Michael Ramirez for February 24, 2016

Yeah, what is Clarence Thomas gonna do now that his puppet master is dead?

Whoops…Ramirez has that one bass ackwards. I’m beginning to think some of these GOPS have their glasses on upside down….

Yes, Clarence Thomas is the strong, silent type, not unlike Charlie McCarthy, Mortimer Snerd, and Effie Klinker, but without the IQ, of course.

What an astonishing cartoon. In Ramirez’ world, the constitution apparently does NOT allow the president to appoint supreme court justices. What does your personal edited copy of the constitution say about it, Mike? That supreme court justices should be appointed by Republicans, regardless of who the American people voted for by a pretty wide majority in the last election?

Amazing you folks must not watch the news at all. President Obama’s popularity has definitely worn off and the dissatisfaction with the legislative branch is high. Trump is riding high due to this anger with government. The last eight years have been a joke. US standing in the world has taken a huge hit, can you say Red Line in the Sand? Until we get a unifying government in office, cartoons such as this will be standard on both the conservative and liberal sides of the arguments.

Polls show the Republican pigs will lose senate seats do to the selfish blocking any nomination.

Interesting how all the liberals here immediately bash on Clarence Thomas, the only black Supreme Court Judge. Seems pretty racist. These are the same people that claim when conservatives bash Obama it is never ideological, it is immediately racist. Well, back at ya..To Night-Gaunts comment: “He did it deliberately and he passed over better nominees of all colors to find the one with the right color, and ideological stripe near the bottom of that barrel.”.Sounds like affirmative action. I thought liberals were all for that..And of course I’m sure Obama would never nominate anyone because of their ideological stripe….Still, Obama has the Constitutional duty to nominate a SC candidate and the Senate should fully vet each candidate proposed. If he/she is a candidate that will truly adjudicate based on the Constitution as written, then he/she should be appointed. Unfortunately most liberal judges legislate.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Bush, and McConnell, we’ll all the uber right, have been weilding those scissors for decades, not Obama.

These people, who are being considered, are threatening in what way?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J.Watfordhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KamalaHarris

Thanks

Obama himself opposed an election year nomination by a GOP president. VP Biden in 1992 opposed an election year nomination. Many Democrats spoke against GOP presidents choosing the next LIFETIME appointment nomination for the USSC, in their final Lame Duck year in office!-Yes, the Constitution gives any president the power to nominate. It does not give any president the power to install an unapproved by the US Senate nominee.-FDR, the Democrat President elected 4 times and served 12 years until he died in office, in 1937 tried to pack the USSC with Judges that were pro-New Deal, Roosevelt’s agenda to insert the federal government into and over States’ jurisdictions. FDR also tried to totally re-design the USSC and Congress approved 6 changes but not the 7th, a plan to appoint a younger man to serve with a Judge that reached the age of 70, with a limit of 15 USSC Judges; that was not approved.-FDR pulled the trigger on expanding endlessly the powers of the feds and caused the huge annual deficits and the building of a National Debt that now is past $19 Trillion and still rising.-IMO the Democrats with the lame duck Obama, now are trying to ensure that their agenda will be as permanent as possible, no matter who the next president is elected. A younger and reliably ultra leftwing Justice with a lifetime term will not be good for keeping the Constitutional system our wise Founders designed to keep our biblically principled Liberty.

I challenge “Conservatives” to quote which part of the U.S. Constitution states that a President cannot perform his duties in the last year of his term!

Who was the other appointment?

“Ah, the power of positive stinking. Ramirez can only remember one part of the constitution, the second amendment and thinks the rest are only ‘suggestions.’” -@Comicsfan222

Really?

Article 2 section 2 of the US Constitution says that:“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Note that the President “shall NOMINATE and with the advice and CONSENT of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court.” It then goes on to say that “Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone”. The fact that the drafters of the Constitution made a point of saying that Congress MAY give the President the authority to appoint “such inferior Officers” alone underscores how the President REQUIRES the advice and CONSENT of the Senate to appoint “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law”

“Since Pres. Obama isn’t a Liberal himself, that is doubtful.”[Citation needed]

Many sources judge Pr. Obama to be one of the most liberal presidents in US history (eg. http://goo.gl/MSl7Wu). For all that Obama ran on being a “Uniter, not a divider” and rode into office on a Pegasus named “Bipartisanship”, Obama was partisan and confrontational before getting elected (9th most liberal Senator in 2008) and remained partisan and confrontational after becoming President. His comment on the lack of bipartisan support for the Affordable Care Act was “We won – you lost, get over it”.

I see that Ramirez is not in favor of the Constitution. Somehow, I’m not surprised.