the rachel maddow show, transcript 03/01/13

Moderator Ed Schulz: That\'s The Ed Show.
This is Ed Schultz.
Rachel Mado\'s show is now on.
Good evening, Rachel.
Host: Good evening, ed. Happy Friday.
I can read the phone book by George Takei.
But listen to him quote Spook, I\'m almost dead.
Great. (LAUGHTER)
Schulz: have a good weekend and have a great show.
You too, man. Thank you.
Thank you for joining us this hour at home. Happy Friday.
On another really crazy cold weekend, when the weather is too cold and I don\'t know how to go to the ice fish, let\'s bathe together in a collective love of the Weather Channel.
Now, in telling you that I like the Weather Channel, I have to disclose that we are obviously owned by the same parent company, which has no effect on me.
But to be honest, I will tell you that I love them even if they are Satan\'s. I love them.
I\'m happy to have any connection with the Weather Channel, even if it doesn\'t matter to my life.
Last fall, the Weather Channel began naming the winter storm.
You know, the weather forecast has long named the hurricane.
But the Weather Channel wants to expand this good thing.
So, despite its considerable buzz in the field of meteorology, the Weather Channel now names winter storms and hurricanes as \"weather channels \", that\'s why last month we had a winter storm called cartoon fish in the northeast, laughing at me for not being able to fish in this weather.
People on the Weather Channel think a little about it, right?
I mean, if we\'re going to name a hurricane, why not name a big storm for a whole year?
First of all, it\'s interesting to name things.
But it also has a feature.
It makes it easier for them to be defined as different entities.
It can be important when you talk about a series of things that can be mixed together in memory, unless you have a way to remember their unique features.
It\'s a good analogy of what we do when we report politics.
At cable news land, of course, our season is not defined by the calendar, the rotation of the Earth, and the orbit.
Our season has been drawn up by the end and has begun bipartisan control over certain institutions in Washington.
So I think our current system of political storms began in January 2011 when Republicans took the oath to take over the house after a particularly good midterm election.
During the season that began in January 2011, a series of political storms, crises and disasters took place.
If we don\'t just look at them as a series of things, it will be easier to put them in perspective, and these things seem to be the same in retrospect.
But if they all remember it personally
If we name these things the way the weather forecast names the storm, and the way the weather channel now names the storm every other season, it would be easier to remember exactly what happened.
The first crisis of the political season took place in April, when Republicans were sworn in on January.
The storm is in the form of a threat to government closure.
Everyone calls it a government shutdown crisis, and this is a shutdown that has been virtually avoided in the past --
Consumer transactions in minutes.
But in order not to confuse this particular government shutdown crisis with all the other government closures before and after, what if we named it the first storm of the season.
What if we call it Aaron?
It starts with.
Then the next crisis in Republican control of the House took place in July, about three months later.
This is a debt ceiling deadlock.
We will call you Bilbo.
You named the storm alphabetically, right?
So you need a B.
A few months after the debt ceiling impasse, Bilbo, we had another government shutdown battle, not to be confused with what we call Aaron\'s early war.
This is the third storm of the season.
So, we\'re going to name Carlito, which starts with C.
Then, we got out of the political crisis for the time being in the presidential election.
But just after the presidential election, we returned to the storm of the financial cliff crisis.
Everyone is struggling under the metaphor of cliff.
It would be much easier if we gave it a name.
At this point it starts with d, right?
So how about Deidre?
It is now a season of political turmoil.
We already have Aaron, Bilbo, carrito and deadir-four named storms coming and going.
Now, just three months after the last month, we are sitting in the middle of the isolate, and I declare that from now on the isolate will no longer be called an isolate.
We call it earl.
We need a name that starts with E, and Earl remembers --able.
To be honest, half the fact that no one cares is that no one can remember the word \"isolation.
Half of the people who don\'t remember the isolation don\'t spell it, and the other half can\'t define it.
Isolation crisis?
No wonder nobody cares.
From now on, we will call it the political storm Earl, the fifth storm of the season.
In fact, Earl is expected to be a destructive storm.
Economically, Earl is expected to lose thousands of jobs and jobs in every state of the country.
So far, the Republican position on Earl is that it will be devastating. And also, woo!
Let\'s do it. bring Earl.
Look at this release from the House Republican re-election division NRCC.
You see, they call Earl a storm that will cut off the devastating parts of our economy.
If you ask the Republican Party, it\'s a devastating quarantine if you ask NRCC.
At the same time, however, they condemned the potential damage as devastating, citing \"House Republicans are now very happy with their leaders.
Republican aides said privately that John Boehner saw no need to negotiate.
Republicans are in a good position, they think, because they want to cut spending, and those cuts are happening.
\"I think it\'s good for us,\" said Mick muwani, a member of Congress in North Carolina . \".
Steve Scalise, a congressman from the state of Luis Anna, said the once devastating cuts were \"a huge victory \".
\"That\'s what\'s happening now.
That\'s count. isolate the storm.
What is coming into effect now is the main blind with the full cut, which was deliberately designed to be a bad idea for the country, so we will be shocked by their appearance, we will do everything we can to avoid this situation.
We don\'t panic anymore.
So now, these things that are designed to be a bad idea are terrible for this country and are happening now.
The Congressional Budget Office says it will lead to three
Millions of jobs have been lost this year.
Republicans say it will be devastating for the country and good for them.
It was a great victory.
Between these two things, they naturally decided that they wanted more, so they started planning the next two storms.
So, if that\'s not enough, they \'ve had two storms brewing at sea.
The government may close again later this month.
We need an F name for that one.
So in honor of Kevin Spacey, we will call him Francis.
Then Republicans are excited about another debt ceiling crisis, which is expected to break out around May.
We need a G name.
We will go with Gertrude.
Even if they acknowledge that the storm we are in is devastating, Republicans are happy with the storm in the coming weeks and months.
Ruth Marcus wrote for The Washington Post this week, \"listening to Congressman Paul Ryan is to understand that the country should be prepared for a month --
From isolation to continued resolution to another debt showdown sometime this summer. Really, I ask?
Is the debt ceiling here again?
I think Republicans are determined to avoid repeating lost hands.
That\'s not the case this time, says Paul Ryan, even before I can\'t say anything.
Paul Ryan has happily planned the next debt ceiling impasse, the next storm, the F storm and the G Storm, Francis and Gertrude.
As a country, this is our current weather model, what does this mean for us?
Is this the case now?
This is the way it is now in power.
What price have we paid?
Will this be the defining feature of President Obama\'s second term?
Now joining us is someone who has spent a great part of his career covering the real storm.
Early in his career, he explored the idea of tying himself to a tree to cover a Texas hurricane.
During his long career in online journalism, he also experienced many well-known political storms in Washington.
Do these photos make you feel bad? (LAUGHTER)
I think they are great.
Dan Rather is now the anchor and managing editor of Dan Rather\'s coverage on axs TV.
Thank you very much for coming, Dan.
Axs TV DAN RATHER: Thank you for letting me be here.
MADDOW: looks like a self
The economic crisis we faced before was not accidental, but a planned approach to governance from now on.
Has this ever happened in the modern history of the United States?
This is not the case.
We \'ve had a government shutdown before, but in that sense, I think it\'s historic.
It will be slow to build, but it will probably last a long time.
This-frankly, what impressed me was that this was different, and at the moment neither side seemed to know whether to bark on the moon or entangle on the watch, that is, they don\'t seem to know what it is-how it will be resolved.
Republicans are doing a little bit like the end zone dance.
But it may be too early.
But, you know, I \'ve been thinking, if you\'re a soldier in a lonely post in Afghanistan, on the brink of danger, every moment, you hear or see on the computer that the government is in shutdown mode, U. S.
The government is in a closed mode. what do they have to think?
When Chinese people smile, what do they think if they don\'t really smirk, say, this should be a better system than us?
Now, for the American public, what did it do, mixed my metaphor here, and it forced the public to drink deeply again from the cynical slogans of both sides, this is really the best interest of the country.
They have the opportunity to re-serve, and there is also a political party struggle, but there is no national struggle.
What\'s the difference between us and Mado: OK, let me stop you there.
Do you think-do you think this is true?
I mean, what we see is that Democrats are able to avoid segregation in the sense of getting 51 or 52 votes through their plans. RATHER: Right.
Republicans blocked it.
The president said I would like to avoid this isolation through the balance of tax cuts and spending cuts.
Republicans say we won\'t do anything unless we get everything we want.
On the contrary: there is no doubt that from any objective analysis, this is very difficult in the current partisan political environment, but any objective analysis is what the Republicans want. MADDOW: Yes.
They got it.
This is not what President Obama wants.
In fact, of course he did not want it.
What is this about, let\'s see what it is, and Republicans want to get in the way of a second Obama term.
They thought it was a plan of crisis after crisis, and a period of confusion would hold him still and in fact ruin his second term, which was indeed achievable, remember the impact on the economy.
What is missing from this equation is what it does to this country?
MADDOW: according to CBO, 750 people will be out of work based on what has just happened.
If this is a good start, because maybe these people will vote against the Democratic nominee-instead: I think of a solution if we want to find a way out.
I give you a guarantee from oklaoma, which is a rock-solid guarantee from my point of view, and if you say, OK, isolation is in effect now.
This means that there are no members of Congress, no members of the Senate, in fact, no one in the White House will be paid, and we will put all of these people out of work.
Many of them will not be paid.
So, you won\'t be paid until this is resolved, and I\'ll give you an oklaoma guarantee that it will end the day after tomorrow.
When you mention China, I was thinking about one thing, that is, I am worried not only about national security, but that all kinds of disasters that may happen in our country happen in a surprising way, we have the ability to remain resilient in the face of real challenges. RATHER: Right.
Because we are constantly imposing these crises on ourselves.
I mean, when it comes to the Afghan soldiers reviewing this, why is the government closed?
What happened? No.
The government has just decided to shut down.
The reason for this is that there are no external factors.
When we tie ourselves to these knots
Impose this damage on ourselves.
If the CBO is considered to have done great economic harm to ourselves, does this make it less likely that we will be able to deal with any possibility of an external appearance?
If something bad happens in terms of national security or other aspects that are important to the country, are we unable to deal with it?
I think so, at least on the edge.
I think the answer is yes, because, you know, we have set ourselves as role models for the world.
We have a republic based on the principles of freedom and democracy.
We know how to make it work.
Now, what we say to the world is that we cannot make things successful.
We can\'t let it work for us.
So why do other people expect us to lead?
I don\'t want to exaggerate it, but I think the answer to your question is yes.
It weakens our ability to influence events elsewhere in the world, especially when it is something unforeseen or future.
Let us remember that Iran is still trying to make nuclear weapons.
North Korea remains militant.
These problems exist.
So it\'s possible to explode at any time.
I do think it makes us less powerful and the ability to influence others is less powerful because they look at us and say, look, you can\'t even put your own house in order
Don\'t tell me what to do.
MADDOW: Dan Rather, anchor and editor-in-chief of \"Dan Rather Reports\" on axs TV at 8: 00 last Tuesday, it\'s always a pleasure to have you here.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, Rachel.
Thank you for inviting me.
MADDOW: Okay.
So, everyone today knows very well that I said something unwise last night on The Daily Show.
I admit it is unwise, but I am serious.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, I said last night on the daily show that in this week\'s oral debate in the Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act, I acted like
Do you want to know why I said that? Hold on. (
Business break)
MADDOW: Okay.
Let\'s take a look at the Michigan Video.
If you live in Michigan, your town goes bankrupt-hey, it happens, come on-Michigan has the option to come in and take over your town or school district, right?
The country abolished your local democracy.
So it doesn\'t matter who you vote for-no matter who you vote for, it will be rejected.
They only give you one state.
Appointment of supervisor
The newly elected boss can do whatever he or she wants, no matter what vote you cast.
Supervisors can fire elected officials, stop paying, sell the town\'s assets, eradicate the town, close schools, and so on.
As far as they are concerned, no one else can say.
Democracy is over.
The emergency manager can fully control himself. stop.
A local site called Eclectablog is sorting out how Michigan Republicans eradicate democracy in the state.
Eclectablog notes that if you take into account the ethnic composition of Michigan and the ethnic composition of the towns taken over by Michigan, small towns like Allen Park, Benton Harbor, Eco Park, and big towns like Pontiac and Flint.
If you add Detroit, the state has been on the verge of taking over, and it can be seen from the statistics that Michigan is already on the verge of eliminating local democracy and voting for local officials, in almost half of the state\'s black population, it is already on the verge of eliminating this phenomenon, about 49% of Michigan Africans --Americans.
This is a warning from Democratic activists in the state.
But it\'s no longer just a warning because now you can fill out Detroit on this chart.
The state is taking over the largest city in Michigan. Forty-
Africa\'s 9%
Americans in Michigan will no longer have local democracy.
Republican Governor Rick Snyder announced today that he will appoint an emergency manager to control the city almost unilaterally.
Governor Snyder called it a sad day for Detroit.
He said he hoped Detroit and the government would work together in this regard.
A local newspaper in Detroit published a helpful article trying to explain the impact on local residents in Detroit.
The question is, if an emergency finance manager is appointed, will the election of the mayor of Detroit and the City Council continue?
The answer is yes, the Detroit people will hold the primary election on August and the general election on November.
However, what power these elected officials will have will depend on the emergency manager.
Voting is also interesting.
No, it doesn\'t matter who you vote.
Perhaps not surprisingly, many people in Detroit today did not respond to the news, and they are very excited about the country\'s abolition of local democracy.
The news must have been welcomed. Others did not.
The head of the local National Association of People of Color said the city does not need emergency managers.
We urge the country to be our partner.
We do not ask the state to be our supervisor.
The news agency \"Reuters\" reported this today in a protest in Detroit, citing \"it doesn\'t take genius to know all this.
They want our money and land. no one cares about us.
We are the people who stay, not the white people.
The Detroit City Council said today that they may appeal the governor\'s decision.
Pastor David block is a guest on our show with a rainbow-
He called it \"push the league,\" and he quoted an emergency manager as saying, \"the death of democracy in Detroit.
Pastor block continued, \"it also means disaster for Detroit, with a record of emergency managers.
Record.
The pastor is referring to a record in Michigan that an emergency manager is responsible for because they have tried it before, right?
They did the same elsewhere.
Do this to the largest city in the state and understand how good or not working it is elsewhere, will that make you less excited?
Because on the one hand, Governor Snyder said, hey, Detroit is in trouble, desperate moments, desperate measures, and we have to solve this problem.
No matter how unpleasant it is, we must do so.
It is implied here that if you deprive the local democracy, if you deprive the people of the right to vote for the people to represent them, and only to hold one person accountable, in full personal control, it may be offensive considering that we are a democratic country, but it will be effective. It will work.
With regard to the governor, history does not prove that he is very correct in his state.
In other places where he has tried this, his proposal for Detroit has not worked.
Now, there is an exception.
Sanoak tree village had a great time with an emergency manager.
The Three Oaks is a place with a population of 1,600, with little poverty, 96% of the white population, its own poet laureate, and an overall artistic scene that is enough to attract tourists.
In 2008, under the leadership of the former governor, the state took over the small village of Three oak trees, with a total of 1,600 people.
The supervisor balanced the budget.
The next year, the government returned to the hands of the locals. It was a short-
The thing that runs is there and it works.
This is an example of how it works. That`s the one.
It doesn\'t seem to solve this in any other place.
Located in the town of hamtemk in Detroit.
They were taken over in 2000.
Until 2007, Hamtramck was under state control.
By 2010, Hamtramck requested approval to declare bankruptcy.
By 2013, Hamtramck was still bankrupt.
Flint, Michigan was controlled by emergency manager in 02.
Came out in 04, and then failed again.
In 2011, Flint again implemented emergency management.
The mayor is now demanding democracy in the city.
The emergency manager said, in fact, you have to discuss the issue with the governor.
The town of Ecorse was under emergency management in 09.
Ecorse now has an emergency manager.
In the same year, there was an emergency manager in Pontiac.
So does Pontiac.
When asked about an emergency manager trying to fix Detroit, Pontiac\'s emergency manager said yes, quote \"good luck.
In 09, the Detroit public school received an emergency manager and a state supervisor.
After a difficult few years, people at the Detroit school asked the federal government to step in.
The other is mainly the Port of Benton in Africa.
The American town of Michigan, which is very poor, was forced into emergency management in 2010.
They have not yet restored democracy.
Last year, a new emergency manager was set up in the maskegan Heights School District.
He gave the school to one.
Profit companies were soon found to hire uncertified teachers who were not certified to teach legally in the state.
Or how about the Highland Park next to Detroit\'s hamtrak.
Hailan Park was taken over in 2001.
They restored democracy in 2009.
The city\'s former emergency manager is now facing trial for embezzling public funds from the park.
The school district of Highland Park is under emergency management.
The town came out in 2009 and the school district was taken back last year.
The Michigan emergency manager\'s record makes you wonder what the view of Allen Park is, right?
The last town the state took over before Detroit last year.
This is the Michigan emergency manager\'s record.
It did succeed in the lovely town of 1,600 people.
So far, I don\'t think you can say it works anywhere else.
What did we do with this emergency manager law in Michigan and Detroit?
What we are doing is abandoning the idea of solving the American problem through a government system called democracy.
We gave it up for something that was not proven to be a better record.
So you lost democracy.
You don\'t have to have any hope of fixing it.
Then why do you give up the democracy you think?
Michigan continues to advance the most radical Republican ruling experiment in the 21 st century.
Why is this not a bigger country story that still surprises me. (
Business break)
MADDOW: the most dramatic event in this week\'s news is happening where you can only read.
This is the Supreme Court hearing on the cornerstone of American civil rights law.
Not only do you have to read it tonight, you can also hear it, which may make it easier for you to judge it.
This is coming. (
Business break)
MADDOW: in the past, the president of the United States made a national radio address to the country every week.
President Roosevelt was the first president to begin his weekly radio address, but the tradition continued until the 2000 s.
If it\'s Saturday, it\'s time for President George W to come.
Bush speaks on radio every week, which is a bit strange and charming, right?
Technically, we have come a long way since George W. radio.
Bush is still doing that.
But it\'s a bit late now and the weekly broadcast address has been upgraded.
Now, this is the president\'s weekly address on YouTube. Progress.
Watching the federal government drag itself onto the Internet, first slow, then enthusiastic, now pleasant, it\'s interesting to watch the progress over the years.
For example, when the Obama administration passed the stimulus bill in 09, they also launched an economic recovery.
Gov is a website where you can track all of your recycled funds with a click of the mouse instead of going to the Treasury or anywhere to browse the files.
So there is often lag.
But governments often accept today\'s new technologies, especially when it comes to exchanging information about how government works.
However, the key words here are usually a large part of our government, an equivalent department of our government, which in fact stubbornly decides that it will deliberately lag behind in this area.
What you see here is this week\'s Supreme Court hearing on the Voting Rights Act.
Actually, I can only show you these paintings.
I mean, they are great drawings but drawings.
That\'s all we got.
We don\'t have static pictures.
We certainly have no video.
Only 18 century technology is welcome.
Until today, two days after the actual debate, the Supreme Court finally began to release the audio of those debates, as the court did not release the audio until Friday.
Apparently, Friday is audio day.
But the Supreme Court\'s aversion to 21st century technology actually makes things a little easier today.
Because when the audio is finally released, everyone knows to jump straight to 51-
So they can hear the conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on why he thinks Congress voted almost unanimously, and unanimously made this rather compelling argument in the Senate that the Voting Rights Act was re-authorized six years ago
That\'s why he thinks they voted to re-authorize landmark laws that protect minority voting rights.
Here\'s how he explained the vote. (
Start audio clips)
Justice Antonin Scalia of the United StatesS.
The Supreme Court: this was the last time it was enacted, and none of the Senate votes against it.
The house is almost the same.
Now, I don\'t think that\'s because the fact that we need this now is much clearer.
I think this is attributable-most likely due to a phenomenon called the permanent existence of racial rights.
Already written.
Whenever a society takes racial rights, it is difficult to get rid of them through the normal political process. (END AUDIO CLIP)
MADDOW: I was wondering if it would show up on the audio, and if you could find it from the audio they posted, it turned out you couldn\'t because the microphone was too tight.
The environment is not enough.
What Mikes didn\'t hear was what you heard in court after Judge Scalia said \"race rights\", \"permanent presence of race rights. After he proposed that voting in the country had become a family right, Congress could no longer make a fair decision on it.
Well, the argument that the Supreme Court heard this week is a challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, particularly Section V of the Act, which requires certain states, mainly southern states, but not entirely necessary, before allowing them to change the voting rules, get pre-clearance from the Justice Department.
These states were specifically reviewed at the time of voting because there was a history of racial discrimination when voting in their jurisdictions.
Since passing the Voting Rights Act in 1965, Congress has decided on four occasions to re-authorize, each with a very, very large margin. up it.
They have determined that there are already enough threats to the voting rights of minorities in this country, that this law should continue to exist and that this particular remedy in this law should continue to exist.
Congress studied it for months until 2006.
After ten months of hearing, they collected 15,000 pages of evidence.
They have held more than 20 hearings in Congress to decide whether this is still an issue and whether this is still an appropriate way to resolve it.
In their view, they believe that the Voting Rights Act is not only a good law, but also a necessary law.
All senators from all states that voted unanimously voted that the bill should be retained.
Judge Antonin Scalia\'s argument against it this week is basically, well, when they cast those votes, they\'re not really those votes. (
Start audio clips)
Scalia: that\'s not something you can leave to Congress.
According to the law, there are some areas in the House that are black people.
Even Senator Virginia, they have no interest in voting against this.
The state government is not their government and they will lose-they will lose their votes if they do not re-govern
Enacted the Voting Rights Act.
Even its name is great, the Voting Rights Act.
Who will vote against it in the future? (END AUDIO CLIP)
Its name is very good.
Disgusting.
As you may gather, Judge Scalia is almost certainly voting on the Voting Rights Act.
Obviously, based on what he thinks Congress is afraid of getting rid of some racial rights, we should grab their hands.
You can also tell us in this week\'s debate, although he doesn\'t have the reputation of intentionally inflammatory or confrontation as Judge Scalia, Chief Justice of the court John Roberts, if not more hostile to the Voting Rights Act.
Before joining the court, he spent most of his career in government to end the Voting Rights Act, when he was a lawyer for the Reagan administration.
So, in terms of what is going to happen here, in terms of counting the votes-in terms of counting the votes in the court, if you count Judge Roberts and Scalia and Judge Thomas and Alito, they almost always vote with them, and if you think they voted fairly positive for the Voting Rights Act, and you think Judge Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Judge demayor voted, this is just not sure.
But, let\'s start with this-and then, as usual, there\'s one of you in the middle, you have a wobbling vote in court, Judge Anthony Kennedy, and of course everyone is looking at who
If everything is as expected, it will be a person who decides the fate of the cornerstone clause of American civil rights.
The cornerstone of American civil rights, in this country, protects more than a generation of voting rights and protects them in a specific way, special attention is paid to the areas of the country where abuse is the most serious and considered the most vulnerable.
If the court\'s ruling is going to be so close, is external pressure important if it is only up to one person to decide?
Many people think this decision is important.
In terms of the way people express themselves, will it be left and right in one direction?
Because there is external pressure on this issue.
I mean, this is a scenario outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday because the Voting Rights Act is being heard inside.
Demonstrations by groups including the National Association of Colored People, demonstrations by residents of Alabama county, the center of this special battle, those who rely on this lie to prevent violations of voting rights.
This Sunday is another pressure.
Vice President Biden will travel to Selma, Alabama, to honor the civil rights march in that city on 1965, we first got the Voting Rights Act.
The law was created by public demonstrations.
I mean, Edmund Petus Bridge and John Lewis were hit on their heads on a Sunday.
On the second Monday, eight days later, LBJ spoke to Congress, a joint session of Congress, calling for the law in a nationally televised address.
The Voting Rights Act was implemented due to demonstrations.
This is because of Selma in 1965.
Can public demonstrations now help save?
Raymond P joins us tonight from Selma, Alabama. Haygood.
He is the director of the National Association of Persons of Color Legal Defense and Education Fund, and is also a member of the legislative group for the Voting Rights Act. Mr.
Haygood, thank you very much for your time tonight. RYAN P.
HAYGOOD, Legal Defense and Education Fund for the National Association of Persons of Color: Rachel, thank you for inviting me.
MADDOW: from the history of how we got here, do you think it\'s fair that public pressure is a social movement? Political activism is one of the immediate reasons why we initially got the Voting Rights Act, so it is appropriate to question whether it is still valid?
Sure, Rachel.
I\'m listening to you being moved by reality.
When I spoke to you tonight, I was less than 100 feet metres from the Edmund Petus bridge 48 years ago, where there were brave women, men, children marching on the Edmund Pethers Bridge, propaganda to the whole country. In fact, according to the law, they want to be treated as equal citizens and participate fully in the voting.
Now, you know, your audience knows that when they cross the bridge connecting Selma and Montgomery, Alabama, they meet soldiers from Alabama, they all spit on them all because they wanted to put their story on the screen as an American into the ballot box.
The Supreme Court is very concerned about the position of the American people on the issue of voting rights.
But Rachel, they also noticed their own precedent.
For 40 years, the Supreme Court has supported the constitutional nature of the Voting Rights Act four times, opposing constitutional challenges.
Its own precedent Rachel suggested that the Supreme Court should do so again this time.
MADDOW: Look-I\'m glad you raised the issue because it\'s obviously challenged on the political stage in the way it was challenged in the past.
Congress had a long debate about it.
They always solve the problem with overwhelming votes, and more overwhelming votes support keeping the bill.
There are also some challenges before the Supreme Court\'s fault, including about a few times.
It has been supported all the time.
It seems to be under threat now, what changes?
In fact, is there any new evidence that the law violates national sovereignty in violation of the Constitution?
Is there any convincing evidence that the problem is no longer there? What`s changed?
So, Rachel, the opposite is true.
On 2006, as you mentioned in your introduction, they did their homework when Congress sought to re-authorize the Voting Rights Act.
They held 21 hearings in 10 months, listened to 90 witnesses in support of and against the re-authorized Voting Rights Act, and created 15,000-
A very detailed overview of the page records, and during the last re-authorization period, Article 5 of the Voting Rights Act prevented more than 1,000 proposed discriminatory changes.
The reality is that the theme of the Voting Rights Act is, yes, great progress has been made in my country since 1965, because brave Americans are 100 yards away from here, so they will be hurt, the ballot box was not fully accessible.
But with respect to Section V, there is another fact that there is nothing inconsistent about recognizing the great progress but asking for more.
The reality is that in Selma, Alabama, 1990, or just 1990, Section V is required to block five discriminatory voting measures.
Alabama is the epitome of a state that part five should cover.
In particular, Shelby County, Alabama, which is the birthplace of the challenge, as Justice Sotomayor suggested in the oral debate, is the embodiment of jurisdiction properly covered by the Voting Rights Act. MADDOW: Ryan P.
Haygood, director of the National Association for the advancement of people of color Legal Defense and Education Fund, thank you for helping us understand and respond.
I really appreciate your time tonight.
Thank you for inviting me, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. All right.
HAYGOOD: Thank you very much.
MADDOW: when we have an ATF, director of the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a range of issues with this person may also include printers. Hold on. That`s coming. (
Business break)
One of our weaknesses on rachel maddow\'s show is that we love our props too much.
The trick for us is to come up with some way to explain some of the better props, we can just look for some and the cost is almost zero so we don\'t waste the props budget.
We started with a huge budget for props, but we blew it because we were so excited.
So we ended up, you know, trying Jerry-
Cheap stuff now.
For example, when I want to explain,
When presidential candidate Herman Kane secretly worked on the art project, we ended up piecing together the paper with canvas, black paint and two stakes.
When we found out that there were no cameras in court at the trial of former Illinois governor Rod blagoevich, we took part in the trial.
We have a transcript, but it turns out that wigs are expensive.
So we just tag our own hair with huge names.
Sometimes our project will be successful.
Other times our cardboard bar chart refuses to stick on the wall.
Whether or not our DIY adventures have achieved the desired results, it can be said that they are relatively benign.
There is never anything terrible about what we can do with props, although it can occasionally be painfully stupid.
That said, put down your craft paper and glue gun and pay close attention as I have seen the future of DIY.
It turns out that the future of DIY, what you can do at home, is a bit shocking.
It is potentially fatal and designed to be so.
Deadly arts and crafts that you can do at home and will not exceed your budget. (
Business break)MADDOW: OK.
This is 1985, you have a phone, you have a phone.
Do you want to answer?
Are you working out?
How is your bicep strength?
Early phones were great.
They are so big that they need to carry their own kit like a small suitcase.
But they looked great, right?
The idea of going out with your own phone in the world is so amazing that who cares if you need a car battery and put it in your suitcase.
Despite the fact that early phones were so bulky and expensive, the idea grew rapidly in 1995 from carrying suitcases of nuclear weapons, and the phones became smaller and smaller until they eventually had to start growing again, to consider how much computing and audio-visual work we do on our phones.
So it took us a long time, but we made a leap.
Who knows what they will do in the future?
But the distance this device has traveled over the past 30 years has not only changed this device, but also changed the way we live.
We are at a moment where we feel that we may be at the beginning of another period of technological-driven existential change in which technology is now clumsy and awkward,, if you can imagine it, you will find that the idea is revolutionary.
If the technology on this device advances by leaps and bounds and mobile technology advances by leaps and bounds, then these people may also change the way we live.
This is 3D printing and I am not sure if we will ever call it 3D printing.
The word is a bit awkward.
But that\'s what they\'re saying now.
The basic concept is that, like the printer now, it uses ink and light to create a two-dimensional object on paper, these computers
The driven machine can use plastic and resin instead of ink to make size objects, not just pictures.
With a 3D printer, anyone can be a small-scale manufacturer of anything.
A set of instructions or specifications that draw the shape of the object you will create using the printer in the form of a computer file.
You insert the file and leave it in the 3D printer to do its job, then presto, you already have your object and you can use it to make the program for you.
Now, there are limitations on the materials that 3D printers can use.
But you can make something yourself.
These printers, usually in the range of thousands or thousands of dollars, are still very slow, clumsy and expensive.
But they have grown from weird and future sounding devices that can only create very basic simple objects to objects that have been created very real, very advanced, such as cars-3D printed cars, or how about a 3D prosthesis?
How about 3D printing guns?
The part of this gun printed with a 3D printer is the strange color there, called the part of the lower receiver, the green part, do you understand?
In layman\'s words, the lower receiver is the internal organs of the gun.
Like the engine of a gun.
Registered and regulated for legal purposes is part of the gun.
You can transport the rest of the gun, like the gun mouth and everything, as if they were just any other metal.
But that lower receiver is a legally vital component.
This is part of the serial number and this is the heart of the gun.
Shortly after Newtown, we covered the show, proposing the use of 3D printing to make lower attack receivers
There are rifles at home. (
Start Video Editing)
MADDOW: people have started working for AK-
Use 47 style weapons at home using files you can download on the Internet.
You can download it here.
I have one on my computer, which makes me curious about the next time NBC comes to check my computer.
When the person printing the low receiver installs the other parts of the gun, which are not adjusted as the low receiver does, install the other parts of the gun on the parts they print with a 3D printer.
This is a video of their own bullets.
As you can see, the 3D printed gun failed and broke after firing about six rounds, which made it-yes, a gun, but the technical term for what kind of gun it is, it is a crappy gun because it exploded after six bullets.
But this kind of thing may not keep a crappy gun for a long time. (END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: maybe a crappy gun won\'t stay long.
The day we aired on December 17, three days after Newtown, that\'s what I said.
This week, people in 3D
Printed that lower receiver, a receiver that failed after six rounds, a receiver that I call crappy guns, and this week they posted this receiver.
Look, there is no failure.
According to them, this new low receiver has placed more than 660 high-speed bullets, and they use drum cartridges here to place bullets, which are circular things you can see at the bottom of the gun, it can hold dozens of bullets.
They just stopped shooting what they said in 3D.
Because they ran out of ammo, a homemade low receiver was printed.
But they claim that this is not a gun bought by the store, not even a metal gun.
They claim that this lower receiver is a 3D receiver they print out with plastic or resin and they say they believe that as long as they have enough bullets to continue testing, it can easily withstand thousands of bullets.
It is clear that the people who do this are very proud of what they do and they are trying to promote what they are doing because they want attention.
They particularly want political attention.
When they first posted the video we just showed you on their blog, the title under the video says they welcome Congress back from vacation.
They also said that we have figured out the AR lowers printed.
They said gun control failed.
These people are doing this for political reasons.
They want guns to be unregulated but not regulated.
0. 3 billion guns are not enough, and there are more and more solutions.
But whether you agree with them or not, whether you find that what they do is exciting or terrible, or both, you have to admit, this does raise a variety of interesting questions about law enforcement and gun laws in this country.
I mean, if everyone can make a gun at home alone, a gun that can fire thousands of bullets, how do you regulate the gun?
There is no serial number on that lower receiver and to be honest no one buys or sells it. It`s homemade.
How the law enforcement department of this country will deal with the high self-controlPower weapons?
What do these people do when they inevitably distribute computer code that is 3D printed with fully automatic machine guns?
Of course, when this new technology comes out, the government agencies that must address its challenges are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the ATF.
Last month, when President Obama announced his proposed gun reform at the White House, one thing he asked Congress to do was confirm that his candidate was the head of the ATF, a man named Todd Jones.
Todd Jones has been deputy director of the ATF for the past five years.
President Obama has asked Congress to stop blocking law enforcement.
It was his statement that got in the way, and he called on Congress to allow anyone to be identified as an ATF director for six years.
This week, we got the news that even the part that President Obama put forward about guns, even just asked to confirm the head of a law enforcement agency related to federal gun law, yes, republicans in Congress may also oppose it.
They don\'t want someone to officially manage it.
You know, six years after no one is running law enforcement, why start now?
Republicans are increasingly arguing that we shouldn\'t have any gun laws even after Sandy Hook, because we don\'t need new gun laws, what we need is better enforcement of our laws.
We are not doing well in enforcing gun laws.
They brought the case over and over again.
This week, they made this proposal again at a hearing on the new proposed Offensive Weapons Act.
At the same time, the same Republican signal now is an ongoing will-and I should say, an ongoing reluctance to confirm any body responsible for enforcing the gun laws that we do have.
They have been preventing anyone from running the agency since 2006.
They still think this is the right thing to do for the country.
Look at this 3D
On this issue, a printed low receiver spewing more than 600 rounds may provide some power.
That\'s what it is for us tonight.
See you Monday.
Now is the time for the \"last sentence.
Have a good weekend.
This is a report card in a hurry.
This copy may not be in final form and may be updated.
Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc.
All materials herein are protected by US copyright law and may not be copied, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call.
You may not change or delete any trademark, copyright or other notice in a copy of the content.