Matt Wuerker by Matt Wuerker

Matt Wuerker

Comments (10) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Oh please, it is the liberal who tore the blindfold off when they elected “the 1st latino lady” She was hailed as taking the blindfold off, being the batter up to the plate and not the ump behind it. After that if you can not tell which side of the political side they are by the way they vote, then you are an idiot.
    Plus they are the ones that came up with the tax/penalty or is it a penalty/tax. But If it is a tax then why did it not start in the House? If it is a penalty then why is it legal?

  2. feverjr

    feverjr said, over 1 year ago

    @Harleyquinn

    And who could forget Bush v Gore?

  3. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 1 year ago

    With our do zero Congress it will go down in history as the worse one ever. Given a popularity rating of 9%. That goes to the Tea Party Republicans for their obstinance in not wanting our govt to function. (They were elected for just that reason.)

  4. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago

    @Harleyquinn

    You are correct. It is quite easy to determine who is on whose side. That goes for both sides.

    The deciding (unexpected) vote on Obamacare being a “tax” was conservative John Roberts. I guess they’re not 100% predictable. But I think you’re missing the point of the ’toon. I invite you to see my next post for a different interpretation.

  5. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago

    Repubs: “If you won’t change the filibuster (= minority rule) rules, we won’t stand in the way of your judicial nominees.”

    Dems: “Okay. It’s a deal.”

    Repubs: “Psych.”

    Again, just yesterday. The General District Court in the DC district has 3 – count ’em, 3- vacancies. The vote to fill one of them was 56-41. No stated objections, but 41 votes beats 56 every time in Republican math.

    Same stuff, different day.

  6. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @I Play One On TV

    I’d say it’s time for payback.

  7. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 1 year ago

    @I Play One On TV

    When the new Congress was started Harry Reid could have changed the voting number back to “51” like it always has been instead of this super majority of “60.” What puzzles me is why Reid was helping the Republicans?

  8. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 1 year ago

    Nailed it.

  9. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, over 1 year ago

    I suggest Mr. Wuerker, and some posters, take a refresher course on the terms “nuclear option” and “Gang of 14”, terms that were popular during the systemic opposition to Judicial Appointments during the Bush Administration.

    "During President George W. Bush’s two term tenure in office, some of his nominations for federal judgeships were blocked by the Senate Democrats either directly in the Senate Judiciary Committee or on the full Senate floor in various procedural moves.1 Republicans labeled it an unwarranted obstruction of professionally qualified judicial nominees.2

    107th Congress: Soon after the inauguration of Bush as president in January 2001, many liberal academics became worried that he would begin packing the federal judiciary with conservative jurists. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote an article in the February 2001 edition of the liberal magazine The American Prospect that encouraged the use of the filibuster to stop Bush from placing any nominee on the Supreme Court during his first term.3 In addition, law professors Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago)
    [he would latter become an adviser on President Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign and his “Regulatory Tsar”. He also favors the government planting “moles” in “social sites” and anything “the government” deems “extremist”. But I digress] and Laurence Tribe (Harvard), [he called Obama “the best student I ever had” and served as Judicial Adviser on Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign] along with Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center, counseled Senate Democrats in April 2001 “to scrutinize judicial nominees more closely than ever.” Specifically, they said, “there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite.” 4

    On May 9, 2001, President Bush announced his first eleven court of appeals nominees in a special White House ceremony.5 This initial group of nominees included Roger Gregory, a Clinton recess-appointed judge to the Fourth Circuit, as a peace offering to Senate Democrats. There was, however, immediate concern expressed by Senate Democrats and liberal groups like the Alliance for Justice.67 Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said that the White House was “trying to create the most ideological bench in the history of the nation.”8

    As a result, from June 2001 to January 2003, when the Senate in the 107th Congress was controlled by the Democrats, many conservative appellate nominees were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never given hearings or committee votes.9

    During the 108th Congress in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, the nominees that the Senate Democrats had blocked in the 107th Congress began to be moved through the now Republican Senate Judiciary Committee.10 Subsequently Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be successfully filibustered.[citation needed] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered… As a result of these ten filibusters, Senate Republicans began to threaten to change the existing Senate rules by using what Senator Trent Lott termed the “nuclear option”.


    Read more: Wikipedia: George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies

    Conclusion? You reap what you sow.

  10. artistdavid

    artistdavid said, over 1 year ago

    @feverjr

    Yes, that dang Bush kept Gore from stealing the election. But didn’t Gore keep Tipper from being a proper Lady! Was that because Gore was the lead story for that Movie?
    But now Obama has more ego than Gore and Lies than Slick!

    You Libs can sure be duped by who you choose to follow. By the way, your righteousness over electing Obama is a thin sham. Note how Libs treat Blacks who really
    deserve office. The present Black Supreme Court Justice. The Successful Black Business man Candidate! The Black Army Major, ?ALLEN?
    You Libs ought to be ashamed, but don’t have the honesty, so that is impossible for you!

  11. Refresh Comments.