Steve Benson by Steve Benson

Steve Benson


Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, about 1 year ago

    Scalia is the most prominent Republican lawmaker of the last decade. Problem is he’s on the court.

  2. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Pesky 13th Amendment. Who put that there anyway?

  3. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago


    Exactly. It is strange to see the supposedly conservative judges acting as judicial activists. I do believe, Congress should have made some adjustments to the law before extending it in 2006, but they didn’t. They passed it by a unanimous vote of the Senate and by a vote of 390 to 33 in the House. Now the Court is considering whether the law is constitutional, not because anyone is questioning whether it was in 1965, but because the Court might think that Congress hasn’t noticed that “times have changed”. If anyone is going to argue that it’s the Supreme Court’s job to tell Congress when times have changed, shouldn’t that be one of them “gol-dern libs”?
    But it could happen; just look at “Citizens United”. Corporations have inalienable rights too, thanks to the legislators on the bench.

  4. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago


    You would have a point if there were any evidence of voter fraud using other people’s names. There isn’t. The only “problem” being addressed is too many people voting for Democrats.

  5. rhynerjr

    rhynerjr said, about 1 year ago


    Um, how about the recent case of the poll worker who admitted to voting six times, including twice for herself, twice for her daughter and said I just wanted to make sure my voted counted…

  6. ODon

    ODon said, about 1 year ago


    Hence the attempted new step of using gerrymandered districts as electoral votes. The destruction of one man/one vote is the rights way of saving America from itself. How benevolent.

  7. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, about 1 year ago


    These days he’s the only Republican lawmaker. Unless you count renaming post offices.

  8. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, about 1 year ago

    @Ms. Ima

    It should be noted that Immy once said that ALL Latinos are illegals

  9. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, about 1 year ago

    Antonin Scalia, Judge Dredd wannabe

  10. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, about 1 year ago

    Five of FL’s 67 counties are under the Voting Rights Act because of past discrimination. Before every election the feds have to approve the way the county election supervisors in those 5 counties run the election.
    Last election the feds stopped voter purges that would have cut lawful, legal voters from the roles.
    If given free reign, I bet thecrazies would take over.

  11. ARodney

    ARodney said, about 1 year ago


    We can start our rants whenever we like. More than half of the successful voter-restriction-by-race lawsuits in the past ten years were in the 25% of the country covered by part 5 of the VRA. Anyone who wants to get rid of the VRA has another motive, and racial discrimination in America is still a problem and is expanding. We need more voting, not less.

  12. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 1 year ago


    If I were you, I wouldn’t depend on rhynerjr to come up with a source. I’d do a search using “poll worker votes six times” and see if I could get over 25 million hits. You might find that some of them even are even credible.

  13. Stipple

    Stipple said, about 1 year ago

    One poll worker votes six times, the four votes for herself and her daughter may have changed the election?
    Did she win? Did her daughter win?
    Was the election down to the two votes unaccounted for?
    I hear there are over ten cases of this happening.
    Cause enough to take the votes from all desreputable looking tan colored folks.
    The .000001% fraud is all their fault for existing without being white..

  14. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago


    Here’s a fun mental exercise for you (and anyone else who’d like to take it up).
    Some people advocate that gun ownership (a subject mentioned once, in the Bill of Rights) should not be subject to taxes, tracking or liability requirements (the way other things, like driving a car, are), because gun ownership is a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution, while the other things are not- and any government action to restrict firearm ownership is a clear infringement of our rights.
    However, these same people state that voting (a right guaranteed by, and mentioned five times in, the Constitution) should be restricted to those with a government-issued ID (which basically constitutes a poll tax- EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN by the 24th Amendment- unless state governments start giving out approved IDs for free) simply because writing checks, getting on an airplane, and other non-Constitutionally-mentioned activities require it.
    Can you reconcile these two mindsets? Because I certainly can’t.

  15. Ionizer

    Ionizer said, about 1 year ago

    The Voting Rights Act was Johnson’s payback for losing the South’s vote.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (12).