Thursday, January 21, 2010

Meeting of the Minds: Olbermann and Alan Grayson Compare SCOTUS Ruling on Citizen's United to Dred Scott

Seriously, it's almost impossible to comprehend how these two intellectual giants rationalize comparing today's Supreme Court ruling to to Dred Scott.   Olberman begins by noting Grayson was in the courtroom when the Supreme Court announced its' decision and asks for Graysons reaction.  Grayson immediately responds he is shocked and goes on to elaborate the decision is the most irresponsible since Dred Scott.  Olbermann of course agrees.

Project 21, a black leadership group issued a press release condemning Grayson's comparison to Dred Scott:

Bishop Council Nedd II: "In Dred Scott, the Court equated people with property.  The Court's decision today was about giving people a voice.  There is no correlation between the two.  Congressman Grayson needs to apologize.  His flippant and unenlightened statement offends me personally, and it disrespects generations of black people who suffered from slavery." (Council Nedd II is the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church.)
Horace Cooper: "Where has Representative Alan Grayson been?  He compares today's landmark decision - in which free speech trumps FEC restrictions - to the awful ruling that black people are nothing more than property.  He's off base yet again.  It's more than a little ironic that Democrats praised Dred Scott when it was handed down over a hundred years ago, yet now stand opposed to fundamental freedoms such as free speech today."  (Horace Cooper is a former visiting assistant professor at the George Mason University School of Law.)

Grayson makes the direct comparison in the following clip quite early in the segment.  He equates the finding in Dred Scott that slaves and their free born children did not have constitutional rights to his summary of Citizens United, only corporations have constitutional rights.  He elaborates saying the ruling permits bribery on the largest scale imaginable and of course Olbermann agrees.  The four minute segment is filled with such hyperbole and outright lies it's hard to imagine they seriously believe what they say.  But then, of course, this Olbermann and Grayson we're talking about, anything is possible.

Any chance Olbermann and Grayson apologize? Nah, I don't think so either.

Many thanks to Dan Riehl for linking this post.

1 comment:

  1. It's kind of hard to consider it a hyperbole when the rules insures that any limit would be unConstitutional. It is good to know that, now, our only defense against a Government by the Corporate Payroll for the Corporation is the morality of politicians who, at previous restrictions and limits, had a difficult time resisting special interest money.

    I'm having a hard time understanding who this victory of Free Speech is for. An entity that is not itself a person, that can be directed and controlled by non-nationals, that has interests almost certainly counter to the American people? The nation has just been put up on the auction block for entities that know no loyalty to any nation--and the best case scenario (the most unlikely scenario) is that they simply don't do what they could do: spend millions on candidates that will vote the way they wish, spend millions against their opponents, and consider those dollars spent in the interest of doing good business.


Related Posts with Thumbnails
Web Analytics