Register for a FREE GoComics account and get this plus any other comic strip delivered to your Personalized
Comic Page, Daily. With a free account you will be able to build a Comic Page filled with the Comics you
want to see each day.
With the largest collection of Comics and Editorial Cartoons online there is plenty to choose from. Upgrade
to a GoComics Pro account (Only $.99/Month) and have unlimited archive access to decades of comics.
Corporations should be allowed to vote, but pay a special fee of 10,000$ per vote, and buy as many as they wanted. They could buy elections, but at least the treasury would fill up from it instead of having rich legislators.
Montana tried it in the 1920s. Didn’t work out so well. That’s why (until the conservative activists on the supreme court threw them out, because states’ rights no longer apply) they had the strongest anti-bribery / corruption / campaign finance laws in the U.S.
Very interesting. This is where I would favor states rights. Try something to see if it works.. If it does not, then we would want the whole nation to reject it…. Such topics as the death penalty , or for profit schools, or slavery…we did learn here, did we not ?
None of these other things you mention are Constitutionally-protected rights, so your argument is meaningless. This is the rationale I see trotted out against any sort of licensing or insurance requirements for firearms, so why not apply it to voting too? Also, some people actually do live on such a razor’s edge that even taking the few hours it requires to take a bus or walk to a city office and wait in lines would represent a significant difficulty. Now, perhaps people who are stuck in this situation don’t matter to you, but they still do matter.
People who “live on such a razor’s edge” as portrayed by you, will need government assistance, especially if just “taking a bus” or “walking to a city office” is such a “significant difficulty.” . So when they, with significant difficulty, take a bus or walk to the food stamp office, do you want to take a guess at what is one of the first things the food stamp office asks for?
^ Wow, a real live Scalia admirer. I didn’t know there were any. - Yeah, the left and the center and real conservatives would feel better if Scalia would retire and just give speeches at Republican fund raisers and maybe work for one of the Koch Brothers’ foundations. Maybe Jim DeMint or Grover Norquist would give him a job. - They’d feel even better if he took his lapdog with him.
I think the blowback on Scalia is that he has started commenting about subjects that have not yet come up before the court. Whether he has already made up his mind before any testimony or not, it appears that way. Also, this particular issue has to do with determining if the Voting Rights Act’s provisions of Judiciary reviewing changes in voting laws to determine whether said changes may disenfranchise a specific voting bloc.
If this review is as I understand it, this will turn out to be a decision of whether conditions are different enough from the deep-segregation days of the fifties and sixties that those provisions are no longer needed. The question is whether we have gotten so homogeneous as a society that one group may not need the special protections that were determined to be needed in the past.
To me, this is exactly the thing that Scalia’s past statements and decisions would suggest that the Court should not even be deliberating. First off, it’s not a constitutional issue (again, I do not hold a degree in constitutional law, but this doesn’t stop any of the other posters from giving informed opinions here). If I’m right, this is a decision for Congress to decide if the law needs changing. Second, it comes pretty close to legislating from the bench. Activist judges, and all that.
Then again, it appears that the other branches of government are not doing their jobs as sworn to do; why should the judicial branch be left out?
Cities are corporations. There is currently some discussion as to whether the Electoral College, which offsets the voting superiority of these corporations by negating the effects of population density, should be discontinued. Then the corporations would truly run the country, as has been asserted for so long. I wonder if I can get an Oh Henry! bar from the convenience store.
From recession woes to social networking, Matt Bors’ cartoons dissect and satirize the ways of the world to make readers think and laugh about the real issues affecting them.
Chip Bok by Chip Bok
Steve Breen by Steve Breen
Comments (20) (Please sign in to comment)
braindead08 said, 3 months ago
Yeah, the oxymoron known as corporate democracy.
Radish
said, 3 months ago
@braindead08
Corporations are people, my friend.
BrassOrchid
said, 3 months ago
We can call it New York!
old1953 said, 3 months ago
Corporations should be allowed to vote, but pay a special fee of 10,000$ per vote, and buy as many as they wanted. They could buy elections, but at least the treasury would fill up from it instead of having rich legislators.
ARodney said, 3 months ago
Montana tried it in the 1920s. Didn’t work out so well. That’s why (until the conservative activists on the supreme court threw them out, because states’ rights no longer apply) they had the strongest anti-bribery / corruption / campaign finance laws in the U.S.
Ms. Ima said, 3 months ago
When people vote for free stuff it shall continue.
Adrian Snare said, 3 months ago
@ARodney
Very interesting.
This is where I would favor states rights.
Try something to see if it works..
If it does not, then we would want the whole nation to reject it….
Such topics as the death penalty , or for profit schools, or slavery…we did learn here, did we not ?
masterskrain said, 3 months ago
America…Home of the Best Politicians money can buy!
“An Honest Politician is one who once he is bought, STAYS Bought!”
The Wolf In Your Midst said, 3 months ago
@ScottPM
None of these other things you mention are Constitutionally-protected rights, so your argument is meaningless. This is the rationale I see trotted out against any sort of licensing or insurance requirements for firearms, so why not apply it to voting too?
Also, some people actually do live on such a razor’s edge that even taking the few hours it requires to take a bus or walk to a city office and wait in lines would represent a significant difficulty. Now, perhaps people who are stuck in this situation don’t matter to you, but they still do matter.
ansonia
said, 3 months ago
@The Wolf In Your Midst
People who “live on such a razor’s edge” as portrayed by you, will need government assistance, especially if just “taking a bus” or “walking to a city office” is such a “significant difficulty.”
.
So when they, with significant difficulty, take a bus or walk to the food stamp office, do you want to take a guess at what is one of the first things the food stamp office asks for?
sclark55
said, 3 months ago
Would the left feel better if Scalia had called minorities what they call them, voting blocks for their power bases?
braindead08 said, 3 months ago
@sclark55
^ Wow, a real live Scalia admirer. I didn’t know there were any.
-
Yeah, the left and the center and real conservatives would feel better if Scalia would retire and just give speeches at Republican fund raisers and maybe work for one of the Koch Brothers’ foundations. Maybe Jim DeMint or Grover Norquist would give him a job.
-
They’d feel even better if he took his lapdog with him.
I Play One On TV said, 3 months ago
I think the blowback on Scalia is that he has started commenting about subjects that have not yet come up before the court. Whether he has already made up his mind before any testimony or not, it appears that way. Also, this particular issue has to do with determining if the Voting Rights Act’s provisions of Judiciary reviewing changes in voting laws to determine whether said changes may disenfranchise a specific voting bloc.
If this review is as I understand it, this will turn out to be a decision of whether conditions are different enough from the deep-segregation days of the fifties and sixties that those provisions are no longer needed. The question is whether we have gotten so homogeneous as a society that one group may not need the special protections that were determined to be needed in the past.
To me, this is exactly the thing that Scalia’s past statements and decisions would suggest that the Court should not even be deliberating. First off, it’s not a constitutional issue (again, I do not hold a degree in constitutional law, but this doesn’t stop any of the other posters from giving informed opinions here). If I’m right, this is a decision for Congress to decide if the law needs changing. Second, it comes pretty close to legislating from the bench. Activist judges, and all that.
Then again, it appears that the other branches of government are not doing their jobs as sworn to do; why should the judicial branch be left out?
ToonMeUP:D said, 3 months ago
And that pretty much sums it up. =-O
BrassOrchid
said, 3 months ago
@old1953
Cities are corporations. There is currently some discussion as to whether the Electoral College, which offsets the voting superiority of these corporations by negating the effects of population density, should be discontinued. Then the corporations would truly run the country, as has been asserted for so long. I wonder if I can get an Oh Henry! bar from the convenience store.