Reflections From a Murky Pond

Admittedly, the partisanship, Leftist agenda, anti-Americanism, and rank hypocrisy of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann is infamous but this latest rant takes it to a whole new level.

In his latest rant at Daily Kos, he had much to spew about the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the SCOTUS.

Below is an excerpt from Olbermann’s hypocritical rant:

In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power… to decide our elections.

None.

They can spend all the money they want.

And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service.

And if Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors and Councilmen and everyone in between are entirely beholden to the corporations for election and re-election to office, soon they will erase whatever checks there might still exist to just slow down the ability of corporations to decide… the laws.

It is almost literally true that any political science fiction nightmare you can now dream up — no matter whether you are conservative or liberal — it is now legal. Because the people who can make it legal, can now be entirely bought and sold — no actual citizens required in the process.

And the entirely bought and sold politicians, can change any laws. And any legal defense you can structure now, can be undone by the politicians who will be bought and sold into office this November, or two years from now. And any legal defense which honest politicians can somehow wedge up against them this November, or two years from now, can be undone by the next even larger set of politicians who will be bought and sold into office in 2014, or 2016, or 2018.

Mentioning Lincoln’s supposed ruminations about arresting Roger B. Taney… he didn’t say the original of this, but what the hell:
Right now, you can prostitute all of the politicians some of the time, and prostitute some of the politicians all the time, but you cannot prostitute all the politicians all the time.

Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts this will change.

– Keith Olbermann
Daily Kos – Keith Olbermann’s Diary

The rank hypocrisy of Olbermann’s rant defies proper definition or description; American Standard English just doesn’t possess the nuance necessary to convey the depths to which Olbermann – albeit unsurprisingly – has, with great apparent passion and eagerness, sunk.

He has chosen to stridently complain about about Corporations being now permitted to make private expenditures of the wealth the have amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form to fund, create, and/or publish political advertisements during the various elections cycles. Yet Keith Olbermann earns his quite considerable salary by starring in political advertisements (Liberal infomercials, as it were) throughout the various election cycles – up to and including during the elections themselves – and is paid by a corporation through private expenditure of some part of its immense aggregations of wealth it has amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form.

Olbermann also conveniently “forgets” to mention that the Labor Unions also had their restrictions lifted and can also air political ads during the election cycles.

Whether you’re you agree with, are opposed to, or are, as I am, truly ambivalent towards the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on Citizens United, the level Keith Olbermann’s hypocrisy should be shocking, galling, and cause for some form of punitive action.

There are those times when America’s, and probably the whole of Mankind’s, highest, noblest, and most singularly important document, the Constitution, is a suicide letter for America’s democracy. The US Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is one of those times.

Sometimes maintaining liberty carries with it a great weight of inconvenience to the sensibilities of the individual members of the populace who cannot see the benefit to upholding the guiding principles of our great nation when doing so places, or seems to place, our way of life in jeopardy.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

– Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Archibald Stuart, Dec 23, 1791

The SCOTUS’ decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruled and struck down most of the federal laws limiting corporations and labor unions from using their own wealth to fund or create and disseminate political messages and/or ads during elections as being unconstitutional and in contravention of the 1st Amendment thereof.  The effects of this decision, given human nature, are very likely to be an “inconvenience” brought on the common man by too much liberty.

I, for one, certainly do not relish the thought of the media being inundated by political ads by corporations during each and every election cycle. Nor am I in any way sanguine about how that could effect the outcomes of those elections. Even more so, I  do not relish experiencing the same thing from the labor unions and believe such electioneering ads would be far more likely to come from them than from corporations.

Yet, after reading the Courts decision and opinion, those of the previous cases they cited, and the body of law in question (US Code Title 2, Chapter 14, Subchapter I , § 441b), I am forced to agree with them. Removing the ban on both corporations and labor unions was the only constitutionally correct decision that the SCOTUS could render. The issues that may arise from maintaining Freedom of Speech are far less detrimental than those that would certainly arise from hampering or chilling it.

Since Judge Sotomayor a “wise Latina” we can’t fairly say that she is tap dancing before the Senate; that would be showing a streak of racial insensitivity. No, Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to the SCOTUS,  is “treating” the Senate to a show of Salsa dancing.

With the Democrats’ majority assuring her confirmation, it’ a stint of theatrics, if little else.

Sotomayor, of course, started her dance with a Quick Back Step Movement – A New York Mambo classic – covering her earlier misstep involving the relative merits of the genders and races.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

– Judge Sotomayor
2001 Speech, UC Berkeley, School of Law

With a flick of her hip and that Mambo back-step, Judge Sotomayor responds to this with,

I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system. I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have.

I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience.

The words I chose, taking the rhetorical flourish, it was a bad idea I do understand that there are some who have read this differently, and I understand why they might have concern.

– Sotomayor Explains “Wise Latina” Comment

…And Cha Cha Cha.

So, Sotomayor didn’t really mean what she said. It was just rhetoric – a poor choice of words that she regrets because some people might have taken them the wrong way. Yeah. Right. Sure.

There’s sadly a whole plethora of White Men who have over the course of time tried that same Quick Back Step Movement when called on a variety of statements quite similar to Sotomayor’s. We call them Racists and we revile them. In fact, we normally revile them even more when they try such smooth moves to deflect such accusations of racism. I’m sure though that Judge Sotomayor will, once again, get the benefits of Affirmative Action and not be held to the same standard as those White Men.

And Sotomayor’s dance before the Senate, alternatively partnered by Democrats and Republicans, continued unabated and consistently graceful in its empty measures and well turned steps.

Obama’s nominee, obviously carefully coached by Obama’s administration and by the Democrats in the Senate, carefully sidestepped and/or spun around any direct questions about her judicial history. She also, being a “Wise Latina,” carefully failed to provide any substantive answers on her views on the law and the role of the SCOTUS.

All in all it has been, to date, a beautiful dance by Sonia Sotomayor.

~*~

Yes, a beautiful dance and great theater – but lacking in substance and meaning insofar as the Judicial branch of the US government is concerned. The Democrats rule the US Senate with a filibuster-proof majority; Sotomayor’s confirmation as a SCOTUS Justice is assured, a foregone conclusion.

Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing isn’t about the Judicial; it’s about the Legislative and, to some extent, the Executive and their respective elections in 2010 and 2012. It’s about the minority, especially the Hispanic, vote in those upcoming elections.

The Democrats need to paint the Republicans as racists and sexists. The Republicans also need to paint the Democrats and President Obama as racist, just ones who favor a different set of Races. They also need to show that President Obama prefers judicial activism and racial activism over skill, ability and experience in SCOTUS Justices.

Sotomayor’s sole job during these hearings is to give the Democrats what they want while not saying anything that could be used by the Republicans to get what they want. Whether or not she can accomplish those limited, but still difficult, goals will not be evident until we’re closer to the elections in question.

Until then dance, dance, dance while Death’s clock ticks towards Doom and the nation burns…