Supreme Court

Keith Olbermann: Citizens United "might actually have more dire implications than Dred Scott"

|

Excitable MSNBC personality Keith Olbermann tried his hand at legal analysis last night with predictable results. In this clip, Olbermann declares that yesterday's landmark free speech ruling in Citizens United "might actually have more dire implications than Dred Scott v Sandford." In case you've forgotten, Dred Scott held that African Americans had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect" and helped trigger the Civil War. Citizens United held that there is "no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers."

Olbermann should be ashamed of himself for making such a profoundly stupid statement.

NEXT: Buried in Rubble for 66 Hours? There's an App for That.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If corporations don’t possess free speech or free press rights, then take MSNBC off the air tomorrow and let this cocksucker go back to doing the 1 AM Sportscenter over at ESPN.

    1. They would rather eat a thick steaming bowl of rusty thumbtacks that passed through the colon of nanny goat than have him back.

      Or perhaps that is just my own projection, as I would rather eat said bowl than listen to his tripe.

    2. NNNOOOOOO!!!
      I like Sportscenter! Don’t ruin it!

  2. …tried his land at legal analysis…

    hand

    But yes, he’s a freak and a fool.

  3. Keith Olbermann tried his land at legal analysis

    “hand”, Damon.

    Once on a thread I referred to him as Keith Hyperbolbermann. I stand by that joke.

    1. Ha ha, Stewart PWNed Olbermann.

  4. Well, I sorta think of Olbermann as 3/5ths of a person….

    1. I, for one, would not drink from the same water fountain as he.

  5. The best part of his rant is that he blames “the corporations” as he sits at one of the head desks of a huge………………..corporation…

    That’s some tasty hypocrisy right there…

  6. why does keith olbermann hate african-american-owned corporations?

  7. Does this mean that “private” companies that are quasi-publicly owned – like certain car companies and banks – can now make political ads?

    How long until they start getting a wink and a nudge from incumbent congressional and presidential candidates to air favorable ads with taxpayer funds?

    1. You mean something like Fannie Mae has done for the past twenty years?

  8. Liberals always claim to be so concerned about race relations and discrimination. But then they piss all over the real evils and suffering inflicted on black people throughout history by comparing at every opportunity such evils to every liberal setback no matter how minor. For liberals, every opponent is Bull Connors and every unfavorable court case is Dred Scott or Plessy. It is really disgraceful.

    1. Remember Michael Moore in 2000, comparing to the Holocaust the old Jews in a Broward County retirement community having to use confusing ballots and accidentally voting for Buchanan.

      1. I love that guy!

  9. it is certainly a fortunate thing that that bump he took on the head only damaged the driving skills portion of his brain and not the thinking portion.

  10. I would watch Olbermann every night if I thought I might get to see him swallow his tongue in a fit of apoplexy, and die, live on camera.

    Of course, there is a very real possibility that that very thing would happen to me, as I was waiting for it to happen to him.

    Too risky.

  11. Olbermann can’t even be original in his hyperbole:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/…..red-scott/

    By Louise Radnofsky

    Washington Wire has been flooded with press releases from interest groups about the Supreme Court’s ruling today striking down limits on corporate political spending. But as always, outspoken Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson found a ways to make himself stand out.

    “This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case,” the Florida freshman says. “It leads us all down the road to serfdom.”

    Funny he should mention serfdom, being a Democrat and all that…

    1. With this and the whole death thing, hes not all that bad, he does support End the Fed. Grayson provides some interesting entertainment too.

      1. But comparing this recent SC decision to Dred Scot is pretty close to a Godwinism.

        Fuck Grayson, and pick out a random Republican and fuck him/her as well. 99% of those in public office deserve to be tossed in a pit with a very hungry Michael Moore and an even hungrier Rosie O’Donnell.

  12. This is a horrible ruling for both parties. I can’t believe you idiots don’t see the massive negative consequences this will have on our soceity.

    Is anyone angry about the GOP shooting down the bill to limit bonuses paid to bank executives with the bail-out money? Well, imagine in the future if banks can simply bank finance politicians who will actively support their policies.

    And imagine if this is extended to all companies (oil, mining, etc).

    Our “democracy” has shrunk greatly because of this bill.

    1. I can’t believe you idiots don’t see the massive negative consequences this will have on our soceity.

      I can’t believe the massive negative consequences McCain/Feingold already had on our society. It was unconscionable that the Federal government was allowed to restrict speech that they deemed “too political”.

      Is anyone angry about the GOP shooting down the bill to limit bonuses paid to bank executives with the bail-out money?

      No. If the executives met the terms of their contractually obligations, they should get paid what the contract says. The government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding who gets paid “too much”.

      Well, imagine in the future if banks can simply bank finance politicians who will actively support their policies.

      In the future? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      SEIU, Acorn, the Teachers Union, The Auto Unions, they all read that statement and laugh out loud.

      And imagine if this is extended to all companies (oil, mining, etc).

      This already happens. I still see the foundations of government working just fine, thankyouverymuch.

    2. And then imagine the voters didn’t vote for such candidates, and our “democracy” did just fine.

    3. This ruling allows corporate entities, including unions and non-profits, to produce ads with political candidates and issues as their subject matter. I fail to see how freer speech could possibly be a bad thing.

      Also, point of order, we do not live in a democracy, scare quoted or otherwise.

    4. Freer speech. Less democracy.

      Yeah. Sure. Youbetcha.

    5. Right.

      Corporations are going to influence politicians to gain favors.

      That just didn’t happen when they couldn’t finance campaign ads.

      Yep.

      And there’s gold at the end of the rainbow.

      1. “I’ve got a leprechaun riding a unicorn and crapping pots of gold out of its ass!”

        Gentlemen, I give you the Progressive political model.

      2. Aresen,

        Where’s Canada on this sort of thing?

        1. Much much worse.

          Not only are there there worse restrictions than those that the SCOTUS just struck down, there is large scale government funding for the established political parties.

          The “big money will buy elections” meme is very strong here. (Of course, those who say it are themselves magically immune to the corporate blandishments.)

          1. Ugh. Canada really sucks on speech issues. Last thing we need here is to further entrench the already entrenched parties.

    6. Then stop giving the government the power to grant special favors, asshole. I’m not signing away my rights so you can have your welfare state.

    7. When I heard about this case yesterday, I spit a bunch of New Coke all over the inside of my Edsel. I went home, fired up my Vista PC and sent a very angry e-mail to my representative.

      I warned him about how the common american (not me thank god because I’m a clever progressive) don’t have the native intelligence to withstand the coming onslaught of corporate political ads.

    8. This is a horrible ruling for both parties.

      You mean Coke and Pepsi?

    9. Are you admitting that you are such a dupe that all that needs to be done is run enough ads in front of you and you’ll vote however we want?

      If not, I don’t see the problem with this ruling.

  13. “Is anyone angry about the GOP shooting down the bill to limit bonuses paid to bank executives with the bail-out money? ”

    Ah No.

    1. Haha.

      Genius… Executives for horribly run companies received $10M dollar bonuses with our money.

      1. Maybe “we” should have let them go under then. Hmmmmm….?

      2. Yep. Thank Obama for that.

      3. Well, if a bunch of dumbshits hadn’t given them our money, it wouldn’t be a problem, now would it? So instead of blaming people for holding to their contracts, blame the fucktards who handed out billions of dollars they didn’t have to people who should have gone out of business.

        1. “Fucktards”, my new favorite word.

  14. “GET TO THE BACK OF THE CAR, OLBERMAN!”

  15. “Olbermann should be ashamed of himself for making such a profoundly stupid statement.”
    This assumes the man has the capacity to feel shame. I doubt it.

    1. Do I have to again display my “ivy league diploma” to put you in your proper place sir?

  16. That’s a huge insult to blacks, who have historically endured things far, far, far worse than the indignity of certain organizations of people having a right to political speech.

    Set phasers to shrill!

  17. Let me take another more relevant example from the health reform debate to show how this can hurt us.

    It is well known that many health insurance companies do not accept pre-existing conditions. Few, if any sane people are in favor of this practice. Now, imagine if insurance companies can pump money directly to politicians to buy their vote.

    Or even to take it a step further and to buy politicians who will get rid of government medical coverage for seniors.

    This can be expanded to any number of things.

    Politicians are supposed to be our check and balance against companies to make sure that our government does what is in the best interest of “we the people”, and not “we, the companies influential enough to buy the votes that used to belong to the people”.

    You can hate or dislike Olbermann if you want, but don’t let your dislike for him cloud your judgement on this issue.

    1. It is well known that many health insurance companies do not accept pre-existing conditions. Few, if any sane people are in favor of this practice.

      Go fuck yourself, Doug.

      If I want to offer insurance for sale that does not cover pre-existing conditions, I view that as my absolute right.

      No one who doesn’t want that insurance has to buy it. Buy insurance from someone else if you don’t like it.

      Complaining that you don’t like my insurance product, and should be entitled to use the police power of the state to force me at gunpoint to not sell such a product, is about as fair or just as walking into a McDonald’s, deciding you don’t like the fact that they don’t sell pizza there, and opening up on the staff with a machinegun.

      Go fuck yourself, Doug.

      1. Well, that was a horrible analogy.

        The obvious difference is that having a pre-existing medical condition that is not covered by insurance companies can bankrupt families or mean death.

        Going to another burger restaurant is quite simple.

        A more fitting analogy would be if the police did not exist and the private security forces refused to respond to calls for rape or assault.

        Go fuck yourself, Fluffy.

        1. **Gets popcorn. Waits for Doug to buy a clue.**

        2. The police won’t respond UNLESS you have a pre-existing condition, having been victimized. I would imagine they would tire quickly of coming over nightly to check under your bed for Rush Limbaugh.

        3. Just to clarify: you’re saying insurance companies are obligated to pay for other people’s medical problems? Why even go into business?

        4. Pay for your medical condition out of pocket you slaving fuck.

      2. Few, if any sane people are in favor of this practice.

        And yet neither Doug nor all the other sane people have set up an insurance company that covers pre-existing conditions. What’s stopping you Doug, if it is so fucking rational? Is it that your more about reaching into someone else’s pocket than having someone reach into yours? Fuck you Doug.

      3. It is well known that forcing people to sell insurance for something that has already happened is fucking stupid, and/or evil. And it will make my insurance more expensive. No sane people disagree.

    2. Nothing “directly” about it. Corps still prohibited from funding candidates & parties, but now they can buy ads expressing their point of view about candidates.

    3. “Politicians are supposed to be our check and balance against companies to make sure that our government does what is in the best interest of “we the people”, and not “we, the companies influential enough to buy the votes that used to belong to the people”.”

      I thought Feedom of Speech and Assembly, easy access to modern weaponry and bad attitudes (americans are so ungovernable, gives me the vapors) were our checks and balances?

      hmmm, Learn something new everyday.

    4. Politicians are supposed to be our check and balance against companies to make sure that our government does what is in the best interest of “we the people”, and not “we, the companies influential enough to buy the votes that used to belong to the people”.

      This just a special sort of dumbassery. Micheal Moore level stupid.

    5. It is well known that many health insurance companies do not accept pre-existing conditions.

      That’s because it’s health insurance, numbnuts, not health care.

      Ask that sweet little gecko if you can buy his insurance for the first time, after you wreck your car, and have him pay for the repairs.

      FAIL, Dug, EPIC FAIL.

      1. Even Flo at Progressive Insurance won’t write that policy.

    6. It is well known that many health insurance companies do not accept pre-existing conditions. Few, if any sane people are in favor of this practice.

      Even less people are in favor of having their insurance premiums skyrocket so insurance companies can afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions. And this is precisely what will happen if a law is passed forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

      You don’t seem to realize that the larger quasi-monopoly insurance companies love to see laws like this passed because it kills off their competition. That’s why Coakley was getting big time contributions from Medical/Insurance lobbies.

      Or even to take it a step further and to buy politicians who will get rid of government medical coverage for seniors.

      That’s kind of a ridiculous assertion. Seniors are one of the largest voting blocks. There is NO WAY a politician would get elected on the “kill seniors medicare!” ticket.

      This can be expanded to any number of things.

      If you’re a moron….or Keith Olberman..but I repeat myself.

      Politicians are supposed to be our check and balance against companies to make sure that our government does what is in the best interest of “we the people”, and not “we, the companies influential enough to buy the votes that used to belong to the people”.

      To argue that the government is some sort of pristine virgin territory that money can never influenced is dangerously naive and foolish. This law allows the first amendment to trump any one group from restricting the speech of another, regardless of their influence -be it politically or monetarily and that is a GOOD THING.

      1. Politicians are supposed to be our check and balance against companies to make sure that our government does what is in the best interest of “we the people”, and not “we, the companies influential enough to buy the votes that used to belong to the people”.

        That may actually be primordial na?vit?. All higher and more advanced forms of na?vit? sprung from that.

        1. Considering politicians predate corporations, that isnt even remotely their purpose.

  18. Why are people so worked up about this? The only real substantive effect I can see is that these groups will no longer have to make an end run around the law.

    More transparency.

  19. It is well known that many health insurance companies do not accept pre-existing conditions. Few, if any sane people are in favor of this practice.

    Sorry, Doug but this is just stupid. You obviously don’t understand what “insurance” is.

    You are apparently trying to equate this with doctors who refusing to treat people who are already sick, but it doesn’t make any sense.

  20. The “big money will buy elections” meme is very strong here.

    Nothing generates big money like incumbency, but I bet they don’t mention that.

  21. That John Carpenter movie “They Live” was real, man! The free-enterprisers are enslaving the world!

    Man, Keith really is becoming the Glenn Beck of the left.

    1. OK, that’s weird. I just used “I’m here to kick ass and chew bubblegum…and I’m all out of bubblegum.” in an all staff email today.

      It was topical.

    2. I seen some things, man… an’ some stuff!

      I wouldn’t recommend it.

  22. Olbermann seems like the left’s Rush.

    For that I applaud him.

    He is an idiot because he is left not because he is an over the top shock jock.

  23. You’re outta your element, Olbermann!

    1. Does Olbermann roll on Shabbos? And they STILL peed on my fuckin’ rug.

  24. He is an idiot because he is left not because he is an over the top shock jock.

    His shock jock schtick only looks that way in print. Actual film clips of him saying the shocking words show him to have the personality of an ice cube. Perhaps he’s trying for a new niche of shock-and-dull jock. If he’d be over-the-top instead of under-the-table, his show might have some entertainment value.

  25. The way Olbermann is describing it, I think I will rather enjoy living under our new corporate overlords. Removal of social safety nets and lower taxes, I’ve been advocating those things for years.

    Vote GE/Exxon in 2012.

    1. While I know you’re being sarcastic, you should know that you don’t need government to provide social safety nets, FYI.

  26. “Olbermann should be ashamed of himself for making such a profoundly stupid statement.”

    Why would he start now? He never has before.

  27. By downplaying the evils of slavery, Olbermann is objectively racist.

    1. Soooooooooooo RACIST!

  28. Olbermann should be ashamed of himself for making such a profoundly stupid statement.

    More ashamed than that slanderous diatribe he dished out on Brown a few days earlier?

    Why anyone listens to this man anymore is beyond me. He’s more farcical than Jon Stewart.

  29. Olbermann should be ashamed of himself for making such a profoundly stupid statement.

    ??? Olberman – ashamed ???

    does not compute
    does not compute
    does not compute

    ..aaaggkk … sptzzz … fizzle … crack … hmmmmm… ding! (small flash, wisp of smoke, and shushing sound as logic board toasts itself)

  30. What shitty justification do these fucknuts use to even be against Dred Scott? They should be for it. If we let every different state have a different policy over something important we’d have Anarchy(TM) or Chaos(TM) or a Race to the Bottom(TM) or one of their other riduculous anti freedom boogey men.

  31. So, where does Doug rank on the Tony/Chad scale?

  32. Stewart’s comments to Olberdoodle.

    http://videos.mediaite.com/vid…..Comment-Sl

    I had to start digging in the backyard to see if hell was freezing over. No conclusive evidence yet, but it is a fucking cold hole.

  33. Stewart’s comments to Olberdoodle.

    http://videos.mediaite.com/vid…..Comment-Sl

    I had to start digging in the backyard to see if hell was freezing over. No conclusive evidence yet, but it is a fucking cold hole.

  34. ben affleck’s olbermann was really good

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/4202…..-olbermann

  35. We are witnessing Keith Olbermann’s transformation into the Glenn Beck of MSNBC. For every left wing conspiracy theory put forth by Beck, Olbermann one ups him with a vision of corporate dystopia. Never mind that corporations have always been perfectly free to buy air time in at least some states. Olbermann actually believes that allowing corporations to make political ads will inevitably lead to corporate control of elections and then the entire country.

    1. Hopefully everyone will be playing this clip in the future, ridiculing Olbermann’s prophecies. Hopefully.

  36. olberman has always been worse than Beck. He’s a failed sports hack. He’s burned more bridges in the TV industry than Susan Summers. He’s a pariah for a reason. A reason that is fairly obvious, he’s an arrogant vitriolic fucking douchebag. He doesn’t argue points he calls people names, even when he’s right he can’t just be right he has to put himself on his lil’ pedestal and look down at everyone.

    Fuck Olberdoodle.

    1. Beck is just fucking goofy and hyperbolic, rarely does he come off as malicious and condescending.

      Admittedly I can only watch so much of either so I’m probably not the definitive source of either program. But I have and do occasionally watch both.

      1. I like Beck. I do not always agree with him but I think he has a good heart. I cannot say the same about Olberman. Beck has a kind of self-depricating humor that makes him likable even when one disagrees with him. Besides that, the album Odelay was awsome.

  37. If you people don’t get how dangerous this decision is you are stupid. This is diametrically opposed to ACTUAL conservatism and idividualism. The founders knew that no individual should have more rights and less responsibility than another. They were opposed to ANY concentrations of power. They have overthrown our government with 5 people who have betrayed real conservatives because of their fear of the population. Say goodbye to whatever control you had over your government.

  38. you know. you call your site reason.com. You should really change it to “Im a big stupid dumbass.com”. If you cant see how bad this is. Just wait untill all these corporations own everything you have.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.