* Today in GOP Latino outreach: Ted Cruz plans to attach an amendment to the immigration bill that would allow states to require proof of citizenship as a condition for registering to vote, contra today’s SCOTUS decision.

* Why are House Republicans pushing legislation (to be voted on tomorrow) that would further restrict abortions? Jeremy Peters explains all:

The bill stands no chance of becoming law, with Democrats in control of the Senate and the White House. Republican leaders acknowledge that its purpose is to satisfy vocal elements of their base who have renewed a push for new restrictions on reproductive rights, even if those issues harmed the party’s reputation with women in 2012.

In case you had any doubt about who is in charge here…

* This afternoon the White House announced that Obama would veto the House GOP abortion bill, slamming it as a “direct challenge to Roe v. Wade” that “shows contempt for women’s health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients’ health care decisions, and the Constitution.”

* Jonathan Bernstein on why you should ignore John Boehner’s claim that he won’t allow immigration reform to the House floor without a majority of Republicans supporting it. Again: Reform likely turns on whether he’ll let it pass only with Dem votes — as Bernstein explains, there is likely no other option.

* GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is getting some attention for claiming Boehner will face a revolt among House conservatives if he dares let the Senate immigration reform bill get a House vote. I’m just not buying it. If enough House Republicans privately want reform to pass, even if they don’t want to vote for it, Boehner will be fine.

* Indeed, the Associated Press tells you the real story here:

Some lawmakers say Boehner might allow a far-reaching immigration bill to pass the House even if most Republicans oppose it, with Democrats providing most of the votes.

If enough Republicans decide reform must pass for the long term good of the GOP, it will pass.

* Must-read from Sam Stein, who reports on how Darrell Issa is selectively showing IRS scandal witness testimony to chosen reporters, even as he insists releasing full transcripts will hurt the investigation.

The ranking Dem on the committee, Elijah Cummings, is expected to release full transcripts any day now. He has a pretty good excuse to do so.

* In his forthcoming interview with Charlie Rose, Obama describes the NSA phone gathering program as “transparent,” based on the fact that it is authorized by the FISA court. But the court’s opinions remain secret, and the administration could declassify them if it wanted to.

* Relatedly, via Digby, here’s a good discussion of the serious complexities inherent to the problem of surveillance overreach, and what we might actually do about them.

* E.J. Dionne is good on “Great Gatsby economics” — America’s growing inequality, its declining social mobility, the role of luck in determining prosperity, and how all of the above are making the economy worse.

* ABC News: Mike Bloomberg’s group won’t back off its attacks on Dems who toe the NRA line, and has nothing but scorn for red state Dems who push back by picking a fight with a “billionaire New York mayor,” rather than defending their craven gun votes.

* David Dayen’s fine-grained reporting on immoral mortgage lending practices is always good, and here he details how it is setting back efforts by homeowners to rebuild their lives after natural disasters, including the Oklahoma tornado.

* A majority of the Senate now supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. As noted here the other day, it’s not impossible that this could be its year.

* And is that sequester tipping point finally coming? National Journal presents some evidence that it really may take serious hold in July, but the question still remains whether its effects are too diffuse to make a difference politically.

What else?

 

 

Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant -- what you might call “opinionated reporting” from the left.