Glenn McCoy by Glenn McCoy

Glenn McCoy

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. comicgos

    comicgos said, almost 3 years ago

    Proof AGAIN the Right Wing Lunatics have no idea what’s in the Constitution!

  2. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    It was the Republicans phony use of the modified “filibuster” that bashed the intent of the Constitution, just like the House committees they run constantly coming up with “legislation” that attempts to take away Executive branch authority, and duties. This from the same clowns that wanted “w” and Cheney to have the “unitary Presidency” , and ignore Congress and the courts. (Look up Ashcroft and Gonzales for examples of what that administration thought of Constitutional law, and protections. “Torture is okay”, was just one example.)

  3. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    All true and valid, Michael, but you might just as well have said it to a labrador retriever as said it to McCoy and his fans.

  4. cdward

    cdward said, almost 3 years ago

    This etymology of the word is helpful in the context of the current Senate vote. It is also helpful to understand that the “nuclear option” was first proposed by Republican senators who preferred to call it “the constitutional option.”

    “filibuster (n.) 1580s, flibutor “pirate,” probably ultimately from Dutch vrijbuiter “freebooter,” a word which used of pirates in the West Indies in Spanish (filibustero) and French (flibustier) forms, either or both of which gave the word to American English (see freebooter).

    Used 1850s and ‘60s of lawless adventurers from the U.S. who tried to overthrow Central American governments. The legislative sense is not in Bartlett (1859) and seems not to have been in use in U.S. legislative writing before 1865. Probably the extension in sense is because obstructionist legislators “pirated” debate or overthrew the usual order of authority. Not technically restricted to U.S. Senate, but that’s where the strategy works best.

  5. Armitage72

    Armitage72 said, almost 3 years ago

    In the entire history of the United States, there have been 168 filibusters of executive or judicial appointments. More than 80 of those have been in the last 4 1/2 years.
    It has stopped being a tool of debate and become a weapon wielded by a group that has repeatedly stated that their primary goal is preventing the government from functioning.

  6. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 3 years ago

    Filibuster is just in the Senate rules. Michael wme covered that. The Senate changed the rules to make the phony filibuster. Now they’ve changed it to where they can change the rules on a bill by bill or appointment by appointment basis. This will allow the majority to ignore the minority entirely. Since partisanship of party rather than conscience or vox populi has come to dominate the Senate, this rule change is not a good thing.

  7. dave_at_efi

    dave_at_efi GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    Poor cartoon. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows a minority to hold veto power over the majority.

  8. Armitage72

    Armitage72 said, almost 3 years ago

    Similar to the way that the Republicans in the House changed the rules at the last minute to guarantee the shutdown.
    The difference is that one change allows the government to do its job while the other change was specifically intended to bring it to a screeching halt.

  9. josh358

    josh358 said, almost 3 years ago

    What a repulsive, disgusting liar this guy is. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, it is just a rule set by the Senate, and under the Constitution, the Senate can change its rules. Indeed, filibuster abuse is itself probably unconstitutional — the filibuster was intended to preserve the minority’s right to debate, not to create a de facto supermajority requirement, and the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot impose a supermajority requirement on itself.

  10. eepatt

    eepatt said, almost 3 years ago

    I usually disagree with Mr. McCoy, but still read his strip because it is usually well done. This is one a complete disappointment because, as has been well stated in the above comments, the filibuster is in senate rules and is not even mentioned in the constitution. That makes this cartoon either a total inaccuracy or a deliberate intent to misinform. In either case, I would have expected better from Mr. McCoy.

  11. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, almost 3 years ago

    Democracy requires that the people and the representatives of the people VOTE, not jiggle and jive to STOP the people and their representatives from voting. Big News Flash: it appears democracy is not the Republicans preferred form of government.

  12. jack75287

    jack75287 said, almost 3 years ago

    God that is the truth! don’t want Obamacare tough we know what’s best for you. We have the government we deserve but we deserve very little.

  13. lbalch

    lbalch said, almost 3 years ago

    I do like socialism, the economic kind. Like that personal liberty thing too, just wish the conservatives would stop trying to take that away.

  14. wbr

    wbr said, almost 3 years ago

    so the libs here who say that unlimited debate is not in the Constitution well there is no limit of debate in the Constitution

  15. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 3 years ago

    An interesting thing being overlooked in this forum is the possibility of tyranny by the majority. If you have a split of 51-49 in the Senate (and the current, blind partisanship exhibited here and in the current Senate), then unjust laws could be easily passed by a simple majority. I write here not about our current Congressional situation, but about the long term affects of the current use of the “nuclear option”. This was something recognized by the Founding Fathers as can be found in FEDERALIST No. 51 published in the New York Packet on Friday, February 8, 1788 thought to be written by Hamilton or Madison. An excerpt from that paper:

    “If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.”

    Be careful of what you wish for. Today’s majority may be tomorrow’s minority and that new majority may think in terms of exclusion of the new minority rather than consideration of that new minority’s wishes.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (2).