Hi GoComics readers,
Many of you have expressed curiosity and even concern about the comic hiatus for Pat Oliphant's drawings. We wanted to share that Pat is doing well, in good health, but simply on vacation. As soon as when we have an update on the date of his next drawing, we'll share the news here and via social media.
We have wonderful readers. This is an example of the impact that an artist and their work can have on lives and we will continue to value that relationship with you. Thank you.
- GoComics Marketing
Called "the most influential cartoonist now working" by The New York Times, Pat Oliphant occupies a unique position among today’s editorial cartoonists: Widely considered the dean of the profession, he is one of its sharpest, most daring practitioners.
© Universal Uclick - All Rights Reserved.
Jack Ohman by Jack Ohman
Henry Payne by Henry Payne
Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)
Simon_Jester said, almost 4 years ago
I love Sotomayor….unless Rush Limbaugh tells me otherwise
Jase99 said, almost 4 years ago
I love only who Fox News tells me to with out question. Everyone else is the unyielding spawn of Satan. I must make cheep, snide remarks against anyone Fox News tells me too. Fox News talking points are the absolute words of God. I must not think for myself, lest I anger Fox News and hurt the troops.
nomad2112 said, almost 4 years ago
Like it will matter.
Adora68 said, almost 4 years ago
I love the fact that I’ve been put into a position where I’ll be considered a racist if I don’t profess love for The Anointed One’s choice, even though she’s a bigoted judicial activist.
Not.
humormehere said, almost 4 years ago
Hey, She’s alright. I’m sure I won’t agree with her most of the time, but if she will have some semblance of using the US Constitution to decide cases, I’m ok with that.
These folks are out of control, anyway…
Anthony 2816
said, almost 4 years ago
It’s so tiring hearing people use the term “judicial activist” without knowing what it means, or else just using it to refer to liberal justices but not the conservative ones.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a prime example of judicial activism, Adora. Doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution. So I take it you’re against that concept?
parker for a minute said, almost 4 years ago
activist as opposed to inertist
Anthony 2816
said, almost 4 years ago
Where are the screams about judicial activism from people like Adora for this?
“For all the talk of “modesty” and “restraint,” the right wing Justices of the Court have a striking record of ignoring precedent, overturning congressional statutes, limiting constitutional protections, and discovering new constitutional rights: the infamous Ledbetter decision, for instance; the Louisville and Seattle integration cases, for example; the first limitation on Roe v. Wade that outright disregards the woman’s health and safety; and the DC Heller decision, discovering a constitutional right to own guns that the Court had not previously noticed in 220 years. Over and over, news reporting discusses “fundamental changes in the law” wrought by the Roberts Court’s right wing flank.”
http://tinyurl.com/lkm6co
believecommonsense said, almost 4 years ago
^ ditto the thought behind your post, Anthony.
Also, since Roe v. Wade is now established precedent, which even Chief Justice Roberts has acknowledged it now is, then seeking to overturn it is “judicial activism” by definition.
Michael Morrin said, almost 4 years ago
Ah Ha, I see someone is up on their Heinlein. Perhaps I should change my user ID to Manny Davis, since I do the same kind of work with a similiar relationship to the client. Your thoughts on this please, and you know who you are.
Bye the bye, Republicans quit supporting REAL conservative judges a long time ago, since a truly conservative judge tends to think the Constitution actually means what it says, which proves embarrassing for Republican ideas. Witness Chief Justice Earl Warren, one of the most conservative governors California ever had, who, try as Republicans wanted, could not find the word ‘seperate’, associated with ‘equal’ in the Constitution, resulting in the Brown v Board of Education ruling and those following after. Nor could he find the word ‘maybe’ in the fifth amendment, resulting in the Miranda decision. No, republicans want activist judges too, just right wing activists.
GNWachs
said, almost 4 years ago
There are two different definitions of “judicial activism” floating around. After the Warren court wrote the laws they wanted the country to have eg Roe v Wade, Death Penalty- Miranda etc etc the accusations began. Being very clever the liberals responded see above and totally redefined the term.
By the new definition if Congress voted to close the NYT and the SCOTUS overturned that they would be called activist. ANY law that Congress passes that is in direct conflict with the words of the constitution must be overturned. That is not activism that is mandatory.
The problem with the Anthony/BCS view of a living constitution is every new appointee can then rewrite it to be what he wants. If an umpire wants 4 strikes to be out that is OK until the next umpire decides something else.
My favorite ploy of the left is to actively change the law through a ruling and then say you must follow stare decisis.
Heller was so obvious I was amazed at the pathetic dissent. This was the 2nd A right after freedom of speech, press etc. not #10 or #11. The RKBA is so basic in our country and the reason it was written was self defense and fear of an overbearing big government.
lalas said, almost 4 years ago
GNW – then how does yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater fit in? It should be covered by the 1st, but it has been carved out and declared illegal.
This argument relates to her comments about legislating from the bench. Where the law is gray, the courts color it in.
GNWachs
said, almost 4 years ago
lalas: this I love. Something I actually know. Freedom of speech can be tempered by “time, place or manner” (that is the law).
The RKBA can be tempered exactly the same way- read Scalia’s opinion. He said examples of when the right may be abridged (in the written opinion) convicts, mentally ill, school zones, courthouses.
BTW, one of my pet peeves -one may definitely shout fire in a crowded movie theater, but one cannot “falsely” shout fire…
believecommonsense said, almost 4 years ago
GNW, actually the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in Jan. 1973 under Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Nixon appointee who was considered a conservative and a strict constructionist.
And I don’t think it’s a clever twist of words to say that concerted attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade, an established precedent, is to advocate “judicial activism.”
Anthony 2816
said, almost 4 years ago
Wachs: “My favorite ploy of the left is to actively change the law through a ruling and then say you must follow stare decisis.”
This brings up three thoughts. First, I take it when the right does this, it’s okay with you?
Second, are you suggesting that stare decisis should be abandoned?
Third, if an appellant judge is confronted with a case that the black-letter law, as written, doesn’t quite cover, or it isn’t clear how it covers it, what should happen? Should the case just be put in limbo until the legislature can make a more specific law for that particular case (writing new law to cover an existing case, in other words)? Or should the judge make a decision on the case, creating precedent, and then be subjected to howls of “judicial activism” from the right?
If you’re against judicial activism, and choose the first option, explain given the sheer number of cases decided daily how our legislatures would deal with the workload.