WATERLOO, IA -- The outsourcing attack continues, with Joe Biden wielding the rhetorical cudgel today.

"You got to give Mitt Romney credit. He's a job creator," Biden said Tuesday at an eastern Iowa UAW hall, pausing for dramatic effect from a knowingly chuckling crowd of over 400. "In Singapore. And China. And India."

On the first stop of a two-day swing through the Hawkeye State, Biden skewered the GOP nominee for his tenure at investment firm Bain Capital, repeatedly calling Romney a "pioneer" of shipping American jobs overseas.

"Here's the bottom line, folks: Bain and their companies, they made a great deal of money outsourcing and off-shoring American jobs," the vice president said. "Yeah, they made a lot of money, but in the process they devastated whole American communities here in the heartland and back in my home state of Delaware."

The attack echoes one made by the Obama team in a wave of new ads running in swing states Ohio and Virginia as well as here in Iowa. "Mitt Romney never stood up to China," a narrator intones ominously in one of the commercials. "All he's ever done is send them our jobs."

Biden said that the wealth -- along with its attached strings of privilege -- that Romney accumulated from his tenure at Bain led to an "out of touch" nominee without an understanding of how real Americans keep track of their families' balance sheets.

"Did you ever think you'd be choosing between two people running for president, one of whom has a Swiss bank account?" he asked an incredulous crowd.

The vice president, who coughed and cleared his throat frequently throughout his remarks, noted that he was suffering from a cold. But the illness did not keep him from his trademark bellows in defense of the "American worker."

"His whole career, this good man Mitt Romney has looked at American workers, looked at all of you and the places I come from, looked at us as part of the problem," he said. "The president and I don't see American workers as part of the problem. We see them as the heart of the solution."

Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul called Biden's claims "misleading" and dinged Obama for rewarding foreign-owned energy companies with stimulus money.

"Vice President Biden today doubled down on the Obama campaign's same misleading attacks in an effort to distract voters from the President's disastrous economic record," she said. "President Obama thinks that economic development means sending billions of taxpayer dollars to foreign-owned companies and rewarding donors with money from his failed stimulus program."

Waterloo, home to a large John Deere factory, has enjoyed fairly low joblessness compared to the rest of the country. Recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show the unemployment rate in the area under five percent; it peaked in 2009 at 7.5 percent.

Biden noted that success Tuesday, winning cheers for recalling the Obama administration's efforts to jumpstart the auto industry and other parts of the manufacturing sector.

The vice president will remain in Iowa tomorrow, with events scheduled in Dubuque and Clinton.

SALEM, VA -- Mitt Romney said Tuesday that President Obama will have "wasted" much of his first term if the Supreme Court decides Thursday that the president's health reform law is unconstitutional.

Amid a flurry of politically important rulings by the high court this week -- including yesterday's immigration decision -- Romney positioned himself in anticipation of Thursday's scheduled verdict on "ObamaCare."

"If Obamacare is not deemed constitutional, then the first three and a half years of this president's term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people," Romney told a crowd of some 1,500 supporters here today. "If it is deemed to stand, then I'll tell you one thing. Then we'll have to have a president, and I'm that one, that's gonna get rid of Obamacare. We're gonna stop it on day one."

Romney has long been forced to wrestle with conservative skeptics, who see Romney's health care reform law in Massachusetts -- including the requirement that individuals to purchase health insurance or face a penalty -- as a model for the president's reform. Romney's pledge to repeal the national law is a daily part of his stump speech, but takes on added meaning as the clock ticks down toward Thursday, the final day on which the court has scheduled the release of opinions.

If the entire law (or just the individual mandate) is struck down, Romney's comments today suggest he will use the ruling to batter the president for wasting his time and political capital on a law that was ultimately wiped out, rather than focusing on the economy.

Romney also used his rally here today to respond for the first time publicly to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's stiff immigration law, elements of which Romney praised during the primary campaign.

The former Massachusetts governor described the court's involvement in the Arizona case as an example of a presidential failure in leadership, saying that had the president and a Democratic congress just passed immigration reform, immigration issues would not be the "muddle" they are now.

"The Supreme Court had to step in because states had to step in," Romney said. "States looking to find a way to solve the problems he didn't address, tried to address it in their own ways, and now the Supreme Court's looked at it, and what we're left with is a bit of a muddle, but what we know is the president failed to lead."

Romney also addressed the immigration case at a private fundraiser yesterday, in which he pledged to pass his own immigration reform plan -- which revolves around simplifying legal immigration and placing strict limits in place to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants -- within one year of taking office.

In neither appearance did he clearly state whether or not he agreed with the Supreme Court's ruling, focusing instead on each state's right to address immigration issues if the federal government fails to do so.

Today's rally took place in the Roanoke media market, which NBC's First Read reported this morning is the second most active media market for political advertising in the country this week with Romney and his GOP allies narrowly outspending Obama and Democrats. With that focus in mind, the presumptive GOP nominee said today that he would take back the Old Dominion this election, after the once-reliably Republican state flipped into the Democratic column in 2008.

"We're going to win in Virginia," Romney said as he wrapped up his remarks. "We're going to win in November."

With the U.S. Supreme Court set to decide on President Obama's health-care law on Thursday, more Americans say they would be pleased if the law is ruled unconstitutional than constitutional, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

In the survey, 37 percent say they would be pleased if the Supreme Court finds the law unconstitutional, versus 22 percent who say they would be disappointed with that outcome.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

A group of doctors protest against individual mandate in President Obama's health care reform in front of U.S. Supreme Court in Washington June 25.

On the flip side, 28 percent say they would be pleased if the court rules the law is constitutional, compared with 35 percent who say they would be disappointed.

But pluralities on both questions maintain they would have mixed feelings with either outcome, suggesting that opinion could change depending on how the Supreme Court ultimately decides on Thursday.

What's more, if the law's individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional, 25 percent say that would hurt them and their families; 18 percent say it would help; and 55 percent say it wouldn't make a difference.

Overall, 35 percent think the health-care law is a good idea, versus 41 percent who believe it's a bad idea -- numbers that have been essentially unchanged in the survey since it was signed into law in March 2010.

The full NBC/WSJ poll -- which was conducted June 20-24 of 1,000 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points -- will be released today at 6:30 p.m.ET.

A group of Republican senators led by Arizona Sen. John McCain sought to stir up outrage on Tuesday in hopes of having a special counsel named to investigate classified intelligence leaks from the Obama administration.

"Where is the outrage?" the senators asked at a press conference on Capitol Hill.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

From left, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, take turns at the microphones to assert their belief that President Obama's administration has orchestrated disclosure of classified information for political gain, during a news conference on Capitol Hill.

"We need a special counsel.  We need someone who the American people can trust, and we need to stop the leaks that are endangering the lives of those men and women who are serving our country with valor our courage. And they deserve a lot better," McCain told reporters.

McCain read excerpts of David Sanger's book that, he said, indicated senior Obama administration officials had publicly discussed classified information. He pointed to a meeting Sanger had in the presidential suite at the G20 in Pittsburgh in 2009 where officials shared intelligence on Iran's nuclear program.

"How does a person be brought up to the presidential suite and be briefed by quote 'national security personnel' unless they are at the highest level?" he asked.

McCain said the professional, non-political intelligence officers he has spoken with are "distraught" and "outraged" by the leaks.

The senators said at issue are reports about the NAVY Seal raid on Osama bin Laden, U.S. missions in Pakistan, the outinf of a Yemeni double agent and details of a cyberwar against Iran and the U.S. drone program.

McCain called the new rules to stop leaks announced by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper yesterday "important," but not enough.

The ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, said the president needs to step up his concern.

"What the president ought to be saying is, this is very damaging to the country and we're going to do everything we can to get to the bottom of it," he said.

He warned: "Is it going to take one of our sources not just having his life put in danger but being injured, who knows what else may happen to somebody out there now, before this administration gets serious about this and does get outraged? ... What's it going to take to get this administration outraged about this?"

"where is the outrage in this administration?" added Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker (R). "Where is there any indication that within the Obama administration officials are outraged at the criminal leaks of classified information that put our agents and our friends at risk?"

The senators are calling for a special prosecutor because they say it is nearly impossible to have an independent investigation of the leaks by U.S. attorneys who report to Attorney General Eric Holder.

"Now do we really think in spite of the capability of these two US attorneys that when you have somebody who is appointed by the administration, are they really going to be unbiased in their investigation of the administration that appointed them?" Chambliss asked.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who has clashed publicly with Holder, calling for his resignation at a Senate hearing earlier this month, said "this administration cannot be trusted to investigate itself."

Cornyn said a congressional investigation may be necessary. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has expressed support for the U.S. attorney’s investigation. She said she does not believe a special prosecutor is necessary and would take too much time.

Wrapping up yesterday’s SCOTUS decisions: A limit to states’ rights… Mitt be (not so) nimble, Mitt be (not so) quick when reacting to the Arizona immigration decision… But he transforms into George W. Bush on the issue, promising immigration reform in first year in office?... Health-care decision coming on Thursday… It’s NBC/WSJ poll day! Poll comes out at 6:30 pm ET… New Obama TV ad hits Romney on outsourcing… This week’s 10 hottest advertising markets… A change of plans in Charlotte… Watching Hatch and Rangel… And Obama learns that you have to know your crowd.

Damian Dovarganes / AP

Members of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles hold a rally in response to the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Arizona's immigration law outside the Los Angeles Federal Court building on Monday, June 25, 2012.

*** A limit to states’ rights: One of the conservative rallying cries we’ve heard in the past three-plus years has been something like this: “The federal government has too much power, and it’s time to return that power back to the states.” But if there’s one thing we learned from yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions, it’s that court believes there’s also a LIMIT to states’ rights. In the ruling on the Arizona immigration case -- which struck down three parts of that state law, but (sorta) upheld the “show me your papers” provision -- the court maintained that states couldn’t make their own foreign policy. “The national government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Justice Kennedy said for the majority, per the New York Times. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.” In another decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2010 Citizens United decision trumped state laws -- like Montana’s -- putting restrictions on corporate money in political races. The implication: Individual states don’t have the ability to craft their own campaign-finance laws that contradict Citizens United, even if for state and not federal races

*** Mitt be (not so) nimble, Mitt be (not so) quick: If there is a constant criticism about Mitt Romney and his campaign from both the left and right, it’s that they’re not nimble -- especially when it comes to dealing with issues they’d prefer to ignore. And yesterday was a perfect example of this. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona’s immigration law shouldn’t have been a surprise and even though Romney was holding a fundraiser in Arizona (of all places!!!), it took the candidate and campaign hours to finally tell the public what they thought of the decision. First came a press release that didn’t signal if Romney agreed with the decision (and which parts). Then came a seven-minute press scrum in which a Romney press secretary refused to comment on the merits of the SCOTUS decision. And finally came Romney’s remarks at the Arizona fundraiser in which he appeared to disagree with the thrust of the ruling. “I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less,” he said, per NBC’s Garrett Haake. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Much of a president’s job is crisis management, and the only way to succeed is being nimble. That Team Romney seems to struggle with this aspect of the job is a potential warning sign for a challenger against an incumbent president.

*** Romney transforms into George W. Bush on immigration? But here is one place where Romney HAS BEEN nimble… Also at that Arizona fundraiser, Romney said -- for the first time -- that he would tackle immigration reform in his first year as president. "In my first year, I will make sure we actually do take on immigration; we secure our border; we make sure that we grow legal immigration in a way that provides people here with skill and expertise that we want," he stated. That’s a remarkable transformation for a candidate who has used illegal immigration as a weapon against John McCain (in 2007-2008) and Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich (in 2011-2012). The only recent comparison that comes to mind is when then-candidate Obama used free trade (and NAFTA) as a weapon against Hillary Clinton in the primaries and then has signed free-trade treaties as president.

*** Health-care decision coming on Thursday: We will get the Supreme Court’s decision on Obama’s health-care law on Thursday. That’s not a prediction; it’s now a fact. But speaking of “predictions” when it comes to WHAT the Court will do, they’ve been all over the place. Some say the court will strike down the whole thing; others believe the court will uphold the law in its entirety. No one knows how the court will rule, but here’s what we do know: 1) Chief Justice Roberts is writing the majority opinion; 2) the Arizona immigration case proved that there are three justices (Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) who are going to take the conservative side no matter what; and 3) Arizona also proved that both Roberts and Kennedy, not just Kennedy, are swing votes. How is Thursday going to turn out? We’ll find out two days from now…

*** NBC/WSJ poll day! How do Americans view the health-care law? What about the Obama-Romney presidential contest? Or the state of the U.S. economy? Well, we have a brand-new NBC/WSJ poll coming out today at 6:30 pm ET.

*** On the trail: Romney holds a campaign event in Salem, VA at 12:25 pm ET… Obama raises money in Atlanta and Miami… And Biden stumps in Waterloo, IA.

*** New Obama ad hits Romney on outsourcing: With Romney campaigning in Virginia today, the Obama camp is airing a brand-new TV ad in the state that seizes on last week’s Washington Post story, which reported that Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that shipped jobs overseas. The ad concludes: “Does Virginia really want an Outsourcer-in-Chief in the White House?” The campaign will air similar ads in Iowa and Ohio.

*** This week’s 10 hottest advertising markets: Here’s our weekly look at the 10 hottest advertising markets this week (in terms of advertising points from June 25-July 1), and some quick observations. One, for the first time, a Colorado market (Colorado Springs) has jumped to the No. 1 spot; Richmond, VA was No. 1 last week (and now it’s No. 4). Two, Florida -- with two markets (Ft. Myers and Tampa-St. Pete) -- finally makes it on our list. Three, the battleground states represented on this list are Virginia (3 markets), Colorado (2), Ohio (2), Florida (2), and Nevada (1). And four, for the first time since we’ve being doing this list, North Carolina isn’t represented on the Top 10; Charlotte comes in at No. 11.  A quick guide: ROF is Restore Our Future (Romney Super PAC); AFP is Americans for Prosperity (Koch Brothers group); CWA is Concerned Women for America (conservative group); and Priorities is the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action.

1. Colorado Springs, CO (Obama 1400, Romney 740 ROF 430, AFP 365, Priorities 150)
2. Roanoke-Lynchburg, VA (Obama 1400, Romney 550, ROF 515, CWA 450)
3. Cincinnati, OH (Obama 1500, Romney 630, AFP 300, ROF 300)
4. Richmond-Petersburg, VA (Obama 1500, Romney 500, ROF 275, CWA 240, Priorities 200)
5. Denver, CO (Obama 1500, Romney 500, ROF 300, AFP 200, Priorities 140)
6. Norfolk, VA (Obama 1500, Romney 500, ROF 250, CWA 220, Priorities 100)
7. Ft. Myers, FL (Obama 1300, ROF 615, AFP 500)
8. Cleveland, OH (Obama 1500, Romney 425, ROF 300, AFP 200, Priorities 115)
9. Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL (Obama 1500, ROF 375, AFP 330, Priorities 175)
10. Reno, NV (Obama 1500, Romney 370, ROF 230, AFP 200)

And here’s another way to look at this advertising: Team Obama (campaign and outside groups) has more advertising points in all of these markets than Team Romney (campaign and outside groups) does with one exception -- Roanoke-Lynchburg. But do note how the outside spending is helping Romney narrow the gap with Obama.

1. Colorado Springs, CO – Team Obama 1550, Team Romney 1535
2. Roanoke-Lynchburg, VA – Team Romney 1515, Team Obama 1400
3. Cincinnati, OH – Team Obama 1500, Team Romney 1230
4. Richmond-Petersburg, VA – Team Obama 1700, Team Romney 1015
5. Denver, CO – Team Obama 1640; Team Romney 1000
6. Norfolk, VA – Team Obama 1600, Team Romney 970
7. Ft. Myers, FL – Team Obama 1300, Team Romney 1115
8. Cleveland, OH – Team Obama 1615, Team Romney 925
9. Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL – Team Obama 1675, Team Romney 705
10. Reno, NV – Team Obama 1500, Team Romney 800

*** A change of plans in Charlotte: The Charlotte Observer reports: “In the second major change to the Democratic National Convention schedule, organizers announced Monday night they are moving the much-touted Labor Day festival from Charlotte Motor Speedway to uptown Charlotte. In January, officials announced they were shortening the convention to three days, and would forgo the traditional Monday opening for a festival instead at the Speedway. At the time, the party chairwoman said they wanted to “make this convention different than any other in history.” But Monday night, host committee officials said dropping the Speedway event will provide attendees with a much stronger connection to the convention.” This appears to be both a financial decision and a realization that getting over 100,000 people to show up three nights before you are trying to fill an 80,000 seat stadium is a tall task.

*** Watching Hatch and Rangel: It’s primary day in New York and Utah, where the races to watch are primaries for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and New York Rep. Charlie Rangel. Hatch -- who learned the lesson from Robert Bennett’s primary defeat in 2010 -- appears likely to cruise to victory. And Rangel seems like the bet to win, too. Polls close in New York at 9:00 pm ET, and they close in Utah at 11:00 pm ET.

*** Yes, you have to know your crowd: NBC’s Shawna Thomas reports that President Obama received boos from folks at a Boston fundraiser after he mentioned that the Red Sox’s Kevin Youkilis had been traded to Obama’s beloved White Sox. “And finally, Bos, I just want to say thank you for Youkilis,” joshed the president near the beginning of his 40-minute speech.  That line elicited what sounded like “booos” in the room. Obama then tried to back out of the comment: “I’m just saying.  He’s going to have to change the color of his socks. I didn’t think I’d get any boos out of here.  But I guess I should not have brought up baseball.” Finally, the president said, “My mistake. You’ve got to know your crowd.” Then again, it is POSSIBLE that some of those Boos… were actually Youuuks… Sadly, we’ll never know…

Countdown to GOP convention: 62 days
Countdown to Dem convention: 69 days
Countdown to Election Day: 133 days

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

*** Tuesday’s “Daily Rundown” line-up: Latest on the Arizona immigration decision impact… Breaking down the SCOTUS decision on campaign money in Montana with NBC's Pete Williams and former FEC Chairman Michael Toner… NBC's Kelly O'Donnell on this week's unfolding Capitol Hill fights… A deep dive into the Gallup daily tracking poll and arguments about why it's different from other numbers with The Huffington Post's Mark Blumenthal and Gallup's own Frank Newport… More 2012 headlines with AP's Ben Feller, incoming Obama 2012 campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki and msnbc's Robert Traynham.

*** Tuesday’s “Jansing & Co.” line-up: MSNBC’s Chris Jansing interviews Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, TheGrio’s Joy-Ann Reid, Harvard Law professor Kevin Russell Sen. Jeff Merkley, former Gov. Ted Strickland, GOP strategist Hogan Gidley, and Politico’s Alexander Burns.

*** Tuesday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts talks with former Manchin Chief of Staff  Chris Kofinis, former Huckabee Campaign Manager Chip Saltsman, Real Clear Politics’ Erin McPike, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, and EqualityMaine Campaign Manager Matt McTighe.

*** Tuesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, NBC’s Chuck Todd, NBC’s Luke Russert, NBC’s Richard Engel, NPR’s Nina Totenberg, The Atlantic’s Anne Marie Slaughter, “No Labels” co-founder and Daily Beast contributor Mark McKinnon, National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguia and Mikhail Kasyanov, Leader of the People’s Democratic Union in Russia.

“In a split decision, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld one part of a tough Arizona immigration law, but struck down other sections,” msnbc.com’s Tom Curry wrote yesterday.

But as msnbc.com’s Michael O’Brien wrote, both sides saw what they wanted to see in the ruling: “Each party found something to like and dislike in the Supreme Court's opinion, which struck down most components of the Arizona law but left in place one of its most controversial provisions: the requirement that authorities check the immigration status of anyone they detain who's reasonably suspected of being in the United States illegally. President Obama said he was "pleased" the court had struck down key provisions of the law, while his likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, suggested the decision represented a rebuke of the president.”

USA Today: “The Supreme Court's split ruling Monday on Arizona's controversial immigration law did nothing to settle the debate — providing little clarity on how far states can go to police their borders and solidifying the topic as a key election-year issue.”

Politico’s Gerstein puts Chief Justice John Roberts in the spotlight: “Roberts pledged during his Supreme Court hearings to be a mere umpire of the law. But as a legacy-defining decision nears, Roberts is emerging as the court’s most intriguing player. … While much of the early attention focused on swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, many court watchers predict Roberts will be the architect of the ruling. To a great extent, the decision will shape the way history views Roberts’s stewardship of the high court.”

The Obama campaign is going after Mitt Romney as an “Outsourcer in Chief” and running spots in Virginia, Iowa, and Ohio.

And the president was hitting that message yesterday in New Hampshire and Boston: “President Barack Obama, campaigning in Mitt Romney's backyard, criticized his Republican rival anew Monday for what his re-election campaign says is a record of shipping American jobs overseas,” the Boston Globe writes.

“Obama is hauling in millions of dollars for his re-election bid as he warns that Democrats will face a fundraising onslaught from Republicans during the fall campaign,” the AP writes. “Obama was to collect more than $2.3 million at fundraisers in Atlanta and Miami on Tuesday following top-dollar events Monday night in Boston.”

In a moment, last night, Obama re-learned an important political lesson: know your crowd and, well, don’t joke about the Red Sox, NBC’s Shawna Thomas reports. Obama, an avid Chicago White Sox fan, ribbed the Boston faithful about the Red Sox trading third baseman Kevin Youkilis to those other Sox. That elicited boos from many in the crowd.

“I’m just saying,” Obama began, “he’s going to have to change the color of his sock. I didn’t think I’d get any boos out of here. But I guess I should not have brought up baseball.” But That didn’t stop the jeering crowd either.  Finally the president said, “My mistake. You’ve got to know your crowd.”

Rarely, does one hear the President of the United States get booed at a fundraiser, but many of the 1,800 people in the room who paid at least $144 to be there, didn’t take kindly to the president joking about Youkilis, the beloved Red Sox “sluggah.” But it took one woman yelling out, “We still love you” to break the humorous tension in the room.  The crowd laughed and the president moved on to his stump speech and standing ovations.

“Turkey's prime minister, responding to the downing of a Turkish jet by Syrian forces, said Tuesday that Turkish military will respond to any future violation of its border by Syrian military elements,” AP writes, adding, “The head of the NATO military alliance called the downing of the jet unacceptable on Tuesday, shortly after Turkey briefed NATO's North Atlantic Council in discussions held under Article 4 of NATO's founding treaty, which allows a NATO member to request consultations if its security has been threatened.”

The New York Times this morning: “Warning Syria not to test its resolve, Turkey sought support on Tuesday from its partners in the NATO alliance at an emergency meeting of envoys in Brussels called after Syria shot down a Turkish warplane over the Mediterranean Sea.” Prime Minister Erdogan said this morning: "Every military element that approaches the Turkish border from Syria in a manner that constitutes a security risk or danger would be considered as a threat and would be treated as a military target.”

But some context on the prospect of intervention: “Western defense analysts said the incident had shown that, unlike the example of Libya last year, when NATO planes enforced a no-fly zone as rebels pressed for the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Syrian military could likely offer much stiffer resistance.”

“U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has vowed to hold Syria to account, while Britain’s foreign minister said Damascus won’t be allowed to act with impunity,” AP notes, adding, however, some context: “But for all the hard talk, the prospect of Western military intervention in Syria remains remote, at best.”

“Mitt Romney reacted to the Supreme Court's ruling on the Arizona immigration law by criticizing President Obama, blaming him for failing to lead on the issue,” USA Today notes. Romney said, "I believe each state has the duty -- and the right -- to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities.”

“Mitt Romney touched down briefly onto ground zero of the national immigration debate Monday, telling a crowd of Republican donors in Arizona that he was disappointed with the Supreme Court decision on their state’s immigration law but that President Barack Obama deserved blame for creating a legal muddle,” the Boston Herald writes. Romney said, "I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states, not less.”

Back at it: Sarah Palin once again defended herself for claiming there are “death panels” in the health-care law. "Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is, many of these accusers finally saw that Obamacare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life and death decisions about health care funding,” she wrote.

CHRISTIE: Romney raises money in New Jersey with the Garden State governor tonight.

JINDAL: Ramesh Ponnuru likes Bobby Jindal, per GOP 12.

PORTMAN: Dick Cheney thought Rob Portman was tougher in debate prep than Joe Lieberman was in real life.

RICE: Condi Rice again ruled out being veep despite her rousing speech in Utah before Romney donors, et al. "I didn't run for student council president; I don't see myself in any way in elective office. I love policy, I'm not particularly fond of politics,” she said on CBS, adding, “I'm saying there is no way I will do this, because it's really not me."

Despite her disdain for politics, NBC’s Alex Moe reports on Rice’s speech at a fundraiser before a conservative women’s group on Capitol Hill, her first such Capitol Hill fundraising event.

RUBIO: “Before the Supreme Court of the United States gutted much of the Arizona immigration law in a decision released on Monday, Rubio tackled the subject on an appearance on ‘Fox and Friends’ on Fox News earlier in the day,” Sunshine State News writes. Despite Romney having called the Arizona law a “model” for the nation, Rubio said, “I think Arizona-type laws are not the ideal. But we have to understand why states like Arizona did it and if we really don’t like Arizona laws then the federal government should do its job.”

Still Rubio praised Romney on immigration, calling him “the most compelling voice in favor of legal immigration that we’ve seen in quite some time.”

The Eric Holder contempt vote is slated for Thursday.

Jesse Jackson Jr.’s on medical leave and is being treated for exhaustion.

NEW YORK: The New York Daily News looks at the impact of redistricting on congressional races today, including for Rep. Charlie Rangel: “Rangel has represented uptown Manhattan for decades but the 82-year-old is now on the hot seat due to a recent ethics scandal and a new district in which Latinos now outnumber blacks.”

Reuters: “U.S. Congressman Charles Rangel, a once-towering figure in New York politics whose reputation was diminished when he was censured in Washington, is again fighting to keep his seat as a group of Democrats prepare to challenge him in a primary on Tuesday. Rangel, who has represented Harlem since 1971 and is a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, is battling a crowd of younger politicians in a redrawn district that is now heavily Latino. Yet most political watchers still see him being re-elected.”

National Journal explains why Rangel likely wins: “Rangel has strengths of his own, though. Interestingly, despite the redistricted seat's new majority-Hispanic status, it also has over 24,500 more African-American residents than the old version of the district. And Rangel's four-decade career in Congress has engendered abiding loyalty among many blacks and a large swath of Democratic voters in the area. Even though Rangel only won 51 percent in the 2010 primary, he actually won more primary votes (over 26,000) than all but one House candidate in the entire state. That suggests a robust turnout operation at the heart of Rangel's experienced campaign, and indeed, Rangel significantly overperformed in the 15 precincts with the heaviest turnout in 2010, according to a Hotline analysis.”

UTAH: A Deseret News/KSL-TV poll has Sen. Orrin Hatch leading GOP challenger Dan Liljenquist, 60-32%.

The Salt Lake Tribune: “As tea party conservatives took aim at Sen. Orrin Hatch, his Republican colleagues sent reinforcements in the form of campaign contributions that have added up to more than $370,000. That hefty sum matches the amount Hatch’s GOP challenger has been able to raise from all sources combined.”

Alex Moe / NBC News

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaks at the ShePAC fundraising event in Washington, D.C., June 25.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stepped back into the political spotlight Monday night as she headlined her first ever fundraiser in the nation’s capital.

“I am a great optimist,” Rice told attendees, referring to being able to get the country back on track again. She was speaking at an event to raise money for Republican female politicians.

"A little girl grows up in Birmingham, Alabama,” Rice said, noting that her parents were convinced she “could be President of the United States if she wants to be.”

"America has a way of making the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect and we are going to do it again,” Rice said. “We are going to strengthen ourselves, our democracy at home, strengthen our economy.”

Rice, who is currently a professor at Stanford University in California, is viewed as a dark horse choice for presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s running mate.

While she did not address anything related to Romney’s choice for VP in front of the few journalists – nor did she refer to her raved-about speech from Romney’s weekend retreat in Utah – some in attendance hope she is strongly considered for the position.

“It would be great to have a women vice president,” Amanda Abshire of Arlington, Va. said, mentioning she was “inspired” by Rice’s speech tonight. “I think she has the experience and has the respect of the Republican Party and that the core conservatives would support her. It would be such an awesome thing for conservative women too.”

ShePAC – the political action committee Supporting, Honoring & Electing Republican women – hosted the “DC Kickoff Reception” at the Capitol Hill Club and included nearly a dozen sitting female GOP Congress members and candidates from around the country.

Prior to addressing the general reception for which guests paid $1,000 to hear Rice speak – during which guests munched on a variety of cheeses, meats, and watermelon soup – Rice spent nearly 30 minutes talking with the elected officials and candidates, focusing on national security issues.

Rice, a top-ranked official in President George W. Bush’s administration, mentioned Romney just once in her remarks, saying he would be “a terrific president" – she even weighed in slightly to the on-going immigration debate.

"We need an immigration policy that works but, by the way, we need one that the Congress and the President work out together," Rice said.

Wrapping up her roughly 10-minute speech just feet away from the House office buildings, Rice encouraged the mostly female crowd to keep fighting for America.

“It just has to be that the freest and most compassionate and most generous country on the face of the earth has to continue to be the most powerful,” she said.

Rice remains in Washington Tuesday, where she will give opening remarks at the National Women's Hall of Fame event celebrating 40 years of Title IX.

Attendees Monday night included: Senate Candidates Deb Fischer (NE), Heather Wilson (NM), Sarah Steelman (MO), House Candidates Martha Zoller (GA), Lisa Wilson-Foley (CT), Karen Harrington (FL), Wendy Rogers (AZ), Kim Vann (CA), Nancy Jacobs (MD), Faith Loudon (MD), Leah Campos-Schandlbauer (AZ), Maria Sheffield (GA) and representing his wife Mayor Mia Love (UT), Jason Love. Current Congresswomen included: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Rep. Sandy Adams (FL), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN), Rep. Judy Biggert (IL), and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL).

Mitt Romney's campaign is weathering increasing media scrutiny of the candidate's stubborn refusal to address major issues on anything but his own terms, threatening to transform a standoff with the media into an issue in itself in the campaign.

Charles Dharapak / AP

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney sidestepped the Supreme Court decision itself in an initial written statement.

The latest example: the presumptive Republican nominee's general refusal to opine directly on today's Supreme Court decision striking down many aspects of Arizona's tough immigration law, but upholding another controversial component.

Romney's statement sidestepped the decision itself in an initial written statement, and turned its scrutiny toward President Obama.

"Today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy," Romney said. "I believe that each state has the duty -- and the right -- to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities."

Frustration between the Romney campaign and the traveling press pool reached a loggerhead on Monday during a gaggle with traveling press secretary Rick Gorka aboard the campaign's plane. Gorka doggedly refused to detail Romney's position in a 7-minute availability. A partial transcript, per NBC's Garrett Haake:

Q: Is it fair to say that he has no opinion on the Arizona law?

GORKA: Look, again, I'll say it again and again and again for you. The governor understands that states have their own right to craft policies to secure their own borders and to address illegal immigration.

Q: You're not answering -- what does he think about the policy in Arizona? Is it fair to say he has no opinion? You're refusing to give us an answer.

GORKA: Arizona, like many other states in this nation, take it upon themselves to craft policies for their own specific states. Governor has said repeatedly that states are a laboratory of  democracy, what one state crafts may not work in others but ultimately this, again, goes back to the president failing to deliver on his campaign promises. As candidate Obama, he said he would address immigration in the first year and hasn’t and instead put in a stopgap measure four and a half months before the election.

It wasn't until an afternoon fundraiser in -- ironically -- Arizona that Romney addressed the decision more directly, and even still he did so in a circumspect manner.

"I would have preferred to see the supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less. And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws," Romney said before declaring the immigration system a "muddle" for which Obama is to blame. He did not address whether Arizona's particular remedy was one he favored.

The press has started to take note of Romney's availability. He routinely shuns questions on the ropeline after events about the issue du jour, and his press availabilities are few and far between. His interviews are generally scheduled with friendly outlets; the former Massachusetts governor has appeared on only one Sunday morning affairs show beside "Fox News Sunday."

The presmptive Republican challenger to Obama has doggedly refused to offer specifics about Romney's approach toward some of the most consequential issues this year. As we wrote Thursday, Romney is almost exclusively focused on economy, arguably to his political expense if questions about his stances continue to linger.

The Obama campaign is all too happy to encourage reporters' scrutiny of Romney, too. Senior campaign officials said Romney's singular quality is "evasiveness," and the president himself almost seemed to take a subtle shot at Romney on Monday in New Hampshire.

"I will always tell you where I stand. I will always tell you what I believe," he said at a rally.

Romney's previous political experience seems to inform his caution. He drew on his experience as a Senate candidate in 1994 in an interview with the conservative Weekly Standard, in which Romney said that going out on a limb and expressing his support for eliminating the Department of Education. Democrats subsequently turned that position against Romney.

But the countervailing pressures reflect the types of campaigns both Obama and Romney wish to run. Team Obama wishes to turn the election into a choice, and Romney limits that when he doesn't speak to extraneous issues. Alternatively, Obama, as an incumbent, has an ample record from which Romney can cherrypick items to target.

It's not as though the charge that Romney is somehow opaque is a new one; moreso, it can prove sometimes to be a smart electoral strategy. His opponents from the right and the left have been accusing Romney of being a political chameleon -- on abortion, gun rights, immigration, and so on -- for the better part of two decades. It's what made the Etch A Sketch flap this spring such a resonant attack: it played into a core vulnerability of Romney's that crosses party lines.

The question for Romney has become whether this is a strategy he can ride all the way to election. If he and his campaign team stay so singularly focused on the economy and avoid entanglements over outside controversies, can they shrug off the media's protests?

SCOTTSDALE, AZ -- Mitt Romney pledged to reform the nation's immigration laws in his first year as president while criticizing the Supreme Court's immigration decision on Monday in broad terms.

Romney told donors in Arizona that he would have preferred that their state have more discretion in enforcing its immigration laws following a ruling by the high court throwing out much of Arizona's tough immigration law.

"Now you probably heard today there was a Supreme Court decision relating to immigration and given the failure of the immigration policy in this country, I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less," Romney told some 200 donors seated in a hotel ballroom for his remarks. "And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws."

Throughout the primary campaign, Romney defended the immigration law here, which called for local law enforcement to check immigration documents for anyone who they suspected may be in the country illegally (among other provisions), as the right course for a state to take when the federal government has failed to address immigration.

The court invalidated much of the law except for one of its most controversial prongs: the requirement that authorities check the immigration status of individuals whom they detain and suspect of being in the U.S. illegally.

Romney didn't address that provision directly, pivoting instead to accuse President Obama of a failure to lead on immigration and creating a "muddle" of the issue.

"The president promised in his campaign that in his first year he would take on immigration and solve our immigration challenges, put in place a long term program to care for those who want to come here legally to deal with illegal immigration, to deal with securing our borders," Romney said. "All these things he was going to in his first year he had a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate but he didn’t do it. Isn’t it time for the American people to ask him why?"

Romney has not remarked publicly on the Supreme Court case or immigration today, but in addressing the topic of reform with a group of donors here who collectively gave more than $2 million dollars to the campaign, Romney pledge to forgo stopgap measures and reform the U.S. immigration system within the first year of his administration.

"In my first year I will make sure we actually do take on immigration, we secure our border, we make sure that we grow legal immigration in a way that provides people here with skill and expertise that we want," Romney said. "This is an issue that has to be tackled."

Carolyn Kaster / AP

President Barack Obama speaks at Oyster River High School in Durham, N.H.

DURHAM, NH -- President Obama hammered away at his presumptive Republican challenger's business career, latching onto reports that Bain Capital had invested in companies that engaged in offshoring during Romney's time at the company's helm.

The president, speaking in a swing state where Romney owns a home, mocked the former Massachusetts governor's campaign for attempting to distinguish between "offshoring" and "outsourcing" in its explanation.

"Yesterday his advisers were asked about this, and they tried to clear this up by telling us there's actually a difference between outsourcing and offshoring. That's what they said. You cannot make this stuff up,” the president joked to a booing crowd. He continued, “What Governor Romney and his advisers don't seem to understand is this, if you're a worker whose job went overseas, you don't need somebody trying to explain to you the difference between outsourcing and offshoring.”

What went unmentioned during the president's appearance before 1,200 sweaty New Hampshireites at an un-air conditioned high school gym was the Supreme Court's decision today on the controversial Arizona immigration law.

Aside from a written statement this morning, the closest the president came to speaking about immigration was when he touted his plan to hold off on deporting illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children.

"You can decide whether or not it's time to stop denying citizenship to responsible young people just because they're the children of undocumented workers who have been growing up with our kids…and want to contribute to this country," he told the audience.

A campaign official said to not expect any more reaction from the president on the Supreme Court ruling other than this morning's paper statement.

In addition to its ruling on Arizona's immigration law, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to revisit its controversial 2010 Citizens United decision, which permits corporations and labor unions to freely make independent expenditures in political campaigns.

What's more, in a 5-4 vote, "the majority summarily reversed a decision of the Montana Supreme Court that had refused to follow the Citizens United decision," the New York Times says.

The case involved Montana's Corrupt Practices Act. It requires corporations in the state to form what are essentially political action committees (PACs) and to spend only money that was given voluntarily by employees and shareholders. When the law was challenged as contrary to the Citizens United decision, the Montana Supreme Court upheld it as justified by the state's long history of political corruption. Besides, the state court said, the law doesn't run counter to Citizens United because corporations in Montana can still express their political views through the voluntary PAC-type funds. State regulations, the court said, are far simpler than federal campaign funding rules, imposing no real burden on corporate expression.

Updated 12:35 p.m. -- Democrats and Republicans each found something to cheer in the Supreme Court's ruling Monday on Arizona's controversial immigration law, reflecting the delicate politics surrounding immigration and the court's own mixed decision.

Each party found something to like and dislike in the Supreme Court's opinion, which struck down most components of the Arizona law but left in place one of its most controversial provisions: the requirement that authorities check the immigration status of anyone they detain who's reasonably suspected of being in the United States illegally.

President Obama said he was "pleased" the court had struck down key provisions of the law, while his likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, suggested the decision represented a rebuke of the president.

"What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system -– it’s part of the problem," Obama said. "At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally."

Romney, meanwhile, emphasized what he said were the president's own struggles to curb illegal immigration.

"Today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy," presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney said in a written statement.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

People protest against President Obama's health care reform in front of U.S. Supreme Court in Washington June 25.

But Romney didn't address the components of the law that were thrown out or, alternatively, upheld by the court.

"I believe that each state has the duty -- and the right -- to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities," he said.

Both Obama and Romney's responses were emblematic of the mixed reactions prompted by the decision across the political spectrum.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said the decision marked a vindication of the Obama administration's initial decision to challenge the Arizona law. Critics in the Democratic Party said that the law, including the prong that the Supreme Court upheld, would open the door to racial profiling.

"This is as strong a repudiation of the Arizona law as one could expect given that the law has not been implemented yet," said New York Sen. Charles Schumer (D). "Three linchpins of the Arizona law were struck down by a convincing majority of the Court as clearly violating federal law, and a fourth is on thin legal ice."

But Republicans found just as much to cheer in the court's ruling.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who first championed the law, called the decision "a victory for the rule of law."

While many elements of the law were struck down, the court upheld what Brewer called the "heart" of the law -- a requirement that authorities check the immigration status of anyone whom they suspect of being in the United States illegally.

The state's two Republican senators, Jon Kyl and John McCain, also cheered the court for appearing to validate the status-check portion of the Arizona law.

The president will participate a series of public events set Monday in New England; as a matter of coincidence, Romney is in Arizona today to attend fundraisers.

The issue of immigration has assumed broader political significance in the 2012 campaign, following the president's announcement earlier this month that his administration would cease deporting illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and would instead allow them to apply for temporary work visas. This shift, which achieved many of the intentions of a Republican version of the DREAM Act, was poised to mobilize Latino voters behind the president, who had otherwise fallen short on delivering on his promise of comprehensive immigration reform.

The administration's announcement also threatened to exacerbate Romney's gap against Obama among Latino voters, a growing bloc that could prove especially decisive in swing states like Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and beyond. An early May oversample of Latino voters in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 22 percent of Latinos had a positive opinion of the GOP, versus 50 percent who expressed a negative impression of the Republican Party.

Romney responded to the new immigration policy by promising to supersede it with his own "long-term" plan on immigration. But he hasn't specified how his plan would work, or what it would differ in practical terms from the Obama plan.

The former Massachusetts governor has wrestled with immigration as an issue writ large, but has also struggled with positioning himself on the Arizona law.

Romney called the Arizona law a "model" at a debate this February, though his campaign insisted Romney only meant that in terms of some of the employment parts of the law (which the Supreme Court threw out on Monday). The Romney campaign was also forced to distance itself from Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), one of the principal authors of the Arizona law and another tough immigration law in Alabama.

But Romney also said at the same debate that "the right course for America is to drop these lawsuits against Arizona and other states" in addition to more aggressive enforcement of immigration laws.

Romney had used immigration to pummel some of his opponents in the Republican primary from the right, making his pivot toward the general election even more difficult.

Updated at 4:50 pm ET In a split decision, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld one part of a tough Arizona immigration law, but struck down other sections.

The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Text of the decision (PDF)

The justices struck down three other parts of the law:

• One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
• One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
• And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.

"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration" while the federal government tries to enforce immigration law, but the state "may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion.

The U.S Supreme Court annoucines decisions on June 25.

The court said that there are several ways for state officials to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, such as by responding to federal requests for information about when a particular non-citizen will be released from state custody.

"But the unilateral state action" to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants "goes far beyond these measures, defeating any need for real cooperation" between the state and the federal government.

Monday's decision is only a prelude to further litgation over what now remains of the Arionza statute.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

Members of the media gather June 25 for a stakeout in front of U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.

NBC’s Pete Williams reported that “there are other lawsuits against this law. There are several civil liberties groups suing in Arizona, claiming that this law is racial profiling, and those cases have yet to work their way through the courts.”

Monday's decision was a partial victory for President Obama who had criticized the Arizona law, saying it “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” 

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said Monday, "I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less. And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws."

He added that immigration policy has "become a muddle. But it didn’t have to be this way. The president promised in his campaign that in his first year he would take on immigration ... put in place a long term program to care for those who want to come here legally, to deal with illegal immigration, to deal with securing our borders. All these things he was going to in his first year he had a Democrat house and a Democrat senate but he didn’t do it. And because he didn’t act, states and localities have tried to act and now the courts trying to get into it and sort things out and it’s a muddle"

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement that "I remain concerned about the impact" of the part of the law that requires police to attempt  to check the immigration status of people they stop when they have reason to suspect that the person is in the United States unlawfully.

Holder said the Justice Department "will continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination.  We will closely monitor the impact of S.B. 1070 to ensure compliance with federal immigration law and with applicable civil rights laws, including ensuring that law enforcement agencies and others do not implement the law in a manner that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against the Latino or any other community."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said flatly that Monday's ruling was a defeat for those who seek stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

Smith said the decision "limits the ability of states to protect their citizens and communities from illegal immigrants. It is the federal government’s job to enforce our immigration laws, but President Obama has willfully neglected this responsibility. This dereliction of duty has left states to address the crime, job loss, and other costs of illegal immigration."

He added, “Unfortunately, under this Administration, today’s ruling essentially puts an end to immigration enforcement since the states no longer can step in and fill the void created by the Obama administration."

The Justice Department had moved quickly in 2010 to block enforcement of the law. The administration had argued that the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the federal government, not the states, and that where the federal government has pre-empted state action, no state can intrude on that federal turf.

The majority on Monday essentially agreed with that argument.

In the oral argument before the high court on April 25, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said Arizona did not have the power to exclude or remove a person who is in the state illegally.

Although some critics of the law have contended that it would inevitably lead to targeting of Latinos simply because of appearance, speaking Spanish, or having a Spanish accent, Verrilli told the justices on April 25 “We're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case.”

Since enforcement of the law had been blocked by a federal judge soon after its enactment, the Obama administration did not present a record to the Supreme Court of the law leading to incidents of ethnic profiling of Latinos in the state.

Joining Kennedy's majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part.

Justice Elena Kagan, who served as Obama’s solicitor general, had recused herself from the Arizona case.

The high court’s decision comes just days after Obama announced a new administration policy of not deporting illegal immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States, or were brought to the United States before reaching age 16, who are in school, or have graduated from high school, gotten a general education certificate, or are military veterans. The illegal immigrants covered by the new administration policy will be permitted to apply for authorization to work legally in the United States. 

All eyes on SCOTUS: We could get a health-care decision (and immigration one, too) as early as today and as late as Thursday… How crazy a month -- and yet how stable -- it’s been…. Bain gets more scrutiny, and how does Romney fix it?... Wrapping up Romney’s weekend getaway in Utah… And Obama stumps in New Hampshire at 2:00 pm ET, while Romney raises money in Scottsdale, AZ.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, DC, June 18, 2012. The highest court in the US is set to rule within days on the constitutionality of US President Barack Obama's health care reforms.

*** All eyes on SCOTUS: As early as today and as late as Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue its ruling on the federal health-care law. And there are essentially three outcomes: 1) everything gets upheld, 2) everything gets struck down, or 3) something in between. But the politics -- especially as it relates to November -- aren’t as clear cut. But our guess is that a full uphold or a full repeal energizes the winning side and knocks the losers for an unexpected loop. (Then again, you could argue that the losing side gets to fire up its base, but that is still some bitter lemonade out of those lemons.) What is clear is that news organizations have emptied their health-care files. Over the weekend, the New York Times wrote whether the health-care law’s supporters ignored concerns about its constitutionality, and it also noted how the Obama White House is bracing for the decision, even an unfavorable one. And the Washington Post wondered if the White House made some political and legal miscalculations with the Supreme Court case. All three articles suggested the Conventional Wisdom that the Supreme Court could very well overturn the law. But no one knows how the court will rule.

*** Immigration decision is coming, too: Don’t forget: We’ll also get the court’s decision on Arizona’s immigration law this week. By the way, if you are a Republican strategist involved in a competitive election, you are hoping the Arizona decision gets released WITH health care. If it’s immigration today and health care on Thursday, then the GOP has to deal with another three days of the immigration issue in the news, and we’ve yet to see how any day that has immigration in the news is a good one for Republicans in November.

*** One crazy month: So when you step back and think about it, June has been a crazy month. It started with the monthly jobs report showing that just 69,000 jobs were created in May; then came the drumbeat of bad and uncertain news on the economy, both domestically and in Europe; then there was Wisconsin; then President Obama’s immigration announcement; and now we’re about to get the big SCOTUS health-care ruling (as well as the immigration one). Yet despite it all, the Obama-Romney race has remained incredibly stable. Look no farther than the recent Pew poll and AP national poll showing Obama narrowly leading Romney (50%-46% and 47%-44%, respectively) -- which is essentially where this race was after the former Massachusetts governor became the presumptive GOP nominee back in April. What explains this stability, even if much of the media perception has been that Romney has the momentum while Obama is struggling? For starters, you could argue that given this nation’s political polarization, this tight race has always been locked in and perhaps is even more locked in than anyone appreciates. Then there’s the “demographics is destiny” argument that feeds the polarization; and finally, don’t overlook the Obama campaign’s heavy anti-Romney TV blitz have contributed to the stability. Bottom line: It’s probably a little of all three.

*** We’re still in the 2^nd quarter: Regardless, it’s important to note that we haven’t reached halftime in this general election contest. We always knew there would be FOUR big moments in this race after Romney became the presumptive nominee, outside any unforeseen event: 1) the SCOTUS health-care decision, 2) the VP selection, 3) the convention speeches, and 4) the debates. And we’re only about to cross off No. 1 on this list. We still have a long way to go…

*** Bain gets more scrutiny: After the Washington Post reported on Friday that Bain Capital, under Mitt Romney’s leadership, invested in firms that outsourced jobs to China and India, other news organizations piled on Bain. Over the weekend, the New York Times wrote that even when Bain-controlled companies filed for bankruptcy and shed jobs, Bain and its executives still made money. “Bain structured deals so that it was difficult for the firm and its executives to ever really lose, even if practically everyone else involved with the company that Bain owned did, including its employees, creditors and even, at times, investors in Bain’s funds.” Also, the Boston Globe noted how Romney and Bain once partnered with famed junk-bond king Michael Milken in a leveraged buyout. “It showed how he pivoted from being a relatively cautious investor to risking his reputation for a big payoff. It is one that Romney has rarely, if ever, mentioned in his two bids for the presidency, perhaps because the Houston-based department store chain that Bain assembled later went into bankruptcy.” Finally, the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action is up with another TV ad hitting Romney on Bain. 

*** Romney has more of a Bain problem than the Acela Corridor realizes: Ever since the Obama campaign began its Bain hit, there has been near universal agreement among elites that the hits were either “not working,” or “unfair,” or both. But as we’ve said before and we’ll say again: The Bain attacks aren’t meant to sway folks in NY and DC, but folks in three crucial battleground states: Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. The whole point of this campaign by the Obama folks is to paint Romney as an out-of-touch Wall Street CEO or worse, one of the Bobs from “Office Space. And while the Romney campaign has comforted itself with the criticism of the Obama attacks by other Democrats (Booker, Rendell etc.), the campaign has done little to fix the larger image issue. So far, the Romney campaign has made this argument: Any attack on Bain is an attack on America’s free enterprise system. But how does it explain that Bain and its partners often made money, even if the firms they took over went belly up? And how do they now explain this Milken association? Does it keep using the “free enterprise” line? Or does it need to do something else?

*** Romney’s weekend getaway: Here’s a thought exercise: Imagine if Obama had held a big retreat -- say in Santa Fe, NM -- with all of his big bundlers. The Hollywood types. The LGBT donors. The NBA stars. Would it have received more coverage than Romney’s retreat with his big bundlers in Utah over the weekend? Perhaps the most newsworthy part of the weekend: the attendance of the Super PAC-men. Not only was Karl Rove there (remember that he helped found American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS), but also spotted in the hotel lobby there was Restore Our Future’s Charlie Spies. Spies confirmed to NBC’s Garrett Haake that he was in the hotel lobby, but says he was not officially "attending" the confab, he was just there. Spies’ wife also works for the campaign. The Romney campaign issued this statement: "ROF staff were not invited, nor did they attend or participate in the retreat. As with members of the media, they may have been in public spaces, and the campaign did not control that. We are fully aware of the law and comply with it completely." This just shows you the absurdity of the campaign-finance laws right now. The campaigns and Super PACs can’t coordinate, but they can be in “public spaces” together; yes that’s the law. Remember, it’s the “letter” of the law that matters not the spirit.  

*** On the trail: Obama gives a speech in Durham, NH at 2:00 pm ET and later hits a fundraiser in Boston… Per guidance from the campaign, Obama “will offer Granite State voters the choice to break the stalemate between two economic visions on how to grow to the economy -- one that builds the economy from the middle class out, and the other from the top down.”… And Romney today raises money in Scottsdale, AZ.

Countdown to GOP convention: 63 days
Countdown to Dem convention: 70 days
Countdown to Election Day: 134 days

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

*** Monday’s “Daily Rundown” line-up: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on the coming SCOTUS ruling… Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) on the second half of his member-versus-member fight with Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)… NBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin with the latest from Egypt… More 2012 campaign trail news with the Washington Post’s Dan Balz, AP’s Liz Sidoti and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

*** Monday’s “Jansing & Co.” line-up: MSNBC’s Chris Jansing interviews the New York Times’ Charles Blow, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), former Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH), GOP strategist Hogan Gidley, Bloomberg Views’ Jonathan Alter, and former DOJ spokesman & Holder aide Matt Miller.

*** Monday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’S Thomas Roberts talks with Priorities USA Action Co-Founder Bill Burton, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), former Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health Commissioner Christine Ferguson, NBC Latino Contributor Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, and Perry Bacon, Richard Goodstein and Alice Stewart on the Power Panel.

*** Monday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include New York Magazine National Affairs Editor John Heilemann, Salon.com’s Steve Kornacki, the New York Times’ Nicholas Confessore, Demos Vice President Heather McGhee, former White House Advisor for Health Policy Dr. Zeke Emanuel, and Manuel Roig-Franzia, author of “The Rise of Marco Rubio.”

*** Monday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews NBC’s Pete Williams, Rep. Xavier Becerra, National Council of La Raza’s Janet Murguia, Scotusblog’s Tom Goldstein, Time’s Joe Klein, and NBC’s Richard Engel.

*** Monday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews Michael Smerconish, Salon.com’s Joan Walsh, and The Hill’s AB Stoddard.

“It's the biggest secret in a city known for not keeping them. The nine Supreme Court justices and more than three dozen other people have kept quiet for more than two months about how the high court is going to rule on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul,” the AP writes. “This is information that could move markets, turn economies and greatly affect this fall's national elections, including the presidential contest between Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But unlike the Congress and the executive branch, which seem to leak information willy-nilly, the Supreme Court, from the chief justice down to the lowliest clerk, appears to truly value silence when it comes to upcoming court opinions, big and small.”

“Washington is in for one of its wildest weeks in a long time, and the stakes could hardly be higher for President Barack Obama,” Politico writes. “The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its landmark decision on the president’s signature first-term achievement, the 2010 health care law, a ruling with huge implications for Obama’s legacy and his prospects for a second term. A second high court opinion on Arizona’s immigration law will touch on another hot-button campaign issue. Across the street at the Capitol, meanwhile, Congress will confront two critical legislative disputes that Obama has put at the forefront of his campaign lately: student loan rates and highway funding.”

The Detroit Free Press: “If the justices strike the insurance mandate, but leave the rest of health reform intact, this case will provide little relief to opponents of the Affordable Care Act. That's because the insurance mandate was mainly intended as a way to contain costs. Without it, but with the other reforms charging forward, the pressure will be back on Republicans in Congress to work with President Obama to come up with an alternative form of cost savings.”

Financial Times: “Bank chiefs enjoy double-digit pay rises.” “Top US and European bankers, including JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon and Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit, have enjoyed double-digit annual pay rises averaging almost 12 per cent, despite widespread falls in profits and share prices, Financial Times research shows. The disclosure will stoke concern on both sides of the Atlantic over chief executive pay levels that has already led to several high-profile investor revolts, including at Citi and at Barclays. It comes as Europe’s leaders debate a cap on bank bonuses.”

“When it comes to the economy, half of Americans in a new poll say it won't matter much whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney wins — even though the presidential candidates have staked their chances on which would be better at fixing the economic mess,” AP writes.

“Mitt and the junk bond king,” is the headline to this Sunday Boston Globe story: “It was at the height of the 1980s buyout boom when Mitt Romney went in search of $300 million to finance one of the most lucrative deals he would ever manage. The man who would help provide the money was none other than the famed junk-bond king Michael Milken. What transpired would become not just one of the most profitable leveraged buyouts of the era, but also one of the most revealing stories of Romney’s Bain Capital career. It showed how he pivoted from being a relatively cautious investor to risking his reputation for a big payoff. It is one that Romney has rarely, if ever, mentioned in his two bids for the presidency, perhaps because the Houston-based department store chain that Bain assembled later went into bankruptcy.”

“Vague, general or downright evasive policy prescriptions on some of the most important issues facing the country are becoming the rule for Romney. Hoping to make the campaign strictly a referendum on the incumbent, the hyper-cautious challenger is open about his determination to not give any fodder to Obama aides hungry to make the race as much about Romney as the president,” Politico’s Martin and Burns  write. “Romney is remarkably candid, almost as though he’s reading the stage directions, about why he won’t offer up details: he thinks it will undermine his chances to win. ‘The media kept saying to Chris, ‘Come on, give us the details, give us the details,’ Romney has said about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s 2009 gubernatorial race. ‘We want to hang you with them.’ It’s a lesson the former Massachusetts governor said he took from his first, painful foray into electoral politics in 1994.”

Channeling msnbc.com’s Michael O’Brien, Time’s Michael Crowley writes today: “One-Note Mitt: Is Romney Too Focused on the Economy?” He notes that both in 1980 and 1992, Reagan and Bill Clinton didn’t just talk about the economy, but had policy prescriptions on a host of other issues.

The Boston Globe on Romney’s weekend in Utah with donors and activists: “Providing special private access to a candidate to those who raise the most money is not new in politics, but this weekend was the most serious effort Romney has made to reward his top donors. Unlike Obama, Romney has not disclosed his bundlers, other than the registered lobbyists that he is forced to disclose under federal law.”

Rupert Murdoch took a shot at Romney on Twitter:  “When is Romney going to look like a challenger?   Seems to play everything safe, make no news except burn off Hispanics... Easy for Romney to spell out restoration of the American dream and bash incompetent administration. But not a word!” What say you, Newt Gingrich, who thought FOX was in the tank in the GOP primary for Romney?