination in this country. if you kill the voting rights act, if you decide section v is no longer needed, you're taking the heart out of the -- proves we don't need a voting rights act. is that just prima facie nonsense? >> if that offended me then half my e-mail would have offended me. what more do you people want. you can't read it on the air. i mean, that's absurd. it's ridiculous. it was a huge step that barack obama was elected president twice. that's a huge step in our 400-year struggle with race and racial discrimination. but it doesn't solve the whole problem. of course not. >> and it doesn't solve the problem where the voting rights act is so powerful. police juries, county commissions, city councils, people all over the country. >> at the same time the voting rights act was being challenged at the supreme court today, up on capitol hill the work of rosa parks was being honored. there it is. a statue of parks will sit in statutory hall. best place to be. the first statue committed by congress in 140 years actually. president obama paid tribute to rosa parks. let's listen to the president. >> rosa parks' single 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. it is because of these men and women that i stand here today. >> well, her statue will be there forever now. >> it will be and it should be. we can't forget where we came from. we've been on a long struggle in this country to try and have racial equality, live up to our promise. the voting rights act is one of the key things that helped us get to where we are. let's not stop now. >> gene? >> i can't put it better than that. >> thanks for joining us. coming up, look what's happening to the public's perception about guns. our new poll shows a sharp increase. that's good. in the number of people that want to see stricter gun laws. that's the bully pulpit at work, i think. and today there was deep emotion and moving testimony from a parent of newtown massacre victims. we have to hear this, coming up. plus a lot of republicans want to see the big cuts that are due to hit on friday. and right now they're the ones taking the heat. if the cuts kick in and the crisis drags on, i think the public will blame president obama as well. and i think the republicans are counting on just that. a long, miserable haul they hope will hurt him. and the new mccarthyism. new tongues wagging and congratulating everything they did to stop and perhaps ruin the reputation of chuck hagel for awhile. even after it was inevitable. they kept it up just to screw up the government, hurt its functioning, and smear a man. those are the facts. we'll document them. finally kfc or chick-fil-a, bagels and croissants or doughnuts? are you what you eat? what you eat may be determined by who you vote for. isn't that interesting? we'll show the parallel how we go to fast food stores and vote. there is one. this is "hardball," the place for politics. well, the republicans have put up the white flag on their opposition to the violence against women act. they decided their trimmed down version of the bill cannot pass. and it's a political loser. so they're now expected to pass the senate version of the bill and let the democrats have their way. the biggest issue was republican opposition to how the bill handled violence in tribal areas, believe it or not. we'll be right back.