Comments (26) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   4uk4ata said, 3 months ago

   Psst, Ms. Iustitia - you were supposed to be blindfolded. You know, the whole “impartial” schtick of yours?

   Edit: I thought Lady Justice was supposed to be Themis. It seems there is a little difference between her and her Roman reinterpretation, Iustitia (Justice).

2. 

   HUMPHRIES said, 3 months ago

   It’s one thing to be an closeminded @ss, but to be proud of it !!

3. 

   modman said, 3 months ago

   An informed exceptionally educated latina, Go GIRL.
   We have enough of same minded white guys!!!

4. 

   johnking said, 3 months ago

   Modman, if you aren’t a racist, the word no longer has any meaning. Ramirez is, as usual, right on.

5. 

   HOWGOZIT said, 3 months ago

   You are still the best Mr. Ramirez!

6. 

   fennec said, 3 months ago

   And here I could make the comment: “Typical, Howie”.

7. 

   algurka said, 3 months ago

   Hey, no fair peeking! Put that blindfold back and stumble around blindly like the rest of the bureaucrats in DC.

8. 

   HOWGOZIT said, 3 months ago

   fennec–you did. Name another cartoonist with such detail–whether drawn or computer enhanced.

9. 

   wbr said, 3 months ago

   typo correction
   believecommonsense you suck, guy

10. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    The differences expressed above mirror the 2 factions in American legal jurisprudence.

    Try this problem on and see where you fit. A law is written which says a party has 180 days to file a claim. A person files on day 185. What should the Supreme Court rule? The plaintiff is poor, not bright and is suing a large multi-billionaire company.

    The proponents of a living empathetic court say lets not follow the law as actually written but our job is to help that poor plaintiff and achieve justice. Sotomayor?

    No need to spell out the other side. It is obvious. To those of us on this side we say if the results make you unhappy change the law to 185 days. But that is the job of the legislature and executive not the judiciary.

    BTW, look at Ledbetter as my example.

11. 

    charliekane said, 3 months ago

    GN:

    You oversimplify. No reasonable or competent appellate judge is going to rule for “your” plaintiff merely because of pity. If a court rules that a limitations period has been waived or tolled, it will do so because other case or statutory law supports that result.

12. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    @charlie

    I would hope you are right but read Ledbetter for my reply. And in that case Congress did just what is has the right to do. It changed the law.

    Also read liberal court decisions on preemption.

13. 

    charliekane said, 3 months ago

    Ledbetter? Need more info.

14. 

    Kylop said, 3 months ago

    Seeing this ‘toon makes me wish I could go back far enough to see how (if) Ramirez responded to the nominations of other justices.

15. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    Supreme Court decision in the Ledbetter case.

    My spin. 20 years ago she was given a lower salary increase than other comparable workers. Law says she has 180 days after the discriminatory action to file. She remained there and continued working. She sued for sexual and racial discrimination saying since the first paycheck was illegally lower every subsequent one was in and of itself also discriminatory even though she subsequently got pay raises equivalent to all other workers. She waited 20 years. Problem with proof either way was there was no paper work and the supervisor who gave her a lower raise had died years ago.

    SCOTUS ruled in employer favor following the letter of the law. Empathists said poor Ledbetter- discriminated against by big business.

    First law signed by Obama was rewriting the law to overturn that case.

16. 

    believecommonsense said, 3 months ago

    someone is deleting my posts … this is a lame and disingenuous toon, Ramirez

17. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    Serious question. How can someone delete your posts?

18. 

    oldlegodad said, 3 months ago

    800# GNW it happens. more that one AH flags you or some twit mumbai IT wants a giggle and you are deleted. Or UCLICK is in the pay of sinister forces.? I will check back before beddyby to see if this is still posted.

19. 

    dtroutma said, 3 months ago

    Actually Ramirez prefers Ashcroft and Gonzales, who tried to pull the Oedipus routine and blind an entire nation to justice- with the help of Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts.

20. 

    believecommonsense said, 3 months ago

    GNW, oldlego, look at what wbr posted, his post was in response to my post … he’s making a joke, it wasn’t a typo .. I said Ramairez, you suck and now it’s gone

    so guess I’ll see if this one goes too

21. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    Wow, learn something every day. BCS, on another thread you said I had deleted a post. Don’t remember a thing about that discussion but I have never deleted a post, mine or (laughingly) someone else’s.

22. 

    believecommonsense said, 3 months ago

    OK, since I now know of three of mine that have been deleted, i will take your word for it and apologize for that.

23. 

    Machado said, 3 months ago

    Yeap! Ramirez rocks!! and he’s got two Pulitzers to prove it..

24. 

    charliekane said, 3 months ago

    GN, thank you. Should have recognized that.

    However, I don’t understand your concern. Prior law was superseded by a statutory revision. The rule was changed through the legislative process by our elected representatives. No Judge borne empathy.

25. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    CK Yes, I agree in the Ledbetter case it was handled perfectly. But the point Obama and liberals have been making ever since the decision was an empathetic Supreme Court would have ruled for her in the first place. Obama has said he wants judges who will be empathetic rather than follow the law as written.

26. 

    charliekane said, 3 months ago

    Not uncommon for an S of L to begin to run from the point that the aggrieved party becomes aware of the violation, not the date the violation first occurred. Also there is the concept of the continuing offense, where the S of L runs from the date of the most recent incident constituting a violation. I haven’t read Justice Ginsberg’s opinion, so I do not know whether these legal concepts played a part in her dissent.

    These are rules of legal construction. Check out the decision of DC v. Heller (the 2nd Amdt. case). Lots of rules of construction discussed, both ways. Did Justice Scalia show empathy for gun owners?