show that joe paterno was more involved in protecting sandusky from authorities than he admitted. and finally yet another reporter learns the hard way, don't mess with chris christie. we begin with the debate over the tax or penalty. mark halperin is senior political analyst at the washington post and also an msnbc analyst. the supreme court gave republicans one major gift on thursday suggesting the mandate was a tax. there's only one problem. mitt romney isn't exactly well positioned to take advantage of that given his history in massachusetts. the problem was illustrated this morning when eric fernstrom went on msnbc and chuck todd asks if romney agreed that the mandate is a tax. >> the governor believes what we put in place in massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the

mandate was a tax. >> so he agrees with the president -- but he agrees with the president that it is not -- and he believes you shouldn't call the tax penalty a tax. you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine? >> that's correct. but the president also needs to be held accountable for his hypocritical statements. >> that's not in line with republican talking points on the issue. mitch mcconnell was talked about the box romney finds himself in. >> if the obama mandate is a tax on the middle class, isn't the romney mandate a tax on the middle class? >> i think governor romney will have to speak for himself what he did in massachusetts. >> there's more to play through election day. on "meet the press" in 2006 mitt romney had trouble explaining why the fees he raised in massachusetts was not a tax. >> if it were a tax it'd be called a tax.

>> that's a gimmick. >> it's reality. and i have no -- i am not trying to hide from the fact we raised fees. $240 million. >> does the gop need romney to play ball if they intend to sell this as a tax? >> michael, i've been on the program one or two other times, i've never said this before. i can't figure it out. i think clearly you see an extreme tension between everyone else in the republican party and their presidential nominee on a not insignificant issue. there's not many people in the republican party today who think the law mitt romney signed in massachusetts is a good law because of the individual mandate but also because of the fact that if you don get health insurance, you have to pay a tax or a fee depending on what you call it. i think it's possible, possible that the party can finesse this. but today was an ugly day. and they benefitted from the fact that congress isn't in session.

so mitch mcconnell saying one thing and fernstrom saying the other, you don't have the ping-pong they'll have to confront. >> chris, do they have another route to go? maybe because of the archival footage. was there a different strategy they could pursue? >> i don't think so. the biggest thing romney worries about. he's a flip-flopper. he lacks a core. he doesn't believe in anything. and there's no way that you can finesse -- i'm with mark on this. i don't see a way to finesse calling it a fee or a penalty, whatever you'd like, in massachusetts and somehow moving to calling it a tax. it's almost the exact same thing. i think if mitt romney had his way he wouldn't talk about health care at all. the one thing i point out, on with chuck this morning about fernstrorm makes a gaffe. this is not a gaffe at all. the establishment of the party were worried about the prospect

of mitt romney as republican nominee because they thought health care is something that revs up our base. this isomething we can go after obama about. he spent two years getting something that remains viewed less favorably. we can go at him on this. it's very hard for him to do. mitt romney doesn't want to relitigate massachusetts in any way, shape, or form. >> he makes rick santorum look like a soothsayer. it's complications like this i think santorum had in mind. >> why would we put someone up who is uniquely -- pick any other republican in the country. he is the worst republican in the country to put up against barack obama. why would wisconsin want to vote for someone like that? >> mark halperin, did he have it right? >> as chris just said, there's

still a problem here and i don't think it's played out. but republicans are united more than they're divided on obama care. this is a point of tension. they want to all repeal it, including mitt romney. they all point to the tax increases in obama care that they say are bad. they think it's bad to have a federal takeover of health care and they think you can talk about obama care as something that's hurting the economy. so you don't have to have an either/or choice on health care. this though is what rick santorum was talking about. as i said, romney is lucky it's breaking now, where it's not white hot. congress isn't in session. you can imagine if congress were in session, you'd have quotes and quotes from republican members of congress saying this is a disaster, a problem. it's possible because there's so much that unites them on health care that this will tamper down and although the obama people will try to stoke it, ey may be able to get by. there's no way the to get by this one point except rally

arndt the things that unit they will. >> when they throw chief justice rorts under the bus, how does that cut politically? what's the message independents might take home from that? >> i'll sneak in one more thing that unites them. they shouldn't do obama care without reforming medicare and medicaid. i think the party is still trying to figure out what to say about john roberts. i think it takes the supme court issue away from mitt romney, very hard for him to talk about the kind of justices he'd appoint. also takes it somewhat away from the president. even though the supreme court and ability to nominate justices for the next four or eight years should be a huge issue in the campaign, i don't think based on what roberts did and the right's kwus on what to say about him. >> and chris, this distinguishing between tax and penalty is different on both sides. on "meet the press" on sunday, nancy pelosi was challenged on the democratic position than the

mandate constitutes a penalty and not a tax. >> no, it's a penalty. it's a penalty. that comes under the tax code for the 1% perhaps of the population who may decide their going to be free riders. but most people are not affected. no, no. the tax is a penalty for free riders. >> and exactly, how many people will be affected by the mandate and forced to pay a penalty? not as many as you might think. about 21 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, but the majority will not be subject to the penalty. in total, about 4 million people are projected to pay a penalty. chris, i can tell you there's a lot of confusion out there. i have heard from any number of people on the radio who say i'm being taxed to pay for obama care. do you have insurance. yeah. well you're not being affected. they think they are. >> one, yes, there's a lot of misinformation. two, that pelosi interview shows you why this issue could cut in

-- and hurt democrats and hurt barack obama if mitt romney wasn't the nominee. you can see nancy pelosi does not want to say the word tax in relation to this. she does not. now, if you had, i hate to echo rick santorum's line, remember how much controversy that line drew. he'd be the worst nominee. rick santorum got all kind of bad press for that but in a way, let's say you had anybody but mitt romney someone who had passed a health care law that had that penalty. you can bet republicans would be much more united on that front. you'd have them all bashing that idea. see. tax and spend liberal barack obama wants to grow government, raise your taxes and do it to pay for a health care bill you don't even want. i agree with mark they're more united only health care than divided. repeal is the way they'll go. but imagine a scenario in which mitt romney was not the nominee. you would have a more unified party. we would not be spending time

talking about how they say it's a tax issue. this should be a 100% winner for republicans any time they talk about taxes. nancy pelosi's reaction proves that. >> i think the the obama administration has done a terrible job in selling the key aspects of it if americans are walking around thinking they're about to be assessed a tax. >> if you go back an look at this, if you ask people do you support the affordable care act, you'll get in the low 40s. if you ask some of the specific provisions on it, wildly more popular. the bill itself is just not popular and i just don't see that changing because people have -- they think they know things they don't know. >> let me focus on mitch mcconnell for a moment. what's the republican proposal

to help the 30 million plus americans without health insurance? watch his response. >> what's specific thing are you going to do to provide universal coverage to the 30 million people who are uninsured? >> that is not the issue. the question is how can you go step by step to improve e american health care system? it is already the finest health care system in the world. >> but you don't think the 30 million -- is an issue? >> let me tell you what we're not going to do. we're not going to turn the american health care system into a western european system. >>ark, quick game change kind of a question. does the gop need to do more than that? people were saying well they've got to articulate something. do they? is articulating opposition enough? >> well, look, unfortunately, because i think we shouldn't be the only industrialized democracy that doesn't have health care, it is not a politically dangerous place to be. where mitch mcconnell is. to say we should make access easier but not guaranteed. that's the position the republican party has pretty much

had throughout its history and they don't seem to pay much of a price for it. i'm not sure given the current law's unpopular, this is the election where they'll feel on this defensive to take that position. they have some policies that mitt romney supports that are some of which are in paul ryan's budget that would extend health care in theory to more people. >> but nothing comprehensive. >> and not very easy to explain. >> understood. thank you so much. coming up, you can bet the obama campaign will keep up their attacks on mitt romney's record at bain capital. both sides now admit they're working. this is high pressure, the place for politics. idide? you're not my dad ahh!! hey honey, back feels better, little dancing tonight, you and me? dr. scholl's pro inserts relieve different types of lower body pain by treating at the source so you're a whole new you. go pro with dr. scholl's.

has a facebook page these days. but where's the relationship status? well, esurance is now in a relationship...with allstate. and it looks pretty serious. esurance. click or call. mitt romney is the least likeied presidential candidate at this point of the campaign since bill clinton 20 years ago. that's according to polling by nbc news.

romney is viewed positively by just 33% of americans. 39% view him negatively and that's about where bill clinton was in the summer of 1992. of course, clinton turned things around with a series of town halls and that famous appearance where he played sax on the asenio hall show, so who are the candidates with the highest favorability rating at this point in their campaigns? >> george bush in 2000. and barack obama in 2008. we'll be right back.

the obama campaign's bain strategy criticizing mitt romney for his work with bain capital is paying dividends in crucial battleground states. new data shows that from early april through late june. 100% of the ads sponsored by pro-obama super pac priorities usa mentioned bain capital by name. they showered the swing state with multi-million dollar ad buys aiming to chip away at

romney's business -- and both campaigns agreed the ads with working. eugene robinson and mother jones magazine's david corn is also an msnbc political analyst and author. it tells me it's not an ad that requires the president at the end saying i'm barack obama and i approve this message. very, very successful and yet the president maintains some distance from it. >> right. the president gets to have clean hands in this while allies go after mitt romney on what he portrays as his strength. his record in business, in success. he says that qualifies me to be president. and the president's side is arguin wait a minute. let's look at what he did in business and look and see if this is the nd of experience

we want in a president of the united states. >> it reminds me of governor romney's handling of his religion. it's a situation he's loathed to discuss. he'll talk about his record at creating jobs, maybe a reference to staples or some other business, but you just don't hear him address the nitty-gritty of bain. is it because he has no message that he can sell in that regard? i mean, what's holding him back? >> i think because the nitty-gritty is kind of dirty. i mean, their point was and the president made this point himself. not in an ad but in remarks. that bain's existence was to create profits, not jobs, for the investors. and sometimes that led to good results from the firms they bought. other times priorities usa and

others are pointing out it led to disastrous results for the workers. it's not necessarily a template that you want to bring to the white house. so if you couldn't, could mitt romney come on this show as if he would ever, an talk for 10, 15, 20 minutes about the details of the deals he did or where his initial investment money came from. there's a lot bain that just wouldn't sit right with middle class americans. >> do you buy into that? i love staples. i'm a stationery kind of guy. don't ask me why. it's one of my quirks. isn't there a staples story he could be touting and walk you through the growth bain produced? >> you know, i don't know if he would sustain that for a whole 60 seconds. 15 second, 30 second spot, we helped staples get started and it's -- but you have one around the corner from where you live and it's great and you like to go there. but talk about the details of that deal, i'm not sure that that really connects with people. >> let's take a look at how these things are being raised thus f. here's a pro-obama super pac priorities usa ad attacking romney's tenure with bain capital.

>> romney bought companies, drowned them in debt. thousands of workers lost jobs, benefits and pensions. for every company he drove into the ground, romney averaged a $92 million profit. now, he says his business experience would make him a good president? if romney wins, the middle class loses. >> david, did the cory bookers of the world know, those who said hey not all about bain are bad. did they not see this coming? seems like outside the beltway, it played well. >> four years ago, we had a crash, wall street crashed and really main street paid the price with4 million lost jobs. i think that the bain attack, criticism, has to be affected. i don't think americans like the

idea of people like mitt romney, golden parachutes and golden elevators he had no risk when he took the bane pital job and when companies lost money, he still made money. it's this free enterprise that can't be that free. i never understand understood mayor booker's arguments, i think this is a, this cut to the heart of mitt romney's values. >> when i say they've been effective, let me back that up. the latest poll we showed last week shows evidence of how effective the obama campaign's bain strategy may be. just 18% said that what they've heard about romney's business experience gives a more positive opinion of him. the polling is worse for romney than the national numbers which show a significantly closer split. eugene robinson, your reaction to those numbers. >> first of all i think they're targeting the right swing states from the obama campaign's point of view because as you said, the impact seems to be greater there than nationally. you know, it's -- i think the

interesting disconnect between kind of the new york, washington line access. think that private equity is line. which has a problem, i think, with this particular style or the slice of the capitalism. >> i agree with you for what it's worth. everybody in that oscella court took minute from someone in that. >> there you go. >> mitt romney's campaign is pushing a new line of attack that will portray obama as a craven political figure. revived this 4-year-old footage

to make this debut ad. let's watch this. >> barack obama's attacks against mitt romney, they're just not true. the washington post says on just about every level the ad is misleading and untrue. but that's barack obama. he also attacked hillary clinton with false ads. >> shame on you, barack obama. >> there's a lot more recent footage from the gop side where they're all sniping at each other. is that effective to dust off hillary from four years ago? >> i don't think hillary is a big critic of barack obama these days. you have newt gingrich calling mitt romney a liar just a couple months ago. you could dust off miles of footage of john mccain saying me things about mitt romney from the 2008 campaign. this is the one thing i don't understand about the romney strategy and the super pacs on his side.

barack obama i don't think got the memo. he's been president for three and a half years now. americans will and can judge him on what he's done as president. no one's going to look at what he did or didn't do in 2008 and what was said or not said about him that far back. it's kind of idiotic. >> i think it's also a reflection of her strong numbers. that's why they're using it. thank you. we appreciate it. >> sure. up next, a reporter in new jersey gets the chris christie treatment after asking a question he didn't want to answer. that's next in the sideshow. and remember you can follow me on twitter if you can spell smerconish. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

back to "hardball" now for the sideshow. first off, we've seen what at a press conference right?

well, this weekend was no exception. the new jersey governor wanted to answer questions about a damaged water treatment plant in his state. no other topics allowed. here's what went down when a reporter tried to shift subjects. >> on monday are you going to be addressing the legislature? >> did i say off topic? are you stupid? on topic. next question. good. thank you. thank you, all, very much. i'm sorry for the idiot over there. take care. >> he didn't even get the full question out before being called stupid and an idiot. next, what does mardi gras have to do -- let's turn to bobby jindal. here's his attempt at defending mitt romney's support of the individual mandate when he was governor of massachusetts. >> mitt romney's always been against obama re. always said he wanted to repeal it. i come from one of the most distinct states in the country. mardi gras is great in

louisiana, not as good in other states. >> you're really comparing mardi gras to universal health care? >> i'm with david gregory on that one. and chief justice john roberts has been getting a lot of attention for being the unexpected swing vote in the health care decision. the folks at business insider wanted to do something to highlight his surge in popularity. for his own hey girl main. like the one featuring ryan gosling. hey, girl, your beauty should be unconstitutional. a poll back in 2010 found that fewer than three in ten americans knew that roberts was chief justice. when it came down, searches for justice roberts jumped over 25,000%. finally, team romney got some unsolicited advice from rupert murdoch over twitter.

met romney last week. chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he drops old friend from team and hires some real pros. doubtful. i guess that didn't sit well with team romney. here's this morning's murdoch follow-up. romney people upset at me. of course i want him to win. save us from socialism, et cetera, but should listen to good advice and get stuck in. whatever that means. that one came after a tweet reminding us not to forget about the fourth of july. thank you, rupert. up next, legendary penn state football coach joe paterno may have been more involved in protecting jerry sandusky than he admitted. buzz joins us for the latest blockbuster in the sandusky case. that's next. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

welcome back. the late joe paterno may have played a much bigger role than he claimed in persuading penn state officials not to report jerry sandusky to authorities.

as you know, graduate assistant mike mcqueary reported he saw sandusky sexually abuse a boy in the showers. mike isakoff that in one e-mail, tim curly references a conversation he had with paterno. the details of that conversation are unknown, but following that conversation, penn state officials changed their minds on how to proceed and they did not report the alleged abuse to authorities. jeremy roebuck has been covering the story for the philadelphia inquirer. buzz bissinger is the author of "friday night lights" and "father's day." that's his latest book. now he's a radio talk show host in philadelphia as well as a sports columnist for the daily beast. jeremy, let's walk through what we think we know now. so there were deliberations reportedly as to what they were going to do about two weeks

after the mcqueary incident. and the plan that they seem to have adopted was a three-part plan where they were going to as one prong contact the authorities. then something changed. what can you shed on that? >> well, some details that came to light over the weekend about these e-mails. we heard that athletic director tim curly referenced this conversation with paterno and said after thinking about this, chatting it over with paterno, he came back and suggested to the other people involved in this conversation, maybe the best thing to do is sit down with jerry sandusky first, talk it over with him. tell his charity, but hold off on notifying the authorities until they see how he reacted. >> an then they have a go around and actually use the word vulnerable. this may be the best course. they want to be humane. not necessarily to the victims, but to sandusky and they

recognize they might be vulnerable if this is the the posture they adopt. >> yeah. according to theess e-mails, university president -- or then-university president graham spanier was the one who used that word vulnerable. said it sounded like a decent plan, a humane plan as you said. he suggested he was concerned that sandusky didn't listen or they couldn't get the response they desired that they might be vulnerable to some repercussions down the road. >> and what he said when he was fired in part was that he had no knowledge of any of these sort of acts having taken place. true? >> yeah. absolutely. although it is kind of important to note that it's a little unclear from what we've learned about these e-mails so far whether these gentlemen are talking about child rape as mike mcqueary said he told them and made very clear that that was what he saw. or whether this is more along the lines of what they told the

grand jury they were thinking the whole incident was horseplay. >> yes, but there's also reference supposedly to the prior incident and buzz, that would mean the 1998 incident. which if you add it all up -- i'm not going to. you add it up, buzz. what's the take away? >> that's as far as i'm concerned, joe paterno has no legacy left. you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that tim curly has a three pronged plan. one of which it's going to be reported to the department of welfare. he talks to paterno. all of a sudden, the key element of the plan has disappeared. and even paterno himself in his very brief and frankly odd grand jury testimony said he knows something of a sexual nature occurred. they know sandusky at the least was in the shower with a 10-year-old boy. they don't care about victim. it's about spin.

it's all about treating jerry humanely. and graham spanier was right. it gets out they were vulnerable and more than vulnerable. i think it just cements paterno not only as someone who was cowardly and did not do what he should have in the beginning, but also a liar. >> buzz, you know that according to testimony presented at the sandusky trial -- i don't think i have to say allegedly, reportedly any longer. within six months of this mcqueary incident, one of these victims was assaulted by jerry sandusky. and there were a lot of bad acts that took place in the decade that followed. the real takeaway here is that had these men acted, a decade's worth of abuse may not have taken place. >> anyone who says joe paterno did not know about the 1998 incident is a fool. he did know. >> i'm sorry. i was going to say the family

says, look, joe was not an e-mail guy. joe didn't participa in any of this. don't jump to conclusions. i apologize, i cut you off. >> yeah, but -- so he didn't use e-mail. he still had the ability to talk. he must have told curly something to get him to change his mind. and say let's not report it to welfare authorities. i'm not convinced and just connecting the dots and every dot has been connected. paterno knows about the 1998 incident. why does jerry sandusky then resign a year later and michael, you write a terrific column that got no play all. why was mike mcqueary made the receivers coach? he was a quarterback. had no experience. there was a guy named kenny jackson who had been the receivers coach, had played at penn state. had four times the experience and i now believe it was like hush money.

>> i'm going to address that at the end of tonight's program. jeremy robuck from the philadelphia inquirer, i thought it a bit odd that the response from curly lawyers after this report dominated this weekend. they seemed to wrap themselves in pennsylvania governor tom corbett. >> he had come under a little pressure in why did they take so long to arrest sandusky. and he said all along that they had to bald case. they had to know that they had the evidence to convict him. otherwise this would have blown up in their faces. when the evidence came about the e-mails this weekend, we heard from shultz's lawyer who said earlier our clients had to sit there and figure out what was the best way to handle this allegation? because if they rushed and put that information in the hands of child welfare authorities and it turned out not to be true, it could blow up in their faces. now, whether that's an argument

that we can all get behind, that's the argument they're making for now. >> jeremy, thanks so much. it'll be interesting to see whether the lewis free investigation also gets into the matter of why was this an understaffed investigation for the first year. why did it take so long by way of example to realize sandusky had written a oddly named book "touched." thank you. up next, did chief justice roberts change his vote to uphold the health care reform law? we hear he flipped to the other side. that's ahead. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

great! tyler here will show you everything. check out our new mobile app. now you can use your phone to scan your car's vin or take a picture of your license. it's an easy way to start a quote. watch this -- flo, can i see your license? no. well, all right. thanks. okay, here we go. whoa! no one said "cheese." progressive mobile -- insurance has never been easier. get a free quote today. on my feet and exactly where i needed more support. then, i got my number. my tired, achy feet affected my whole life. until i found my number. i tried the free dr. scholl's foot mapping center. in two minutes, i got my foot map and custom number. i'm a 440. that matched up to the dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic

inrts with the right support and cushioning i need. i am a believer. i'm a believer! i'm a believer. go to drscholls.com to find your closest walmart with a foot mapping center. you know voters will be key to president obama's re-election hopes especially in key swing states like florida, new mexico. half of latinos identify as independents. 41% say they're independents versus 32% who call themselves democrats and 11% who say they're republicans. but when asked which way they lean, those independents shift to the democratic party by a margin of more than 2-1. 52% to just 23%. we'll be right back.

we're back. ever since thursday morning's health care decision, there has been speculation john roberts switched his vote late in the day. it reads more like a majority opinion that lost its fifth vote at the last minute. now, they're reporting based obtwo sources with knowledge of the deliberations, justice roberts did indeed initially side with the other conservatives but changed his vote. robertss then withstood a desperate campaign to bring him back to his ironically, just as justice kennedy was believed to be the one most likely to defect and vote for the law, tried to bring him back into the fold. he said of kennedy's efforts, he was very engaged in this.

what should we make of it all, david is an editor for time magazine. he wrote the story on justice roberts. david, does it comport with your reading of the tea leaves about the way in which justice roberts functioned, chief justice roberts and the way in which the court members treat one another? >> sure. this is not entirely surprising. this case is one of a kind. so to expect it to go simply and easily is probably a bit naive. jan crawford, who reported that for cbs is a terrific reporter, one of the best. her sources are excellent. so i believe what she's reported there. my one question is whether he changed his vote or whether he added to his vote. he did decide that the law was unconstitutional under the commerce clause. and what he did was to uphold the law under a different

congressional power, the power to tax. and so it may not be so much that he changed his opinion as he simply did something that he didn't announce he was going to do at the first conference where they discussed their initial reaction. >> on the issue of how much pressure he may have faced, how much was justice roberts influenced by outside pressure? cbs said this, quote, over the next six weeks as roberts began to craft a decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. roberts almost certainly was aware of it. he pays attention to made yeah cover. he's keenly aware of his role in the court and he's sensitive to how his court is perceived in the public. does it make sense to you that perhaps he took one for the team? you have charles on the left saying this is why roberts may have taken this path. >> it's plausible, but i don't see this as some kind of

capitulation to pressure because if you read this bundle of opinions carefully, you'll see that roberts accomplished many of the conservative movement's long term objectives. enshrining this narrower view of the commerce claus, getting a 7-2 ruling that it's expansive, which they can use a lot in the future, and there are two liberal justices who seem to have switched their vote. i would like to hear more about that. at oral argument, both of them said there was nothing coercive about the expansion and nothing constitutional. lo and behold, they say it's unconstitutionally coercive. that tells me they had to give a lot to get chief justices roberts to come over, and that doesn't sound like somebody who is so freaked out by the negative press coverage that he just capitulated. >> since the decision,

conservatives have said they felt betrayed by justice roberts. kingston said with obamacare ruling, i felt like i just lost two great friends, america and justice roberts. in an editorial with the wall street journal, they said the tragedy is four justices would have overturned all of obamacare as unconstitutional. only john roberts prevented it. are they not appreciating what charles just said, that perhaps roberts is to be credited for striking a compromise that preserves much of what conservatives were looking for? >> sure, but on the recognize, there are a lot of conservatives who didn't want a compromise here. they wanted a clear cut, hands down, 100% victory. and they did not get that. the law is still on the books. but what justice -- chief justice roberts has to pay attention to is the fact that the supreme court is not a

seminar at a law school. it's a branch of the united states government. and so politics does come into play there. and this was an incredibly politically charged situation in which you had four justices on the right, all of them appointed by republicans. that's very unusual. four on the left, all appointed by democrats. again, to have this idealogical split match up with the partisan split is very rare in the history of the court. where in the middle of an election campaign, we're talking about a huge piece of legislation passed by the congress, signed by the president, and to walk into that and say that i'm going to decide this case exactly the way i want to because i'm on the court and let the consequences fall as they may is not necessarily what the chief justice's job is to do. >> charles, i have 30 seconds left. if you could answer this quickly, i would appreciate it. is it possible to the extenlt

there was a late switch by the justice, those who were upset with him left words intact so the tea leaves could be read and people would know this is not the way he was going to go? >> it's possible and i sure would like to know who these people leaking are. these people trying to spin the story, purporting to have inside knowledge of the supreme court, trying to make the chief justice look bad. that is a pretty interesting phenomenon you rarely see coming out of the court. >> it made me think of the brethren. we haven't had such an insight into the matchinations of the court since that came out. thank you, david and charles. >> when we return, allow me to finish with the latest news in the sandusky case and what it might reveal about joe paterno. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. car insurany they'll save you by switching,

you'd have like, a ton of dollars. but how are they saving you those dollars? a lot of companies might answer m" or, "no comment." then there's esurance. born online, raised by technology, and majors in efficiency. so whatever they save, you save. hassle, time, paperwork, hair-tearing-out, and yes, especially dollars. esurance. insurance for the modern world. click or call. that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about.

and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients.

and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you.

let me finish tonight with this. peb state and jerry sandusky were back in the news this weekend amid reports that e-mails show that top penn straight administrators including president graham spanier weighed whether or not to take sandusky to the authorities in 2001. then said one of the e-mails after one of them spoke to joe

paterno, they changed course, decided not to make the report, while worrying their new plan could leave them, quote, vulnerable. joe had a tidbit in one of the final e-mails. she said former fbi director louis freeh as part of his independent investigation is considering the servics surrounding the hiring of mike mcqueary. i find it curious he was hired at the receivers coach four years after he reported the sandusky episode. he played quarterback for penn state then after an unsuccessful attempt at pro ball, he returned to his alma mater in 2002 pursue a career in coaching. at the time of the shower instant, he was a graduate assistant, then he became an assistant and then was hired to coach the receivers. in 2005, paterno could have invited someone se to return to the wide receiver coaching position, kenny jackson. he was the school's first all-american wietd receiver.

he played pro bowl as a wide receiver and then he coached wide receivers at penn state and for the pittsburgh steelers. he was available at the time that mcqueary was hired. why in 2005 didn't joe paterno ask the 42-year-old former all-american receiver to return to penn state instead of hiring a 29-year-old former college quarterback with very limited coaching experience? maybe because mcqueary's resume included one thing jackson was lacking, a report to paterno about what he had seen in the showers in 2001. that's "hardball" for now "the ed show" with ed schultz starts right now. >> welcome to "the ed show" from new york. the supreme court has done the country a favor. they have exposed the republicans' attitude towards health care. they couldn't care less about the uninsured in the country. that's the top story, what everybody should be talking about. the republicans have told us, you're uninsured, you're on your own.

>> how would you provide universal coverage? >> i'll get to it in a minute. >> mitch mcconnell, totally exposes his party on health care. >> what specifically are you going to do to provide universal coverage to the 30 million people who are uninsured? >> that is not the issue. >> howard fineman on the fallout from mcconnell's epic gaffe. the romney campaign destroys a weekend's worth of talking points in 20 seconds. >> what you just said is that governor romney agrees it's not a tax. >> he agreed with the dissent from justice scalia that said that the mandate was not a tax. >> the death of a republican lie. rick scott tells floridians without health insurance to suck it up. >> we're not going to implement obamacare in florida because we're going to do the right thing.