With the caveat that negotiators still need to review and agree on legislative language, two key Senate lawmakers said Sunday that a deal on a comprehensive immigration reform bill is close but not complete after a breakthrough in talks between business and labor groups this weekend. 

"With the agreement between business and labor, every major policy issue has been resolved on the Gang of Eight," said Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of the eight Senate leaders working on the legislation, during an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. 

Noting that the group has pledged not to come to a final agreement until legislative language is finalized, Schumer said he is "very, very optimistic" that the group of lawmakers will have a deal by next week. 

Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona, also a member of the Gang, agreed that lawmakers will be focused on the exact wording of the bill. 

"We've still got a ways to go in terms of looking at the language and making sure that it's everything we thought it would be," Flake said on NBC. "But we're closer, certainly." 

Another member of the group, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said on CNN that negotiators have a 'conceptual' agreement.

"It’s got to be written up," he said. "We haven’t signed off; there’s a few details yet. But conceptually, we have an agreement between business and labor, between ourselves. It has to be drafted. It will be rolled out next week"

After the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO reached an agreement on the parameters of a guest worker program -- one of the main holdups in the negotiations -- Republican Sen. Marco Rubio warned that reports of an overarching Gang of Eight deal were "premature." 

Schumer said Sunday that Rubio's statement did not indicate any kind of disagreement within the Senate group. 

"As Senator Rubio correctly says, we have said we will not come to final agreement until we look at all the legislative language, and he's correctly pointing out that language hasn't been fully drafted," Schumer said. "There will be little kerfuffles but I don't think any of us expect there to be problems."

Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants whose biography and conservative credentials make him a key GOP voice on immigration, also wrote in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and again in a press statement early Sunday that proponents should not rush the legislation to passage. 

"Arriving at a final product will require it to be properly submitted for the American people’s consideration, through the other 92 senators from 43 states that weren’t part of this initial drafting process," Rubio said. "In order to succeed, this process cannot be rushed or done in secret.”

Flake echoed that sentiment Sunday, pledging that the draft legislation will be amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee process and on the Senate floor.

"There will be input, there should be input," Flake said. "It will make it a better product." 

Schumer rejected the notion that Rubio could break from the Gang of Eight over concerns about the process.

"He is protecting some of the things that he thinks are very important in the bill, but I don't think that will stand in the way of any final agreement," Schumer said. "I think we're all on track."

Calling Rubio is "extremely important" to the bipartisan coalition, Flake said he's confident that the Gang of Eight will remain united. 

"I think that we'll stick together as a Gang," he said. "And I hope that we can pull some Republicans our way. I think a number of them are with us already." 

This story was originally published on Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:19 AM EDT

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Friday demanded an immediate apology from a fellow Republican congressman, who referred to laborers with the derogatory term "wetback."

Related: Republicans and Latinos chide Rep. Young's for racial slurs 

The Capitol's top elected Republican condemned Alaska Rep. Don Young's comments during a radio interview on Thursday, in which he casually used the slur to refer to farm workers whose jobs have been rendered useless by technological advances.

"Congressman Young’s remarks were offensive and beneath the dignity of the office he holds," Boehner said in a statement. "I don’t care why he said it – there’s no excuse and it warrants an immediate apology."

Young said Thursday on KRBD: "My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes. It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine."

Related: Northern Exposure

Young said in a subsequent statement released by his office that he "meant no disrespect" by the remark, explaining that the term was one used commonly during his days growing up on a farm in California.

The comment, though, threatens to inflame Republicans' already-poor standing among Latino voters, an increasingly influential voting bloc who favored President Barack Obama and many Democrats during last fall's campaign.

Democrats, already, have seized upon the comments.

"As the Republican minority outreach efforts develop, I’d advise their strategists to list 'don’t say racial slurs like 'wetback'' as a bedrock for their messaging," said Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, Texas, the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, on Friday.

The risk of political fallout for Republicans stemming from Young's remarks have prompted other Republicans to condemn the remarks on Friday.

"The words used by Representative Young emphatically do not represent the beliefs of the Republican Party," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who oversaw the recent release of a report stressing the need to improve the GOP's outreach to Hispanic voters.

"As I have continued to say, everyone in this country deserves to be treated with dignity and respect," Priebus added. "Our party represents freedom and opportunity for every American and a beacon of hope to those seeking liberty throughout the world. Offensive language and ethnic slurs have no place in our public discourse."

"Migrant workers come to America looking for opportunity and a way to provide a better life for their families. They do not come to this country to hear ethnic slurs and derogatory language from elected officials," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican. "The comments used by Rep. Young do nothing to elevate our party, political discourse or the millions who come here looking for economic opportunity."

This story was originally published on Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:42 AM EDT

Quite the alliance is forming on Capitol Hill. How about this grouping? Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, James Inhofe, and Marco Rubio.

Inhofe and Rubio (R-FL) have signed onto a letter threatening to filibuster any gun restrictions, according to Inhofe's office.

The letter was originally signed by tea party favorite Sens. Paul (R-KY) and Lee (R-UT), and joined by Cruz (R-TX).

It reads:

Dear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,

We, the undersigned intend to oppose any legislation that would infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens' right to self-defense. It speaks to history's lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history's warning about the oppression of a government that tries.

We will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will servce as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.

The vowed opposition further complicates Democrats' efforts to pass gun legislation, post-Newtown, and makes it more likely that any effort will need Republican support to achieve the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.

Northern Exposure: Young’s “wetback” remarks don’t help a GOP struggling with Latinos… Young issues statement: “I meant no disrespect”… Obama: “Shame on us if we’ve forgotten” Newtown… Obama talks the economy and infrastructure in Miami, FL at 2:00 pm ET… Surprising shifts in attitudes on same-sex marriage… This week’s 2014 and 2016 round-ups… And Senate Madness moves to the second round.

Becky Bohrer / AP

Rep. Don Young addresses a Choose Respect rally in front of the state Capitol on Thursday, March 28, 2013, in Juneau, Alaska.

*** Northern Exposure: For a Republican Party that desperately wants to improve its image among Latinos and is looking to pin any blame on President Obama for failing to achieve immigration reform, this news is an unwelcome development. In an interview this week with a local radio station, longtime Alaska Congressman Don Young, a Republican, referred to immigrant workers as "wetbacks," NBC’s Mike O’Brien reports. "My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes," Young said, discussing the number of jobs that have been made irrelevant due to advances in automation. "It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine." Yes, this is just one congressman. And yes, the 79-old Young is known for saying what he thinks, as NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell noted on “TODAY.” But when you add this instance to all the other rhetoric we’ve heard in the immigration debate since 2005-2006, Young’s comments not only put pressure on the GOP to condemn them but also vow that they don’t happen again. Bottom line: Just like Todd Akin’s remarks on abortion and rape and just like the past dialogue on Obama’s citizenship, Young’s comments aren’t helping his party.

*** “We’ve got to stop being the stupid party”: Indeed, the episode reminds us of what Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said at the RNC Winter Meeting in January: "We've got to stop being the stupid party. It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I'm here to say we've had enough of that."

*** “I meant no disrespect”: Young released a statement last night, saying that he “meant no disrespect” with his comments. "During a sit down interview with Ketchikan Public Radio this week, I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in Central California. I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect,” he said. "Migrant workers play an important role in America's workforce, and earlier in the said interview, I discussed the compassion and understanding I have for these workers and the hurdles they face in obtaining citizenship. America must once and for all tackle the issue of immigration reform."

*** Don’t you … forget about me: Meanwhile, words that Obama used yesterday signaled that the political momentum for achieving real reform on guns has stalled, at least when it comes to Congress. “I read an article in the news just the other day wondering is Washington -- has Washington missed its opportunity, because as time goes on after Newtown, somehow people start moving on and forgetting,” the president said at a White House event flanked by parents and victims of gun violence. “Shame on us if we've forgotten. I haven't forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we've forgotten.” There is still more than a chance that Senate Democrats are able to strike some sort of compromise with a handful of GOP senators on universal background checks. But there is a reason why Obama used the bully pulpit yesterday: The Democrats’ gun efforts have hit a wall in Congress.

*** I’m in Miami… : Today, Obama heads to Miami, FL to discuss the economy and infrastructure at 2:00 pm ET. Per the White House, the president “will tour a tunnel project before delivering remarks on ways to create jobs and strengthen the economy by investing in infrastructure.” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus issued this statement in advance on Obama’s Florida visit. “President Obama’s jaunt to Miami is nothing more than a PR stunt when we need real action to get people back to work,” Priebus said. “Another speech isn’t going to put food on the dinner table of a family trying to make ends meet in Obama’s economy.”

*** Surprising shifts in attitudes on same-sex marriage: Liberal-leaning groups have become the strongest supporters of same-sex marriage over the last decade, but there are some surprising shifts in attitudes from conservative-leaning groups as well, as one of us reported yesterday. In fact, the largest shift of any group has come from blue-collar workers. In the March 2004 NBC/WSJ poll, they were staunchly opposed (18% favor/80% oppose). In the latest NBC/WSJ poll to ask the question (December 2012), a plurality blue-collar workers said they were in favor of letting same-sex couples marry by a 47%/43% margin. That’s a 66-point net change. A majority of voters 65 and older are and people who live in the South are still opposed, but they have become far less opposed, shifting by 47 points and 43 points, respectively. President Obama’s support for same-sex marriage appears to have had a big impact on left-leaning groups, particularly African-American voters, who went from a majority opposing (32%/53%) in just October 2009 to a majority in favor (51%/37%). And perhaps most surprisingly, there’s been no distinction in increase of support by political party. Despite Democrats overwhelmingly favoring same-sex marriage and Republicans being two-thirds against, Democrats, Republicans, and independents have increased their support at the same rate over the past decade. Democrats have become more favorable by 39 points, Republicans 38 points, and independents 36 points.

*** This week’s 2016 round-up: On Monday, Sen. Marco Rubio delivered a hawkish defense/military speech in Kentucky (which happens to be Sen. Rand Paul’s home state)… Both Rubio and Paul have threatened to filibuster the Democratic-backed gun legislation moving to the Senate floor next month… Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is writing a book … And New Jersey Chris Christie has a 70% approval rating, per a Quinnipiac poll.

*** This week’s 2014 round-up: And as a bonus, here was this week’s 2014 activity: On Tuesday, Tim Johnson (D-SD) said he wouldn’t seek re-election next year… On Wednesday, Democrat Ashley Judd said she was taking a pass on challenging Mitch McConnell in Kentucky… Also, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) says he’s leaning toward a Senate bid, per the Des Moines Register… And Congressman Phil Gingrey became the latest Republican to jump into Georgia’s open Senate contest.

*** Senate Madness -- results from yesterday’s contests: In the 19^th Century bracket, Charles Sumner and James Buchanan advanced… In the 20^th Century bracket, John Stennis upset Barry Goldwater, and Mike Mansfield beat Claude Pepper… In the Modern Era, Jesse Helms and Joe Biden moved on… And in the Mixed Era, Scoop Jackson and William Borah advanced.

*** Senate Madness -- next week’s match ups: Our second round begins next week, and we have some intriguing match ups: #5 Sam Houston vs. #4 Stephen Douglas (19^th Century); #10 William Fulbright vs. #2 Everett Dirksen (20^th Century); #1 Ted Kennedy vs. #8 Robert Byrd and Joe Biden #11 vs. #3 Jesse Helms (Modern Era); and #7 Arthur Vandenberg vs. #2 Henry Cabot Lodge (Mixed Era).

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Underneath all the arcane legal fencing in this week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on marriage lies a basic question: Why should the justices take on the job of redefining marriage laws for the nation?

Is it the best venue for making decisions that could fundamentally change social institutions such as marriage? Is it the courts, in the person of unelected life-tenured justices? Or is it the democratic process in the states and in Congress?

At least some elected officials, including President Barack Obama and many Democratic members of Congress are saying to the high court: “You decide this.”

Even some Democratic members of Congress, such as Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” told the high court in their amicus brief that they’d made a big mistake in 1996 -- and now they want the justices to fix it.

But at least some of the justices are pushing back and saying to the politicians: “Why don’t you decide this?”

Justice Samuel Alito said to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on Tuesday as Verrilli was urging the court to strike down California's traditional marriage definition: “You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cellphones or the Internet?”

Alito said that he and his fellow justices “do not have the ability to see the future,” implying that they shouldn’t be the lawmakers for American society.

The court does have experience in overriding decisions made by the people and their elected representatives and spurring fundamental social change – for example, the Brown v. Board of Education decision that ordered an end to racial segregation in public schools in 1954 and the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized most abortions nationwide.

Whether the court wants the job of social change-maker on marriage remains to be seen.

It may hinge on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s view of Section 3 of DOMA. If Kennedy and his colleagues strike down Section 3, then, as Verrilli said, it is “difficult” to see how laws in the 38 states that define marriage almost exactly as Section 3 does would survive court challenges.

Both Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending California’s traditional marriage law before the court on Tuesday, and Paul Clement on Wednesday defending section 3 of DOMA, pleaded with the justices to let the democratic process work.

“Persuasion,” Clement said in his closing argument. “That's what the democratic process requires. You have to persuade somebody you're right… That's going on across the country. Colorado, the state that brought you Amendment 2 (which essentially banned gay rights in the state in 1992), has just recognized civil unions. Maine, that was pointed to in the record in this case as being evidence of the persistence of discrimination because they voted down a statewide (same-sex) referendum, the next election cycle it came out the other way.”

Clement implied that the political momentum is all in the direction of gay and lesbian rights.

But he omitted mention of North Carolina, which last May became the thirtieth state in the union to amend its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. Three out of five North Carolina voters voted for the amendment.

Chief Justice Roberts also seemed to making a case for the court staying out of the fray, implying that gays and lesbians are powerful enough to get politicians’ attention.

In an allusion to recent same-sex marriage endorsements by politicians such as Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Roberts told lawyer Roberta Kaplan -- representing Edith Windsor, who is seeking to have DOMA overturned -- that “political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.”

He told Kaplan that “the political force and effectiveness of people representing, supporting your side of the case” had led to laws being changed in nine states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

He asked “You don't doubt that the lobby supporting the enactment of same sex-marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?”

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

George Washington University students and hundreds of others rally outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments in a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) March 27, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Kaplan disagreed. Her argument and the Obama administration’s rests partly on a contention that gays and lesbians are a politically powerless minority.

In his brief, Verrilli wrote that “the final consideration is whether gays and lesbian people are ‘a minority or politically powerless.’ They are both.” If gays are powerless and are what the courts call “a suspect class,” then it is easier to strike down laws that affect them under Supreme Court precedents.

Evidence that gays and lesbians aren’t powerless is that politicians such as Hagan, who is up for re-election next year in a state that just banned same-sex marriages, are now not shy about joining the same-sex marriage cause.

But to say it’s no longer too politically risky for Hagan in North Carolina to endorse the right of same-sex couples to marry is not the same as saying there are now the votes in North Carolina to rescind the marriage law which voters enacted just last year.

Putting national polls aside for the moment, it may be useful to look at the pattern of voting in states where real, flesh-and-blood voters have recently voted on marriage.

Maryland voters last November approved a referendum that allows gay and lesbian couples to marry. The vote was 52.4 percent to 47.6 percent – this is in a state that Obama carried with 62 percent.

The pattern reflected the long-standing urban/rural split in politics; urban and suburban counties such as Montgomery County, in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., approved the measure. Two-thirds of Montgomery County voters voted for it.

But in rural counties such as Harford County, the measure was defeated. It was also narrowly defeated in predominantly African-American Prince George’s County in the Washington suburbs. 

The pattern in the state of Washington, where voters last November approved a measure legalizing same-sex marriage, was the same. In suburban Snohomish County, 53 percent of voters voted for legal recognition of same-sex marriages; just across the mountains in rural Chelan County, 57 percent of voters rejected same-sex marriages.

Many of the 38 states that have traditional marriage laws have conservative electorates that more closely resemble rural counties' electorates than urban ones. It may be, as Clement argued, that momentum will eventually move people in those 38 states to OK same-sex marriages, or it may be that Kennedy and his colleagues won’t wait, and will decide the question for them.

Related:

Supreme Court likely to advance gay marriage but stop short of broad ruling

Shifts on same-sex marriage come from surprising groups

Obama on rights of gay couples: 'It is time for the justices to examine this issue'

This story was originally published on Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:54 AM EDT

After two days of highly anticipated courtroom arguments about same-sex marriage, a sweeping ruling on gay rights seems unlikely from the U.S. Supreme Court. But when decisions in both cases come in late June, the result may nonetheless be an important one for advocates of same-sex marriage.

Though it's risky to predict how the court will rule based solely on comments by the justices during the oral arguments, one outcome seemed probable -- a decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

"A decision saying that DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation, and requiring the federal government to give full recognition to the existing marriages of same-sex couples, would be a huge victory," said Paul Smith of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Jenner & Block.

He was in the courtroom when the justices took up the Proposition 8 case on March 26. Ten years earlier to the day, Smith stood before the justices to argue the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated state laws criminalizing homosexual conduct. 

In the challenge to California's Prop 8 -- the state constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008 that limits marriage to one-man-one-woman couples -- the justices seemed to be searching for a way to avoid a decision. One possible outcome: declaring the case procedurally flawed and sending it back to California, where a lower court decision found Prop 8 unconstitutional. That would allow same-sex marriage to resume there without setting a precedent for other states. 

During Wednesday's argument on DOMA, by contrast, at least four of the justices suggested that the law improperly discriminates against gay couples by blocking the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states that permit them.  

Elena Kagan read from a House report that said Congress passed DOMA to express its "moral disapproval of homosexuality." Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 1,100 federal benefits denied to same-sex couples water down their relationships to "skim-milk marriages." 

Sonia Sotomayor asked if members of Congress could create any "class of people they don't like" and deny them benefits. Stephen Breyer asked what justification would permit treating gay marriages differently. 

The fifth vote to strike down DOMA seemed likely to come from Anthony Kennedy, whose comments throughout the argument reflected a concern that Congress had no authority to define marriage, a power reserved to the states. 

Former solicitor general Paul Clement, representing the House Republicans who came forward to defend DOMA, said the law was proper because it dealt only with the government's own definition of marriage in federal laws. For that reason, he said, the question of federal power was "not a DOMA problem." 

Justice Kennedy disagreed. "I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage," he said. 

Kennedy said DOMA was "not consistent with the historic commitment of marriage, and of questions of the rights of children, to the states." 

Even if Justice Kennedy's focus on the limits of federal power constrains the court's ruling in the DOMA case, avoiding a full-throated declaration that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional, advocates of gay rights say it would still send a powerful message. 

"I think it's enormous," said Mary Bonauto of GLAD, a pioneer in gay rights litigation, of the possibility that DOMA would be struck down. 

"This is a law that has the effect of discriminating only against married same-sex couples. And anytime you eliminate a double standard based on sexual orientation, it matters," she said. 

And Paul Smith of Jenner & Block says such a decision could lay the groundwork for future legal challenges to state laws that forbid same-sex couples to marry. 

"While it's not the same thing as requiring states to let people get married, it will push the momentum forward," he said, and could have an effect on lawsuits now pending that challenge bans on same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

Related:

Shifts on same-sex marriage come from surprising groups

Justices signal they might strike down federal marriage law

Obama on rights of gay couples: 'It is time for the justices to examine this issue'

This story was originally published on Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:08 AM EDT

Republican presidential hopefuls in 2016 shouldn’t fear that supporting immigration reform will threaten their chances of winning the GOP nomination, at least according to results from new focus groups released Thursday.

As the Republican Party wrestles with how – and whether – to advance comprehensive immigration reform that allows for a pathway to citizenship, new results from the conservative research group Resurgent Republic argues that presidential candidates shouldn’t worry about significant blowback in the 2016 primaries.

Recommended: Attitudes on gay marriage shift among surprising groups

Resurgent Republic commissioned focus groups, conducted by Republican pollster John McLaughlin, of Republican primary voters in Iowa and South Carolina – the two more conservative states of the three-state gauntlet (sandwiching New Hampshire) that traditionally open the presidential nominating process. The research sought to take primary voters’ temperature toward immigration reform, and understand the circumstances under which they could support reform.

The report found that primary voters in Iowa and South Carolina realize that deporting the 12 million or so undocumented immigrants estimated to currently reside in the United States is impracticable. And while those voters strongly support legal immigration, they are receptive to arguments about immigration reform.

The focus groups found that border security is “foundational” for Republican primary voters, and that any pathway to citizenship must be linked to rigid requirements – including fines and back taxes, learning the English language and passing a criminal background check (among other details). 

The findings are backed up by additional data. A Pew Research Center poll released this week found that 64 percent of Republicans believe undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States legally; 34 percent of Republicans are opposed to such a proposition. 

The results could be significant – not just for the ongoing debate over immigration reform in Congress, but for the GOP’s overall effort to reinvent itself and broaden its appeal, namely to Latino voters.

As recently as this past presidential election, Republican candidates used immigration as a wedge issue to distinguish themselves from other candidates – and primary voters played along. 

Immigration, for instance, was one of the few issues on which Mitt Romney could run to the right of his primary opponents, and appeal to conservatives. When Texas Gov. Rick Perry said his fellow Republicans “don’t have a heart” for opposing in-state college tuition for children who were brought to the U.S. illegally, his primary opponents, including Romney, piled on. (Perry subsequently called his remark “inappropriate.”)

The new research released Thursday argues, essentially, that such an exchange – which hurt Romney with increasingly influential Latino voters in the general election – need not happen again in 2016.

That’s an especially important point considering how some of the prime contenders for the 2016 GOP nomination have gone to bat for immigration reform, and a pathway to citizenship.

Alex Wong / Getty Images file photo

Sen. Marco Rubio addresses a Free State Foundation luncheon March 21, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for instance, has taken the lead in selling the Senate’s bipartisan immigration framework to skeptical conservatives. And Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another potential contender for the nomination, added his voice earlier this month to the chorus of Republicans who broadly back a pathway to citizenship.

Other Republicans with potential presidential aspirations have been complimentary of those efforts. Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s 2012 vice presidential nominee, has joined in the effort to help sell the Senate immigration proposal to more skeptical House Republicans. Ryan’s Badger State brethren, Gov. Scott Walker, told Politico in February that Republicans should embrace some process that gives undocumented immigrants a pathway to legalization.

It’s just as easy, though, to conceive of a candidate for the GOP nod in 2016 who disregards much of the advice in the Resurgent Republic report, and seeks to ingratiate him or herself with conservatives on the issue of immigration.

Recommended: Invoking Newtown, Obama presses Congress on guns

Already, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Cuban-American conservative who’s won plaudits in conservative circles for his hard-charging first few months in Congress, has expressed vocal skepticism of immigration reform.

"I have deep, deep concerns about a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally," Cruz told the Dallas Morning News in a Q&A posted earlier this week. "And as a practical matter, if you want to see common sense immigration reform pass, insisting on a path to citizenship is the surest way to kill the bill."

The implications of the new research could face their first test far earlier than 2016, though.

Iowa and South Carolina, coincidentally, could both play host to competitive Republican primaries that test the issue of immigration reform.

In South Carolina, incumbent GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham has worked assiduously in recent years to ward off a conservative primary challenge. But his involvement in the same bipartisan Group of Eight as Rubio could earn him the enmity of conservatives in his state who oppose immigration reform.

And in Iowa, immigration hardliner Steve King, a longtime congressman in the state, could seek the state’s open Senate seat in 2014.

It's not just Democrats and liberals who are the reason for the shift on gay marriage. 

Beneath the broad support from liberal-leaning demographic groups, is the fact that some of the biggest shifts in favor of gay marriage since 2004 have been from some more unlikely, conservative-leaning blocs -- blue-collar workers, older voters, and Southerners, according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls over the last decade.

And, even though Democrats are markedly more in favor of gay marriage than independents or Republicans, the vast majority of whom remain against it, all three have moved at almost exactly the same rate.

Blue-collar workers’ views on gay marriage have actually shifted more than any other group since 2004. Eight months before George W. Bush was re-elected, just 18 percent said they were in favor of same-sex marriage, and 80 percent were opposed.

Eight years later, a plurality was in favor. In the December 2012 NBC/WSJ poll, 47 percent said so versus 43 percent who remained opposed.

While that 47/43 split shows blue-collar workers are far less supportive of gay marriage than Democrats (69/22), highly educated (66/28), young (65/29), or urban voters (63/31), it does represent a net change of 66 points – more than any other demographic subgroup since 2004.

Older voters, those 65 and older, remain among the most opposed to same-sex marriage (32/54), but that is actually a 43-point shift more in favor than in 2004, when four-in-five older voters were opposed (16/80).

A majority of voters in the culturally conservative South remain opposed to gay marriage (42/50). But that is far less opposition than in 2004 when, similar to older voters, just 20 percent of Southerners said they favored same-sex marriage, and 71 percent said they were against. That represents a net change of 43 points more in favor.

Among the political parties, Democrats have increased their support by 39 points, Republicans by 37 points, and independents 36 points. In 2004, almost a majority of Democrats were already in favor of same-sex marriage (49/41) and now stand out for their whopping support (69/22).

Independents narrowly favor gay marriage (46/43), moving from two-thirds opposed (30/63). And while nearly two-thirds of Republicans are still opposed (27/63), they were even more solidly opposed (11/84) in 2004.

Young voters, between ages 18-34, represented the second-largest shift since 2004 – 60 points, going from a solid majority opposing -- 56 percent -- to nearly two-thirds in favor. Northeasterners were the third-largest shift – 48 points, going from a majority opposed to three-in-five in favor. Westerners and white-collar workers moved by 47 points, also going from majorities opposed to majorities in favor.

Women also moved more rapidly than men, going from nearly two-thirds opposed to 57 percent in favor. Men went from two-thirds opposed to a 44 favor-46 opposed split.

The only groups who have decreased their support over the past decade have been rural voters, those age 50-64, and Hispanics – despite their overwhelming and historic support for President Barack Obama in 2012. Hispanics, who are largely Catholic, tend to be economically liberal, but socially conservative. (Unfortunately, the NBC/WSJ sample on that question in 2004 was a “split sample,” so the groupings of African Americans and Hispanics were too small to be statistically significant. Therefore, this decrease among Hispanics is from 2009.)

There has also been a big difference in support from the parties since Obama took office. Since 2009, Democratic support has gone up 27 points, independents 16, and Republicans just 12.

A major reason for the continued significant shift among Democrats is because of black voters. African Americans increased their support since Obama’s been president by 35 points.

The biggest shifts since 2009 have come from people who live in cities (+40), blue-collar workers (+36), African Americans (+35), age groups 35-49 (+35) and 18-34 (+32), Democrats (+27), people who live in the suburbs (+27), those who live in the Northeast (+25), and women (+25).

In addition to the graphic at the top right, here are some more numbers:

Since 2009:
Urban +40
Blue collar +36
Black +35
35-49 +35
18-34 +32
Democrats +27
Suburban  +27
Northeast +25
Women +25
Overall +20
South +20
White +19
West  +18
Independents +16
Midwest +15
White collar +14
Men +14
Republicans +12
65 and older +10
Hispanic -4
50-64 -5
Rural -9 

Other 2012 groups of note (which subgroups weren’t broken out in 2009 and 2004):
White working class 48/43    
Suburban women 55/36    
HS or less 40/50    
Some coll 50/42    
Coll grad  54/35    
Post grad 66/28    

Other interesting breakdowns from 2004:
17 Bush advertising states 30/64
12 swing states 31/62
Those who said definitely re-elect Bush 8/87
Those who said definitely defeat Bush 55/37

President Barack Obama on Thursday sternly rebuked opponents of pending gun control measures, accusing them of “running out the clock” and hoping that the nation forgets last year’s Newtown school shooting in order to keep popular reforms from passing into law.

“The entire country was shocked, and the entire country pledged we would do something about it and that that this time would be different," the president said of the gun massacre that killed 20 children and six adults. “Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden and a group of mothers who have lost their children to gun violence, Obama accused gun rights groups of rooting for amnesia.

Recommended: Attitudes on gay marriage shift among surprising groups

“The reason we’re talking about it here today is because it’s not done until it’s done,” he said. “And there are some powerful voices on the other side that are interested in running out the clock or changing the subject or drowning out the majority of the American people to prevent any of these reforms from happening at all. They’re doing everything they can to make all our progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration or their assumption is that people will just forget about it.”

Obama's remarks came on the same day that authorities released new information about Newtown shooter Adam Lanza, including the list of guns and ammunition that he stockpiled for the attack. Lanza fired 154 bullets from a Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15 rifle, the documents said. 

Citing poll numbers that show broad support – as high as 90 percent in some polls -- for universal background checks, the president urged voters to “make yourself unmistakenly heard” to members of Congress in the days before the Senate takes up gun legislation next month.

“I ask every American to find out where your member of Congress stands on these ideas,” he said. “If they’re not part of that 90% who agree that we should make it harder for a criminal or somebody with a severe mental illness to buy a gun, then you should ask them why not.”

The legislation working its way through the Senate has hit numerous snags, with the threat of a filibuster now looming from lawmakers who say the president’s framework would restrict Second Amendment rights.

“The proposals the president is calling for Congress to pass would primarily serve to reduce the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding citizens while having little or no effect on violent crime,” said Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, one of the Republicans who has pledged to block the legislation. “It is deeply unfortunate that he continues to use the tragedy at Newtown as a backdrop for pushing legislation that would have done nothing to prevent that horrible crime.”

Recommended: Democrats hit McConnell in radio ad

Slideshow: Newtown school massacre

/

A nation mourns after the second deadliest school shooting in U.S. history left 20 children and six staff members dead at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Launch slideshow

A federal assault weapons ban has already been dropped from the overall gun package that Senate lawmakers plan to introduce after the Easter recess, although advocates are pushing for a separate vote on the measure. (Obama did not specifically mention the ban in his remarks Thursday, focusing instead on the more politically palatable planks of the effort.) 

And negotiators are still tussling over compromise language to require all gun buyers to complete a background check – a measure that need take significant Republican support to overcome the threat of a filibuster.

In recent weeks, Vice President Joe Biden has been the administration’s public point man on the gun issue, appearing with victims of violence and alongside gun control advocate new York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to appeal for “courage” from Congress.

On a conference call with gun control supporters yesterday, Biden said the coming efforts are “just the beginning” of a public outcry to reduce gun violence.

“I think we’re on the verge of getting a serious, thorough universal background check system in place and it will — emphasize, it will — it will save lives,” Biden said.

Bloomberg has led the money charge, pledging to spend millions of his considerable fortune to pressure wavering lawmakers into supporting gun control proposals.

“If 90 percent of the public want something, and their representatives vote against that, common sense says, they are going to have a price to pay for that,” the New York City mayor said during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press last weekend

Obama jumps back into gun debate with 11:40 am ET White House event… Obama, bipartisan group still optimistic on immigration reform… Could social conservatives bolt the GOP over gay marriage?... Big news out of Boston -- Menino won’t seek re-election as mayor… Judd takes a pass on KY SEN run… And more Senate Madness!

Larry Downing / Reuters

Vice President Joe Biden listens as President Barack Obama talks in the Oval Office of the White House, March 27, 2013.

*** Obama jumps back into the gun debate: With some GOP senators vowing to filibuster the legislation coming to the floor next month and with some analysts saying that reformers have already lost, President Obama today steps back into the gun debate with an event at the White House at 11:40 am ET. Per the White House, Obama will stand with mothers, law-enforcement officials, and Vice President Biden in urging Congress to take action on the upcoming Senate legislation, which includes universal background checks. As we have written before, those checks -- supported overwhelmingly in public opinion polls -- will ultimately define success or failure for gun-control advocates. Democrats, led by Sen. Chuck Schumer, are trying to get Republicans to back some type of compromise on background checks, given that the filibuster threat means 60 votes will be needed to even begin considering the legislation. That’s why Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns is airing TV ads in key states to also apply pressure. Meanwhile, Politico reports that Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is drafting his own Republican gun bill (without background checks), which “could further complicate what will already be a difficult lift for Democrats and the White House.”

*** Obama, bipartisan group still optimistic on immigration reform: While Obama uses the bully pulpit today on guns, yesterday he used it on immigration by granting interviews to the top Spanish-language TV news outlets. “If we have a bill introduced at the beginning of next month -- as these senators indicate it will be -- then I'm confident that we can get it done certainly before the end of the summer,” Obama told Telemundo regarding the Senate bipartisan activity on immigration, per NBC’s Carrie Dann. “I'm optimistic,” he added. “I've always said that if I see a breakdown in the process, that I've got my own legislation. I'm prepared to step in. But I don't think that's going to be necessary. I think there's a commitment among this group of Democratic and Republican senators to get this done.” Speaking of that bipartisan group senators, four of them (Schumer, John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Michael Bennet) held a press conference yesterday in Arizona, where they also expressed optimism. “I’d say we are 90 percent there,” Schumer said, according to Roll Call. “We have a few little problems to work on; we’ve been on the phone all day talking to our other four colleagues who aren’t here. McCain chimed in: “Nobody is going to be totally happy with this legislation -- no one will be because we are having to make compromises, and that’s what makes for good legislation. It’s compromise that brings everybody together.”

*** Could social conservatives bolt the GOP over gay marriage? Over the past week, we’ve noted the relative silence from GOP lawmakers when it comes to the gay-marriage cases that the Supreme Court considered on Tuesday and Wednesday. The reason for the silence is easy to understand: Public opinion no longer appears to be on their side. The question is whether that silence could alienate social conservatives, a key part of the Republican Party’s base. Some aren’t too happy. “The silence was absolutely deafening and very disappointing to the millions of value voters that are in the party,” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., told National Journal. And former Arkansas Gov. (and presidential candidate) Mike Huckabee warned that evangelicals could bolt the GOP if it eventually supports gay marriage. "They might. And if they do, they're going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk," he said in an interview. But writing for the New York Times, Tom Edsall doubts that social conservatives would bolt. “[T]he Republican Party can afford to marginalize Tony Perkins and other Christian right leaders because evangelical social conservatives, who make up more than a third of the Republican electorate, are not going to vote Democratic. Nor are they going to join an exodus to a third party. Rush Limbaugh to the contrary, they won’t stay home either.”

*** Big news out of Boston -- Menino won’t seek re-election as mayor: “Mayor Thomas M. Menino will announce at a Faneuil Hall event Thursday afternoon that he will not seek a sixth term in office, say officials familiar with his decision,” the Boston Globe writes. “Menino arrived at his decision late last week and reconsidered it for the last several days to be sure he felt comfortable following through, the ­officials said.” The Globe on a possible reason for his decision not to run: In recent months, Menino has endured a string of maladies that left him hospitalized for eight weeks at the end of last year. He was initially diagnosed with blood clots and a ­severe respiratory infection, and doctors later determined he fractured a vertebra and has Type 2 diabetes.” By the way, this means three of the country’s biggest cities -- New York, LA, Boston -- will all have new mayors this year. Menino’s announcement, per NBC affiliate WHDH, will take place at 4:00 pm ET. 

*** Judd takes a pass on KY Senate race: And in another announcement of not running, we learned yesterday that Ashley Judd is taking a pass on challenging Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. The biggest result from that announcement is that it denies the news media from making it the most-watched Senate contest in the country (due to Judd’s celebrity and McConnell’s position as GOP Senate leader). Democrats are now turning their hopes to Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, but we’re not so sure that she -- or another other Democrat -- will have a better chance of defeating McConnell in 2014, despite his underwhelming poll numbers. After all, Mitt Romney got more than 60% of the presidential vote in Kentucky in 2012, and that was a Democratic year. Democrats winning gubernatorial contests in Kentucky is one thing; winning Senate contests in the state is another.

*** Senate Madness -- results from yesterday’s contests: In the 19^th Century region, Stephen Douglas and Sam Houston advanced… So did John Sherman Cooper and Richard Russell in the 20^th Century region… In the Modern Era region, Ed Brooke upset Strom Thurmond and Hubert Humphrey also advanced… And in the Mixed Era region, Robert La Follette and George Norris moved on. See here and here for the results.

*** Senate Madness -- today’s first-round match ups: These are our final first-round contests. In our #3 and #14 seed match-ups, it’s Charles Sumner vs. Franklin Pierce (19^th Century), Barry Goldwater vs. John Stennis (20^th), Jesse Helms vs. Ted Stevens (Modern Era), and Hiram Johnson vs. Scoop Jackson (Mixed). And in the #6 and #11 seeds, it’s Jefferson Davis vs. James Buchanan (19^th), Claude Pepper vs. Mike Mansfield (20^th), Howard Baker vs. Joe Biden (Modern), and William Borah vs. Reed Smoot (Mixed).

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

So much for what would have been 2014’s most-watched Senate contest.

Actress Ashley Judd, a Democrat,  announced on Wednesday that she will not mount a challenge to take on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.

Dario Cantatore / Getty Images file photo

Ashley Judd attends Ashley Judd in Conversation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime at the United Nations on March 14, 2012 in New York City.

“After serious and thorough contemplation, I realize that my responsibilities & energy at this time need to be focused on my family,” the actress tweeted on Wednesday afternoon.

Critics painted her as a Hollywood elite out of touch with the state’s citizens, although she also was known as a high-profile fan of the state’s famous Kentucky Wildcats basketball team.

“Regretfully, I am currently unable to consider a campaign for the Senate,” Judd wrote on Twitter. “I have spoken to so many Kentuckians over these last few months, who expressed their desire for a fighter for the people & new leader,” she wrote on Twitter.

“While that won't be me at this time, I will continue to work as hard as I can to ensure the needs of Kentucky families are met by returning this Senate seat to whom it rightfully belongs: the people & their needs, dreams, and great potential. Thanks for even considering me as that person & know how much I love our Commonwealth.”

Some Democrats were also concerned that a Judd run would hurt them statewide and that they would have a better chance with someone less high-profile. Democratic recruiting hopes now likely turn to Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. 

NBC's Mike O'Brien contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:23 PM EDT

Want a sense of the scope of the GOP's internal divide between conservatives and the party establishment? Take a look at some recent poll numbers that paint a fuller picture of just how many of the Republican Party's core elements object to the direction of the party.

A CBS News poll released Tuesday evening found what most other polls have recently: the Republican Party suffers from a negative impression among most Americans.

Sixty percent of all U.S. adults, the CBS poll found, have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party, versus 31 percent who have a favorable opinion of the GOP.

Democrats, expectedly, have strongly negative opinions toward Republicans; self-described independents are also sour on the GOP, 60 to 24 percent.

A closer look inside the numbers, though, tells the deeper story.

One in four self-described Republicans, 25 percent, also said in the CBS poll that they had a negative opinion of their own party – an ominous sign as the GOP searches for a pathway back to electoral success.

Much of the news about efforts to remake the party, such as the Republican National Committee's new "Growth and Opportunity Project," have been confined to an inside-the-Beltway audience. Much of the outreach called for by the report has yet to take place, making any improvement in voters' impression of the party a lagging indicator.

Moreover, the GOP's internal angst might not necessarily be surprising given the party is still reeling from its loss in a second consecutive presidential election. More recently, party leaders cut a deal that allowed taxes to rise -- a prospect that's anathema to the Republican base.

The CBS poll doesn't offer more detailed breakdowns, but looking inside the internal numbers of the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll late last month and a CNN/ORC poll released in mid-March offer clues to the source of internal Republican discord.

Both polls found that blanket "Republicans" had a slightly more favorable opinion of the Republican Party than in the CBS poll. The NBC/WSJ poll, conducted in late February, found that 63 percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, versus 15 percent who expressed a negative impression; 21 percent of self-described GOPers were neutral. Similarly, 82 percent of Republicans rated the party favorably in the CNN poll, versus 14 percent who had an unfavorable opinion of the GOP.

It's among conservatives where opinion turns against the Republican Party establishment.

Less than half of self-identified conservatives -- 48 percent -- expressed a favorable opinion of the Republican Party in the February NBC/WSJ poll. Twenty-six percent of conservatives had a negative opinion of the party of which they ostensibly serve as the base, and a quarter -- 25 percent -- were neutral.

The CNN poll includes similar numbers; that poll, which was conducted from March 15-17, found that 58 percent of self-identified conservatives have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, versus 36 percent who hold an unfavorable impression.

The numbers cut to the core of the GOP's identity crisis. Party leaders wish to broaden the party's appeal and, on some issues (like immigration reform), move toward the political center. That extends to primary elections, in which the GOP establishment hopes to re-assert itself, and avoid instances where unelectable conservatives sometimes topple candidates regarded as more electable in the general election.

To be sure, too, these numbers don't necessarily suggest that conservatives are so disaffected that they would stay home in general election contests. Even the most critical of conservatives eventually came around last fall to supporting Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

But these numbers suggest that the party's right flank -- the heart and soul of the Republican Party -- haven't bought in. And until they do, a transformation of the party will be that much more difficult.

Hearing a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows federal benefits to go only to heterosexual married couples, the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of the statute and indicated that it might strike down a section of the 1996 law.

At issue in Wednesday’s oral argument was the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton.

Listen: Audio of the oral arguments

A section of the law, in effect, bars federal agencies from recognizing same-sex marriages, even in the states where they are legal.

After the oral argument, NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams reported that there seemed to be the five votes on the court that would be needed to invalidate the law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy – viewed by some court observers as the swing vote in the case – indicated that he had problems with law, telling attorney Paul Clement, who was representing House members supporting DOMA, that since federal regulations which affect married couples are “intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.”

Kennedy also complained that the statute applies not only to the majority of states that don’t allow same-sex marriages but also to the nine states where voters have chosen to make them legal.

The issue before the high court Wednesday was the application of the federal estate tax to a lesbian couple who had been married in Canada and lived in New York.

As executor of Thea Spyer’s estate, Edith Windsor paid more than $360,000 in federal estate taxes. Windsor seeks a refund on the ground that she is Spyer’s surviving spouse. Under federal law, property that passes to a surviving spouse is generally free from estate taxes.

The liberal justices attacked DOMA Wednesday on the grounds that it diminished marriages between same-sex couples in the states that have chosen to legalize them.

Justice Ruth Ginsburg told Clement that for the federal government to say “no joint (tax) return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits; your spouse is very sick but you can't get leave ... one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this?”

She said federal regulations which apply to married couples are “pervasive” and the upholding DOMA would mean in effect there would be “two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim-milk marriage.”

Justice Elena Kagan also voiced criticism of DOMA, telling Clement that Congress had targeted gay people, “a group that is not everybody's favorite group in the world.”

She asked, “Do we really think that Congress was doing this for uniformity reasons, or do we think that Congress's judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus, and so forth?”

Related: Supreme Court hints that it won't issue sweeping ruling on same-sex marriage

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised the question of whether if the court finds section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, must the laws in most states that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples also be found unconstitutional?

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli replied, “We think it's an open question with respect to state recognition of marriage,” but that “it would be difficult” for states to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples.

Two years ago, the Justice Department stopped defending DOMA in court after Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress that he and President Barack Obama had concluded that "classifications based on sexual orientation" were inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under law.

This drew fire from some of the conservative justices in Wednesday’s oral argument.

Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan told the justices that Obama “made an accountable legal determination that this act of Congress is unconstitutional,” prompting Kennedy to ask “then why does he enforce the statute?”

Srinivasan said enforcement is not “an all-or-nothing proposition.” That answer didn’t satisfy Chief Justice John Roberts who said, “What is the test for when you think your obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed means you'll follow your view about whether it's constitutional or not or you won't follow your view?”

“I'd hesitate to give you a black-and-white algorithm,” Srinivasan replied.

Roberts criticized the Obama administration’s contention that gays and lesbians are a politically powerless group and that therefore they deserve special protection from the court – by applying “heightened scrutiny” to DOMA.

Roberts told Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer representing Windsor, that  the changes in marriage laws in nine states and enactment of domestic partnerships in other states "has a lot to do with the political force and effectiveness of people representing, supporting your side of the case."

When Kaplan disagreed, Roberts asked, “You don't doubt that the lobby supporting the enactment of same sex-marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?”

He also noted that “political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.”

Court observers caution that one should not read too much into the questions the justices ask during oral argument since they don’t necessarily reflect how any particular justice would ultimately vote in the case.

Williams said that before the justices even reach the question of the legal merits, they must first decide whether the Obama administration and the House of Representatives have standing to be involved in the case. It remains unclear how a majority of justices will decide that legal standing question.

The Obama administration – even though it was the nominal defendant in the case – urged the federal appeals court in New York to rule in favor of Windsor. So in essence, the Obama administration won in the appeals court and the high court normally doesn’t allow the victorious side in a case to appeal.

The oral argument came a day after the court signaled that it is unlikely to issue a sweeping ruling declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

Jewel Samad / AFP - Getty Images

Same-sex marriage supporters demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court on March 27, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

Passed by the House in 1996 by a vote of 342 to 67, the Defense of Marriage Act includes one section that says for purposes of federal law marriage is defined as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

Another part of the law says that states which do not permit same-sex marriages can’t be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

Clinton signed the bill into law and in the 1996 presidential campaign, and his campaign ran radio ads touting that fact. But Clinton recently wrote in the Washington Post, “I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.”

NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams contributed to this story.

This story was originally published on Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:30 AM EDT

The return of the culture wars… DOMA case puts Bill Clinton in the spotlight… Ditto John Boehner… Immigration activity: McCain, Schumer hold press conference in Nogales, AZ at 3:00 pm ET, while Obama gives interview to Telemundo… Guess who’s campaigning in SC-1 run-off? Rick Santorum… And more Senate Madness!!!

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

Same-sex marriage supporters talk with same-sex marriage opponents in front of the Supreme Court on March 26, 2013 in Washington, DC, as the Court takes up the issue of gay marriage. The US Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments on the emotionally charged issue of gay marriage as it considers arguments that it should make history and extend equal rights to same-sex couples.

*** The return of the culture wars: There’s a truism in American politics: When the economy is struggling, the political conversation becomes mostly about the economy. And when it isn’t struggling, the conversation turns to … social and cultural issues. So not surprisingly, as the Dow Jones average reaches new highs and after last month’s very positive jobs report, this week’s political focus is on gay rights (which the Supreme Court considers again today), abortion (as North Dakota passed the country’s most restrictive abortion ban), and guns (as legislation comes to the Senate floor next month). But as Politico has noted, there’s a big twist to the latest installment of the culture wars: “The left is picking the fights and, for the most part, enjoying being on the right side of public opinion.” Indeed, a majority of Americans now support gay marriage; exit polls from the ’12 election showed that nearly six in 10 Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases; and our Feb. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll found 61% of Americans saying they want stricter gun laws. Now that’s not to say that these issues are automatic winners for the left; after all, that gun legislation faces a very uncertain fate in the Senate. But, for the first time we can remember while covering Washington politics, these issues aren’t automatic losers for them. And that’s a significant development.

*** DOMA case puts Bill Clinton in the spotlight: The day after hearing oral arguments on California’s Prop. 8 gay-marriage ban, the Supreme Court today considers the Defense of Marriage Act. NBC’s Pete Williams previews the oral arguments. “An 83-year-old former IBM programmer is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a law that cost her more than a quarter of a million dollars and deprived her, and thousands of other gay couples, of federal marriage benefits. At issue is the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton. It bars federal agencies from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal.” Politically, DOMA puts Clinton back into the spotlight. Earlier this month, the former president wrote a Washington Post op-ed saying that DOMA is discriminatory and should be overturned (although he didn’t directly apologize for signing it into law.) As the New York Times put it, “Rarely has a former president declared that an action he took in office violated the Constitution. But Mr. Clinton’s journey from signing the Defense of Marriage Act to repudiating it mirrors larger changes in society as same-sex marriage has gone from a fringe idea to one with a majority.”

*** Ditto John Boehner: The DOMA case puts House Speaker John Boehner in the political spotlight, too. As we wrote yesterday, Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans spent millions to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court after the Obama administration said it would no longer do so. Despite this defense, Boehner’s office was silent yesterday as the court heard oral arguments in the Prop. 8 case -- instead sending out emails to reporters on the Keystone pipeline and Obama’s Organizing for Action. Will it remain quiet today? Boehner did answer reporters’ questions on DOMA last week, however. “DOMA was a law passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Clinton. And in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional, the Supreme Court does,” Boehner said, per NBC’s Frank Thorp. “And our financing the lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what's constitutional and what isn't.”

*** On the border: Turning to immigration, four of the bipartisan senators working on comprehensive immigration reform legislation -- John McCain, Chuck Schumer, Jeff Flake, and Michael Bennet -- are holding a press conference at 3:00 pm ET in Nogales, AZ. The purpose of presser and the border visit, one Senate aide tells First Read, is to hear directly from the U.S. Border Patrol and area stakeholders about what is working and what isn’t along the U.S.-Mexico border. These senators aren’t expected to unveil their bipartisan legislation until Congress returns the week of April 8, but the Arizona Republic quotes McCain saying on Monday that he can’t promise anything. “‘I can't guarantee anything,’ McCain said after an afternoon town-hall-style meeting with constituents in northwest Phoenix. ‘We're still in serious negotiations, but we have made progress. We are negotiating now, as we are in recess.’”

*** Obama sits down for Telemundo interview: That press conference on the border isn’t the only immigration-related event today. Telemundo’s Lori Montenegro sits down with President Obama at the White House to talk about immigration reform and other issues. The interview airs on Telemundo beginning at 6:30 pm ET. (Obama also gives an interview today to Univision.)

*** Guess who’s campaigning in South Carolina? With the Mark Sanford-vs.-Curtis Bostic run-off in South Carolina taking place next week on April 2, 2016 presidential politics is getting in the mix as Rick Santorum today campaigns with Bostic. Santorum endorsed the GOP candidate yesterday.

*** Senate Madness -- results from yesterday’s contests: In the 19^th Century region, #2 seed John C. Calhoun and Thomas Hart Benton advanced…. In the 20^th Century region, Everett Dirksen bested Margaret Chase Smith, and William J. Fulbright moved on as well… In the Modern Era, Daniel Patrick Moynihan advanced, as did Bob Dole… And in the Mixed Era, Henry Cabot Lodge and Arthur Vandenberg moved on. See here and here for the vote totals between yesterday’s #2-vs.-#15 and #7-vs.-#10 match ups.

*** Senate Madness -- today’s first-round match ups: Today, our contests pit the #5 and #12 seeds: Sam Houston vs. Hamilton Fish, Huey Long vs. Richard Russell, Hubert Humphrey vs. Daniel Inouye, and Wayne Morse vs. George Norris. And they also pit the #4 and #13 seeds: Stephen Douglas vs. Daniel Voorhees, Joe McCarthy vs. John Sherman Cooper, Strom Thurmond vs. Ed Brooke, and Robert La Follette vs. Robert Morris. Click here and here to vote for your most consequential senator!!!

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

An 83-year-old former IBM programmer is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a law that cost her more than a quarter of a million dollars and deprived her, and thousands of other gay couples, of federal marriage benefits.

At issue is the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton. It bars federal agencies from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal.

The arguments are being heard just one day after a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which put an end to same-sex marriage in that state, was brought to the high court. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court hinted that it might be hesitant to issue any kind of sweeping ruling declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The justices seemed wary of issuing a broad decision that would apply to any state outside of California.

As a result of DOMA, same-sex couples in states where same-sex marriages are legal are accorded state and local marriage benefits, but not more than 1,100 federal ones. These range from spousal health coverage to Social Security and veterans' benefits.

For more than 40 years, Edie Windsor lived with another woman, Thea Spyer, and the two were eventually married in Canada in 2007. But when Spyer died two years later, leaving Windsor the estate, the IRS sent a tax bill for $363,053, because DOMA barred the federal agency from recognizing their marriage. The surviving spouse of a traditional marriage is not required to pay federal estate taxes.

"I couldn't believe that they were making a stranger of this person I lived with and loved for 43-something years," she said.

So she sued the U.S. government, and two lower federal courts found that DOMA amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. As the case wound its way through the legal process, the Justice Department, originally her adversary, became her ally.

Two years ago, Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress of President Barack Obama's conclusion that "classifications based on sexual orientation" were inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under law. The Justice Department stopped defending DOMA in court.

House Republicans then hired a former solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration, Paul Clement, to take up DOMA's defense. In his written briefs filed with the Supreme Court, he argues that Congress must be able to decide on a definition of marriage for itself.

"The federal government has the same latitude as the states to adopt its own definition of marriage for federal law purposes and has a unique interest in treating citizens across the nation the same," Clement says.

The House Republicans say Congress sought to tie federal benefits to the traditional understanding of marriage and its origins as a way to address "the tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unintended and unplanned offspring." In passing DOMA, they say, Congress sought to "foster relationships in which children are raised by both their biological parents."

But the Justice Department and lawyers for Edie Windsor each urge the court to find that DOMA amounts to unconstitutional discrimination because it lacks a legally sufficient government purpose.

"Denying federal protections to married gay couples will not affect whether straight couples marry or have children who are biologically related to both parents," argues Roberta Kaplan, a New York lawyer representing Edie Windsor.

"No straight couple would call off their wedding if Ms. Windsor receives a tax refund," she says.

The Obama administration urges the court to find that two of the other justifications cited by Congress in passing DOMA -- defending traditional notions of morality and of marriage -- cannot carry the law over the constitutional hurdle.

"Moral opposition to homosexuality, though it may reflect deeply-held personal views, is not a legitimate policy objective that can justify unequal treatment of gay and lesbian people," the Justice Department says.

As for tradition, the government says DOMA does nothing to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, because the states decide for themselves whether to permit it. And no matter how long established, "tradition cannot by itself justify a discriminatory law under equal protection principles."

A decision striking down DOMA would not require states to allow same-sex marriages: they would remain free to decide for themselves. But the federal government would be required to recognize marriages in the states where they are legal.

Nine states now permit same-sex couples to get married -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington. So does Washington, D.C.

The political landscape has shifted dramatically since the law was enacted 17 years ago.  Former President Clinton said earlier this month that he no longer supports the law he signed in 1996 and urged the Supreme Court to strike it down.

"Many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage 'would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.' It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk," he wrote in a column published in the Washington Post.

"Even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law itself is discriminatory," he said.

In order to decide the issues at the heart of the case, however, the justices will have to consider whether procedural complications allow them to get there, due to the unusual way in which the case arrived on their doorstep.

The Justice Department, which asked the court to take the case, is in an odd posture, because it now sides with Edie Windsor, who won in the lower federal courts.  A party that prevails cannot normally appeal the decision. 

And while the defense of DOMA had been carried on by the House Republicans, there's a further question about whether they meet the legal rule requiring that a party to a case claim some specific injury.  It may not be enough for them to assert that they want to see DOMA enforced.

To help the court navigate these potential roadblocks, it appointed a Harvard Law School professor, Vicki Jackson, to argue the jurisdictional issues during Wednesday's courtroom session.

A ruling in the case will come sometime before the end of the court's term in late June.

President Barack Obama appointed Julia Pierson as the next director of the U.S. Secret Service on Tuesday, making her the first woman to ever hold that role.

The administration confirmed to NBC News that Obama had picked Pierson, the currently the chief of staff for the secret service, to lead the agency that, among other things, is tasked with protecting the president, Vice President Joe Biden, the first family and other designees.

Courtesy: U.S. Secret Service

"Over her 30 years of experience with the Secret Service, Julia has consistently exemplified the spirit and dedication the men and women of the service demonstrate every day," Obama said in a statement. "Julia is eminently qualified to lead the agency that not only safeguards Americans at major events and secures our financial system, but also protects our leaders and our first families, including my own. Julia has had an exemplary career, and I know these experiences will guide her as she takes on this new challenge to lead the impressive men and women of this important agency."

Senate confirmation is not required for Pierson's new role.

Pierson succeeds former Director Mark Sullivan in the role. Sullivan announced his retirement earlier this year following almost 30 years with the agency -- almost seven years of which as director.

Sullivan, however, presided over one of the most embarrassing recent incidents for the agency involving revelations that 11 agents allegedly engaged prostitutes in 2012 while on protective assignment at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia. The episode resulted in the retirement or resignation of several agents.

"I have known and worked with Julie for close to 30 years. She was an excellent Assistant Director and Chief of Staff, demonstrating sound judgment, leadership, character, and commitment to our Country, the men and women of the U.S. Secret Service and those we serve and protect," Sullivan said in a statement. "This is a historic and exciting time for the Secret Service and I know Julie will do an outstanding job."

This story was originally published on Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:16 PM EDT

Initial readings of the Supreme Court’s oral argument Tuesday indicated that the justices will likely shy away from a broad ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

But, alluding to the less-than-accurate predictions after last year’s oral arguments regarding the Obama health care law, the White House says: Hold yer horses.

“We've seen in recent history [that] there's ample reason to be cautious about predicting outcomes in Supreme Court cases based on any particular piece of the puzzle -- in this case, oral arguments," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.

After the widely-panned performance last year of the federal government’s lawyer, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., some commentators predicted that the court would flatly declare the Obama administration’s hard-fought health care law to be unconstitutional.
The court’s decision in June upheld the health care law. 

NBC's Shawna Thomas contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:09 PM EDT

Republican Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz have issued a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stating that they plan to filibuster the gun-control legislation scheduled to hit the Senate floor next month.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens' rights to self-defense. It speaks to history's lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history's warning about the oppression of a government that tries," the three senators write. "We will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restriction."

By opposing the motion to proceed, 60 votes would be required to advance the gun-control legislation, which includes universal background checks.

Aides say Paul, Lee and Cruz sent the letter to Reid now to make clear their intentions.
 
"Their goal was to put everyone on notice, since Reid has said he plans to take-up some sort of legislation on guns when we get back from recess," one aide said.

The White House on Tuesday said that a filibuster of the legislation would be "unfortunate."

Noting that public polling shows broad support for many of the gun safety proposals being discussed, White House spokesman Jay Carney added that the victims of gun violence "deserve" a vote. 

"I don't think you could tell the families of those who have lost their children to gun violence that bills like this might be filibustered," Carney said. "I don't think that would be welcome news." 

NBC's Shawna Thomas contributed to this report. 

The Service Employees International Union – one of the major labor groups working for an immigration overhaul – has launched a new ad advocating for a reform plan that includes a path to citizenship.

The ad, called “America,”  is part of a $300,000 buy that will run on national cable, says SEIU. It is the organization's first television ad pushing for immigration this year – and the second buy (SEIU bought time for Spanish-language radio ads last month.)

The 30-second spot depicts a diverse group of people repairing a broken flagpole and hoisting an American flag as a narrator urges Congressional action on immigration reform.

“With back taxes paid, English learned and a real path to citizenship,” the narrator says.  “No half measures.  Let’s fix it once and for all." 

This story was originally published on Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:17 AM EDT

DAILY RUNDOWN: NBC's Pete Williams reports on the main argument in Tuesday's Supreme Court case, "Is Proposition 8 constitutional?" 

TODAY: The Supreme Court will hear arguments today as they consider whether or not California's same-sex marriage ban is constitutional. If the court strikes down Proposition 8, same-sex marriage would resume in California. NBC's Pete Williams reports and legal analyst Lisa Bloom discusses the case.

NIGHTLY NEWS: As public opinion on gay marriage continues to shift, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether the federal government can refuse to recognize it, and whether the states can ban it in the first place. NBC's Pete Williams reports. 

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

A protester raises a flag outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, March 26, 2013.

How gay marriage has disappeared as a political issue (at least for now)… The power (and limits) of public opinion… Tim Johnson is expected not to seek re-election in 2014… Bill Clinton endorses HRC backer Wendy Greuel in LA mayoral race… NYT writes about “volatile” and “temperamental” Christine Quinn… And more SENATE MADNESS….

*** How gay marriage has disappeared as a political issue (for now): This time a year ago, when the Supreme Court was beginning oral arguments to decide the fate of President Obama’s health-care law, the political world was engaged in all-out conflict. Democrats and the White House fiercely backed the law on constitutional merits, while Republicans and the Romney campaign vociferously opposed it. But as the Supreme Court begins two days of oral arguments for this year’s two high profile cases -- on the topic of gay marriage -- it’s worth observing how it’s largely disappeared as a true political issue between the parties. While Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans spent millions to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which the court considers tomorrow, you haven’t seen them recently hold a press conference outside the court to support the law and denounce gay marriage (though Boehner did comment on the matter last Thursday). While the 2012 Republican national platform maintained that “the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard,” the Republican National Committee hasn’t been blasting out press releases. Ditto the Democratic National Committee, whose 2012 platform supported gay marriage. Part of this is due to the change in public opinion (see below). And part of it is that we’re not in the midst of a presidential campaign. Of course, politics can always change, but the relative silence -- at least for now, and compared with health care a year ago -- is deafening.

*** The power (and limits) of public opinion: It’s also notable how quickly public opinion has changed on this subject. Back in 2004 -- when it was used as a wedge issue in that year’s presidential election -- just 30% of Americans favored gay marriage, while 62% opposed it, according to the NBC/WSJ poll. In 2009, those supporting it increased to 41%, and the percentage jumped to 49% in March 2012. And most recently, in Dec. 2012, a majority of respondents (51%) for the first time in the poll said they backed gay marriage. That’s an increase of 21 percentage points in just one year. What’s more, a March 2013 Washington Post/ABC poll found nearly six in 10 (58%) supporting gay marriage. This helps explain why so many national politicians -- President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rob Portman, Claire McCaskill, and Mark Warner -- now support gay marriage; in fact, Obama’s reversal came less than a year ago. But it’s equally important to note the limits of this change in public opinion. As Georgetown University law professor David Cole writes in the New York Times, “Same-sex marriage is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, but is the country ready for a decision requiring all 50 states to recognize such unions immediately?” Cole also asks if there would be a backlash (like what occurred after Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) among the 40% who oppose gay marriage.

*** Tim Johnson isn’t expected to seek re-election in 2014: At 4:00 pm ET today in South Dakota, Sen. Tim Johnson is holding a press conference to announce his intentions about 2014, when his Senate term expires. And as First Read reported yesterday, Johnson is expected to announce that he WON’T be seeking re-election, according to a top Democratic aide. Democrats are hoping to be able to recruit former Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD). But make no mistake: This is a top GOP pick-up opportunity, especially in a midterm year. Here’s our retirement watch for 2014: The Democrats -- so far -- have to defend six open seats (West Virginia’s Jay Rockefeller, Massachusetts’ John Kerry, Iowa’s Tom Harkin, New Jersey’s Frank Lautenberg, Michigan’s Carl Levin, and South Dakota’s Tim Johnson), versus two for Republicans (Nebraska’s Johanns and Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss).

*** Bill Clinton endorses HRC backer Greuel in LA mayoral race: It’s amazing to think that the Obama-vs.-Hillary Democratic primary was five years ago, but Bill Clinton is still endorsing candidates who backed his wife over Obama. The latest example: L.A. mayoral hopeful Wendy Greuel. “Former President Bill Clinton on Monday endorsed Wendy Greuel for Los Angeles mayor, saying the city controller’s proven track record makes her the right candidate to confront the city’s problems,” the Los Angeles Times says. “Clinton has often endorsed people who have been loyal to his family, either helpful during his time at the White House or supporters of his wife’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential run. Greuel fits both categories -- in addition to being an early and active backer of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, she worked in the Clinton administration at the Department of Housing and Urban Development." Meanwhile, Greuel's run-off opponent is Eric Garcetti, who was a big supporter of Barack Obama's in 2008.

*** “Volatile” and “temperamental”? And speaking of this year’s mayoral races, the New York Times writes this piece on NYC mayoral front-runner Christine Quinn. “As she pursues a high-profile bid for mayor, Ms. Quinn, a Democrat, has proudly promoted her boisterous personality, hoping that voters will embrace her blend of brashness and personal charm. But in private, friends and colleagues say, another Ms. Quinn can emerge: controlling, temperamental and surprisingly volatile, with a habit of hair-trigger eruptions of unchecked, face-to-face wrath. She has threatened, repeatedly, to slice off the private parts of those who cross her.” But here’s our question: Isn’t it unusual in politics -- especially New York City politics!!! -- if a politician didn’t have a temper and didn’t threaten those that cross them?

*** Senate Madness -- results from yesterday’s contests: Not surprisingly, all our No. 1 seeds -- Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, LBJ, and Ted Kennedy -- easily advanced yesterday to the next round. In addition, William Seward defeated John Sherman in the 19^th Century bracket; Sam Ervin topped Harry Byrd in the Mixed Era bracket; Robert Wagner bested Hugo Black in the 20^th Century bracket; and Robert Byrd triumphed over Tom Daschle in the Modern Era. Our second-round contests start next week.

*** Senate Madness -- today’s first-round match ups: Meanwhile, these are the contests that are taking place today (see here and here). In the 19^th Century era, #2 seed John C. Calhoun faces off against #15 seed Marcus Hanna, and #7 Thomas Hart Benton competes against #10 James G. Blaine… In the Mixed Era region, #2 Henry Cabot Lodge battles #15 Phil Hart, while #7 Arthur Vandenberg takes on #10 Gerald Nye… In the 20^th Century, it’s #2 Everett Dirksen vs. #15 Margaret Chase Smith, and #7 Robert Taft vs. #10 William Fulbright… And in the Modern Era region, it’s #2 Daniel Patrick Moynihan vs. #15 George Mitchell, and #7 Ed Muskie vs. #10 Bob Dole. We’ll have more first-round match ups tomorrow.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

19th Century Era

2. John C. Calhoun (19^th), D/D-R/Nullifier-South Carolina, 1782-1850: During the debates over slavery before the Civil War, there was no bigger and notable champion of states’ rights than John C. Calhoun, who preached under his doctrine of nullification that states had the right to reject federal policies they believed were unconstitutional. Calhoun also served as vice president (under both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson), secretary of war (under James Monroe), and secretary of state (under John Tyler).

15. Marcus Hanna (19^th), R-Ohio, 1837-1904: He was the quintessential Republican political strategist of the late 19^th Century, helping to put Rutherford B. Hayes, (1876), James Garfield (1880), and William McKinley (1896) in the White House. Afterward, he was appointed to – and then later won – a Senate seat and became McKinley’s top ally and adviser in Congress.

20th Century Era

2. Everett Dirksen (20^th), R-Illinois, 1896-1969: When you have a building named after you, you did something. The 37-year member of Congress believed in governance, in compromise, and was a pivotal figure in getting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts passed. He voted as minority leader for cloture to end the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. He held the position as Republican leader until the day he died. Dirksen’s also responsible for the modern-day televised response to the president’s State of the Union. (By the way, Dirksen is also 10-seed Howard Baker’s father-in-law.)

15. Margaret Chase Smith (20^th), R-Maine, 1897-1995: First woman to serve in both the House and Senate, and was an outspoken critic of McCarthyism. In fact, she was the first senator – male or female – to speak out against Sen. McCarthy’s communist witch hunt.

Modern Era

2. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Modern), D-New York, 1927-2003: He was known for his intellect (he wrote 19 books), his forward thinking (he foresaw the Soviet decline), connections to history, and his ideas to come up with solutions to big problems -- from auto safety to cities to racism. He could work across the aisle and had a hand in the 1980s Social Security fix as well as working with Bob Dole on a health-insurance fix (not what the White House wanted) in the 1990s that never came to fruition. He also was one of the only Democrats to speak out against late-term abortion, calling it "infanticide." The New York Times called him an “often brilliant synthesizer whose works compelled furious debate and further research.”

15. George Mitchell (Modern), D-Maine, 1933-present: He began his Senate experience as a top aide to former Sen. Ed Muskie (D-Maine), then as a senator himself, and then as Senate majority leader from 1989 through 1995. After leaving the Senate, Mitchell played a key role in negotiating the peace agreement in Northern Ireland.

Mixed Era

2. Henry Cabot Lodge (Mixed), R-Massachusetts, 1850-1924: If you want to point to one person who re-defined how politics is played on Capitol Hill, look to Lodge. He wrote the playbook for how to oppose a president. He and Woodrow Wilson did not get along. So much so Wilson’s widow told him not to come to Wilson’s funeral. The position of majority leader didn’t even exist at the time, but Lodge is referred to as the de facto majority leader because of his tenure and influence, particularly on foreign policy. The hawkish Republican scuttled the U.S.’s joining of the League of Nations in the Treaty of Versailles, putting a premium on party unity. He was also instrumental in the annexing of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and pushed for a stronger Navy. If he has a weakness, it was that his focus in the Senate was almost exclusively on foreign policy.

15. Phil Hart (Mixed), D-Michigan, 1912-1976: Hart served in the Senate for nearly 20 years, and was a prominent supporter of the Civil Rights Act. In fact, he earned the nickname, “The Conscience of the Senate.” But today, he’s perhaps best known for one of the Senate office buildings being named after him.

19th Century Era

7. Thomas Hart Benton (19^th), D/Jacksonian/D-R-Missouri:1782-1858: Thomas Hart Benton was one of the notable politicians in the Jacksonian Era. He fought a duel with a young Andrew Jackson – and Jackson carried Benton’s bullet in his body for the rest of life. Later, Benton would become of one Jackson’s biggest champions and defenders in the Senate. 

10. James G. Blaine (19^th), R-Maine, 1830-1893: Blaine was one of the dominant political figures of the late 19^th Century, having served in the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and Secretary of State. He ran for president in 1876 and 1880, but didn’t win his party’s nomination. He finally was the Republican Party’s nominee for president in 1884, but he lost the election to Grover Cleveland.

20th Century Era

7. Robert Taft (20^th), R-Ohio, 1889-1953: Taft -- the son of former President (and Supreme Court Chief Justice) William Howard Taft -- was the most prominent Republican to emerge after the GOP’s political defeats during the Great Depression. He was a well-known isolationist during a time when Democrats became committed internationalists after World War II, and he co-authored the Taft-Hartley Act, which was a conservative revision of the earlier Wagner Act governing unionization and labor-management relations.

10. William J. Fulbright (20^th), D-Arkansas, 1905-95: The longest-serving chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Fulbright played a key role in turning the tide of public opinion against the Vietnam War. Though he supported the initial action, he held televised hearings on the country’s escalation of the war and unchecked presidential power. Fulbright became close to Lyndon Johnson, who helped engineer his ascendance to head of Foreign Relations. Johnson lobbied Kennedy to make Fulbright his secretary of state, but -- because of Fulbright’s complicated Southern politics being from Arkansas and signing onto the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Ed decision – Kennedy refused, labeling him a segregationist. Ironically, had Johnson’s lobbying of Kennedy won out, those Vietnam hearings, which fueled the anti-war movement may have never happened. Fulbright was also the only senator to vote against funding Joseph McCarthy’s subcommittee on investigations. His namesake legacy, of course, is the Fulbright Scholarship, established in 1946, which has become a highly competitive exchange program of American and international scholars to foster deeper understanding between countries. He supported a national center for the arts and his legislation led to the creation of the Kennedy Center.

Modern Era

7. Edmund Muskie (Modern), D-Maine, 1914-1996: Muskie was the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential nominee in 1968 and a presidential candidate in 1972. But he also served for more than 20 years in the Senate (1959-1980), writing some of the nation’s early environmental laws of the 1960s, as well as sponsoring the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act of the 1970s. On foreign affairs, he initially supported the Vietnam War but later opposed it. Muskie resigned his Senate seat in 1980 to become President Jimmy Carter’s secretary of state.

10. Bob Dole (Modern), R-Kansas, 1923-current: The conservative Kansan war veteran is the self-proclaimed “Master of Political Compromise.” Dole served 27 years in the Senate and was longest-serving top Republican in the chamber (from 1985 until 1995 when he ran for president). The Medal of Freedom honoree believed in bipartisanship, governance, civility, and keeping his word. He also fought for social welfare items like food stamps (he lived through the Depression) and benefits for the disabled (he lost full use of his arm in WWII; he was also pivotal in the creation of the WWII Memorial), as well as civil rights.  things the GOP of today sees as anathema. Many of those are things that are anathemas to today’s GOP (see: the fact that his presence – in a wheelchair -- wasn’t enough to get the disabilities treaty passed.)

Mixed Era

7. Arthur Vandenberg (Mixed), R-Michigan, 1884-1951: Vandenberg, who used the phrase that “politics stops at the water’s edge," served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, working with the Democratic Truman administration on the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, and the creation of NATO.

10. Gerald Nye (Mixed), R-North Dakota, 1892-1971: How many senators can get another so riled up they punch a desk so hard that they bleed? Nye was one such senator. The isolationist progressive Republican opposed U.S. involvement in wars, particularly World War I. He alleged there was a conspiracy among weapons-makers to lure America into wars for their profit. Nye held high-profile "Merchants of Death" hearings on the subject. He found no hard evidence of a conspiracy, and the hearings were cut off when he claimed Woodrow Wilson withheld key information from the American people before making the decision to go to war. Democratic appropriations Chairman Carter Glass of Virginia, was so infuriated that in a floor speech, he slammed his fist down so hard on his desk to rebuke Nye that blood ran from his knuckles. Nye’s hearings, however, did have a lasting impact, because they led to three neutrality acts of in the 1930s showing America's reticence to getting involved in wars.

In a historic oral argument on a challenge to state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the Supreme Court indicated Tuesday that it might not strike down such laws.

The justice whom many observers view as the swing vote in the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, voiced worry at one point during the argument that proponents of same-sex marriages were asking the court to issue a decision that would “go into uncharted waters.”

After the oral argument, Pete Williams of NBC News reported that it seemed “quite obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court is not prepared to issue any kind of sweeping ruling” declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

Williams said there seemed to be “very little eagerness” from any of the justices to “embrace that broad a ruling.”

LISTEN: Audio of the oral arguments

At issue Tuesday was California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008 that limits marriage to one man-one woman couples. Those seeking to have the court strike down Proposition 8 argue that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a right for same-sex couples to marry.

Williams said that both the liberal and the conservative justices seemed wary of issuing a decision that would apply to any state outside of California.

Art Lien

A courtroom sketch of the oral arguments.

It seemed possible the court would not issue any ruling on marriage at all – deciding instead that it had made a mistake in even agreeing to hear the case since the plaintiffs, supporters of Proposition 8, might lack the legal standing to bring the suit.

“I just wonder if the case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point to attorney Theodore Olson who was representing those challenging the California law.

And a few justices seemed to imply that it might be prudent for the court to step back and allow the states to assess what the effects of same-sex marriages might be.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said at one point, “If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?”

Along similar lines, Justice Samuel Alito said “there isn't a lot of data” about the social effects of the institution of same-sex marriage.

“And it may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe,” Alito said to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who was arguing for the Obama administration, as a friend of the court, in opposition to Proposition 8.

“But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet?”

Alito added, “On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?”

Kennedy, while expressing those same concerns, also noted, “On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal – what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California ... that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status.”

It is possible that a majority of the justices could support a ruling that applies only to California – or one that applies only to California and several other states which allow domestic partnerships that are almost identical to marriage in all but name.

During the argument, Justice Antonin Scalia was the one justice who voiced the most skepticism about the argument that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

He said to Olson, “I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Was it always unconstitutional?”

Olson replied that “when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control” then at that point limiting marriage became unconstitutional.

Scalia then asked, “When did that happen?”

Olson responded, “There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.”

At another point Chief Justice John Roberts asked Olson whether those seeking to strike down Proposition 8 were interested only in the label “marriage,” since the state of California already grants same-sex couples almost all the legal protections and rights provided to heterosexual married couples.

“So it's just about the label in this case,” Roberts said.

“The label "marriage" means something,” Olson answered.

But Roberts then observed, “If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, ‘this is my friend,’ but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.”

Court observers caution that one should not read too much into the questions the justices ask and the comments they make during oral argument since they don’t necessarily reflect how any particular justice would ultimately vote in the case.

Charles Cooper, who served in the Reagan administration as assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, argued the case Tuesday for supporters of Proposition 8.

Although the justices are deciding a constitutional question, the argument is taking place as polls indicate that public opinion is shifting toward acceptance of same-sex marriage.

In recent years, nine states, either through court rulings, legislation, or ballot measures, have redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. But most states have laws or constitutional provisions that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

More elected officials, such as Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Sen. Jon Tester, D- Mont., are personally endorsing same-sex marriage, but it remains to be seen whether the justices will be influenced by public opinion.

In a statement Tuesday, Tester said, "no one should be able to tell a Montanan or any American who they can love and who they can marry."

Three weeks ago Tester signed an amicus brief filed by Democratic members of Congress urging the justices to overturn part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

On Wednesday the high court will hear oral arguments in that challenge to one section of the Defense of Marriage Act, which for purposes of federal regulations and benefits, defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

This story was originally published on Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:01 AM EDT

South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson will not seek re-election in 2014, NBC News has confirmed. He is expected to make a formal announcement of his retirement Tuesday.

Johnson’s decision opens an opportunity for Republicans to take over the seat in a state that favored Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by almost 20 points.

His departure is no great surprise to operatives on both sides of the aisle. Johnson has been recovering from a brain hemorrhage in 2006 that left him partially paralyzed. (He did, however, run successfully for re-election in 2008.)

He is the seventh senator to announce his retirement in 2014. 

This story was originally published on Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:28 PM EDT