Comments (45) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Greeneyed Texan said, 5 months ago

   Checks and Balances kids. Remember we need checks and balances in our government. Term limits for everyone!!!

2. 

   Copperdomebodhi said, 5 months ago

   Pwned!

3. 

   tpenna said, 5 months ago

   ANandy, do you get the irony here? It’s a bunch of old white men making the criticism. These same old white men, Auth argues, have historically held the most power and have largely favored other white men.

4. 

   HOWGOZIT said, 5 months ago

   Gosh–I guess the same said for the framers of the Constitution.

5. 

   Simon_Jester said, 5 months ago

   How diverse a society were we when the Constitution was written…and how diverse is it now?

   That is why the framers were wise enough to allow the Constituition to be amended

6. 

   ColPappy said, 5 months ago

   Anandy,
   What parallel universe do you live in?

7. 

   fennec said, 5 months ago

   For those interested in differences between liberals and conservatives, this may explain some of it:
   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28kristof.html?_r=1&ref=global

8. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

   So all we have to do to meet ANandy’s criteria is find a qualified candidate who has never expressed an opinion or made any statements.

   Sigh.

   Fennec, from your link, I said yes to the first question, and no to the second…guess that means I’m a centrist?

   Or maybe it’s just because I went to medical school.

9. 

   tpenna said, 5 months ago

   Simon’s answer to HOWGOZIT is a good one, but I should also point out that, in fact, HOWGOZIT’s criticism proves my point.

   For the framers, women had no political power. And black slaves were counted as three-fifths of persons. Notably, they were counted as such not so that they could receive three-fifths of a vote each. No, they were counted as such so that their owners could receive greater representation in the federal legislature.

   So yes, historically old white men in power have largely favored white men.

10. 

    crunkbot said, 5 months ago

    Holy crap… ANandy can’t possibly be real. Anyone who was actually that absurdly cretinous wouldn’t be able to open a door, much less navigate on-line.

    I’m convinced his whole persona is some Peter Sellers-level satire.

11. 

    believecommonsense said, 5 months ago

    the toon is on the money … a group of old white men who resist any change in the status quo that favors powerful old white men

    it’s been less than 50 years since federal govt intervened to guarantee the right to vote for blacks

12. 

    tracht47 said, 5 months ago

    In the right-wing world conservative white males have no agenda, but liberals, women and minorities do. I don’t buy it.

13. 

    Tigger said, 5 months ago

    Greeneyed,

    We already have the Power of Term Limits! It’s called getting off of our Duffs and Voting the Rats out of Office instead on sending them to DC every 2 or Six Years.

    It is up to us to set Term Limits, not the Government, Remember, this is How the Framers of our Constitution wanted our Republic Run.

    We can start on November 4, 2010 by Firing every last House Member and replacing them with 548 new Bodies. We also need to Fire every Senator up for Reelection as well. Then when the year rolls around when all Members of House and Senate are up for Reelection, we need to replace every last one of them and have 100 New Senators and 548 New House Members and a New President as well. Just wipe the Slate Clean and start anew.

    If we did this, then maybe they would wake up and work for all of us instead of only the Ultra Rich, Big Business, Minorities, and the Ultra Poor. We hold the keys to DC, we need to wise up and use the power given us. Remember, If you do not Vote, do not complain about te Government we have.

14. 

    deadheadzan said, 5 months ago

    ROFL when I saw this one. Those white men still hold so much power that I can’t feel much “empathy” for them.

15. 

    fritzoid said, 5 months ago

    Um, Tigger? Is ANYBODY working to help the Ultra Poor? Isn’t the mere EXISTENCE of a class that can be called Ultra Poor a damning reflection on our values and power structure? Shouldn’t the Ultra Poor be shown DIRECTLY to the front of the line when aid is being distributed? And by “aid” I don’t just mean “free money”; I mean access to education, small business loans, priority in employment opportunities… Everything that, when it’s applied along the racial racial lines rather than the economic divide, is called “levelling the playing field” by one side and “reverse discrimination” by the other.

    We should be fighting on behalf of the Ultra Poor as long as Ultra Poverty is allowed to exist.

16. 

    danielsangeo said, 5 months ago

    ANandy: So, you’re saying that “old white men” didn’t play some role in that?

    It’s true that there were “old white men” that DID play a role in advances of the underprivileged, but those are NOT the “old white men” that we’re speaking of. And I think you know that. For some reason, you want to lump the entire race/gender into the actions of some.

    We already know that there are good “old white men”. I’m not sure what you hoped to accomplish by suggesting that we don’t.

    Here, here’s an EASY way to understand it:

    All squares are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are square.

17. 

    cdward said, 5 months ago

    ANandy, aside from one relatively poorly phrased sentence made years ago, what evidence have you for that assertion. Is it in her judicial decisions? Please identify them.

    From what I’ve read, you can find similar statements at least from Justice Alito (pre SC, of course).

18. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    Hey ANandy. Thanks for the correction. It seems my memory was a little hazy on that particular bit of seventh grade history.

    Interesting, though, that you seem to think that the history of the 3/5 Compromise disproves my point when it only serves to further support it. Old white men counted a slave as 3/5 of a person.

    I’m not here arguing that old white men are bad people overall. I’m just arguing that Tony Auth is making an accurate observation that old white men have historically held the most power in the US and have throughout the majority of that history favored white males. There have been great and momentous exceptions. But nobody can possibly present a cogent argument to the contrary. It’s just straight up history.

19. 

    Jimathai said, 5 months ago

    What the Old White Men who are making all this fuss about Sotomayors statement are failing to realize is that they too use their life experiences to make decisions… we all do. What else are we going to use. Its the supreme courts job to interpret the law. So if ur interpreting it… u have to have somewhere to start.

    Their fear is that there will be somebody with other experiences and other views influencing her interpretation… Its not a legal thing its a fear thing. But damn.. it must suck to be on the right these days.

20. 

    longtimecomicsfan said, 5 months ago

    What a hoot! A single statement made in 2002 establishes a state of mind and disqualifies someone from a lifetime judicial appointment! Stop the presses!

    Antonin Scalia went duck hunting with Dick Cheney just weeks after the court agreed to hear arguments on the secret nature of Cheney’s energy task force. (Federal law says a judge must recuse himself from a case in which his impartiality may be questioned.)

    Scalia had sheriff’s deputies seize and erase reporter’s recording devices at a speech at a public school in Ms, a clear violation of the law.

    Scalia argues that the Constitution is a DEAD document, must be interpreted as written, and cannot be changed - the same “strict constructionist” interpretation favored by southern states prior to the Civil War as their last best chance to maintain slavery…

    I think it’s clearly apparent that Judge Sotomayor, a wise Latina, would definitely make better decisions than Justice Antonin Scalia. At least she won’t be flipping anybody off with the old “vaffanculo” any time soon.

21. 

    M Kitt said, 5 months ago

    Holding exclusive positions of power is what it’s all about, by controlling those who get to vote (IE Florida/Supreme Court Decision) you can assure the outcome, slavery before emancipation was likewise supported by the majority of voters, slaves weren’t given the consideration of having a choice, of course. The real issue here is, apparently, transition and change. It is completely opposed by the the conservatives, they’d like to assure future generations the same legacy priveleges they’ve held for so long. This is unlikely since the face of the voting public has changed drastically in the last 10 years, by some estimates a full 8% of the public shifted over that time to minority/non-christian in addition to those already residing in the U.S. Obviously a huge threat to a party whose core has historically been composed of white christians……

22. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    I don’t think you can in one breath say that the constitutional right to privacy is a property right and in the other claim that the right to bear arms extends beyond well regulated militias. Either everything is specifically enumerated in the Constitution or the Constitution names examples of how rights might be used. Trying to have it both ways is just sloppy.

23. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    That really didn’t even come close to speaking to the argument I made, ANandy. But you get points for using some of the same words, at least.

24. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    You’re forgetting the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and its applications, ANandy. Check out 1940’s Cantwell v. Connecticut and 1947’s Everson v. Board of Education.

25. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    ANandy says: “The Supreme Court does not intrepret the Constitution”

    Uh, yeah, they do. Ever since Marbury v Madison.

    If you claim they don’t, then who does?

    To say, in reference to Supreme Court decisions that “None of these affect the Constitution” is just ignorant, and explains a lot of your opinions. YOU don’t get to interpret the Constitution for us, ANandy. The Supreme Court does.

    We don’t live under our Constitution. We live under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of our Constitution.

26. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    So ANandy, are you implying that, like Dred Scott, these cases that incorporated the religion clauses of the First Amendment into the Fourteenth’s due process clause were wrongly decided? Then how do you prefer your religious discrimination served up?

    And Anthony’s right. Of course the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. That’s a ninth grade civics truism. Every justice from Ginsburg to Scalia is doing just that. Ask any one of them.

27. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    Wow, are you splitting hairs, ANandy! All this goes back to the assertion made by Auth that old white men have historically held the most power and have exercised said power most often in favor of white men. Nobody has successfully refuted that assertion (nor can they, for that matter).

28. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    “The Justices interpretate a law or decision against the Constitution.”

    Which means they have to interpret the Constitution, just like I said, just like every law school teaches.

    The vast majority of laws in this country comes from judicial decisions, ANandy. It’s called “common law”. The “black letter law” made by legislatures can never hope to cover every situation it needs to be applied to, so judges and justices have to interpret it for those unique situations. You can’t call legislators back into session for every possible unforeseen scenario that comes up.

    People who don’t understand this call the process “creating policy” or “judicial activism”.

    If you’re correct that no one can interpret the Constitution, and we should only have the strictist constructionism, then the only guns allowed under the 2nd amendment would be muzzle-loading single-shot guns. Anything else would be “judicial activism” and “creating policy”, right?

    And as I’ve mentioned before, ignored by you, judicial concepts such as “innocent until proven guilty” would never have happened under your understanding of the process. Go read the case Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) if you want to see how “judicial activism” made this one of our most important laws, even though it doesn’t appear in our Constituiton.

    Go to a law library and ask to see the sections holding legislative law. Then look at the sections holding executive-branch law (regulations, administrative law). Then look at the sections holding jurisprudence/common law/”judicial activism. Note how each is much larger than the previous.

29. 

    fritzoid said, 5 months ago

    When deciding cases becomes simply a matter of finding the proper precedent and applying it, then we won’t need judges at all; we’ll just plug all the relevant facts into a computer and “bing!” out pops the “correct” decision. The reason we call them “judges” is because we expect them to apply judgment. No two cases are entirely identical, so no perfect precedent can ever be found. We also call them “justices” because we expect their rulings to be just, and The Law can only ever be an approximation of Perfect Justice. Interpretation of existing, past decisions is vital because circumstances change. I cannot believe that when the Framers wrote “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” they had any idead that combat weaponry might fall into the hands of preteens.

    Judgment is a property of Wisdom, and Wisdom is gained through Experience. To the extent that a Latina would have different life experiences than a white male, it is understandable that her Wisdom and Judgment might be different as well, and that INCLUDES the possibility that, yes, her judgment might be BETTER than his. At the very least, having a plurality of perspectives in an organization such as the Supreme Court can only be a good thing.

30. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    ANandy, do you believe the authors of the 2nd amendment intended it to include revolvers, rifles, automatic weapons, nuclear arms: the judicial activist approach?

    Or do you believe in a strict constructionist approach, which can only mean they considered the arms of the day?

31. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    “Please cite an authority to justify your statement that judgment is a property of wisdom and wisdom is gained through experience. Failing that your argument falls apart.”

    ANandy, please cite an authority to justify your statement that “Failing that your argument falls apart.”

    Once again you can’t address the topic, so you go off on your little hissy-fits of tangents and ridiculous demands.

32. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    ANandy says: “Tpenna, my early post here simply stated that a comment made by old, white men is not necessarily wrong.”

    Congratulations! You have successfully defended a target that no one was attacking.

    Anthony’s right, man. Your comments are becoming more and more remote in their relevance to the arguments at hand. My guess is you would have challenged Descartes to cite an authority when he wrote: “Cogito ergo sum.”

33. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    ANandy, do you believe the authors of the 2nd amendment intended it to include revolvers, rifles, automatic weapons, nuclear arms: the judicial activist approach?

    Or do you believe in a strict constructionist approach, which can only mean they considered the arms of the day?

34. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    Don’t get me wrong, though, man. I appreciate you participating in reasoned debate instead of going on and on about “BozO this” and “idiot Congress” that.

35. 

    fritzoid said, 5 months ago

    ANandy, are you equating being a Latina with being a crackhead, i.e. one whose experiences are such that they could NOT be relied upon to offer sound judgment? Or are you saying that the experiences of a Latina and the experiences of a white male from a privileged background would/should lead to the same conclusions about what is just?

    As far as Judgment being a property of Wisdom and Wisdom being a property of Experience (in truth, a better choice on my part would have been “Wisdom is a product of Experience”, and certainly not all experience leads to wisdom but I can’t see wisdom arriving without it), I stand by that. There IS a difference between “book learning” and “street smarts”, and both are valuable. A lieutenant just out of West Point is likely to get his men killed if he doesn’t listen to the grizzled sergeant who has survived dozens of battles. Privileged white males all too often simply DON’T COMPREHEND that their experiences of life are not “typical”, and when their judgments are founded on their PERSPECTIVES of life then vast groups of those whose lives are affected by their decisions will look at them and say “What could they POSSIBLY have been THINKING?”

    Policies affecting women NEED THE INPUT OF WOMEN, at the HIGHEST LEVELS. Policies affecting minorities (racial or otherwise) NEED THE INPUT OF MINORITIES. I wouldn’t say that crackheads should be allowed to regulate narcotics enforcement (any more than corporate lobbyists should be allowed to regulate white-collar crime), but in a pluralistic society such as ours, diversity of representation and voice outweigh the knee-jerk shouts of “identity politics!” and “reverse discrimination!” by those who, in times past, could sleep easily knowing that those calling the shots were “the right sort of people”, i.e. “just like me.” And make no mistake, Supreme Court decisions ARE “policy decisions.” Both sides (“all sides”?) know this, and acknowledge it, when the decision being rendered affects them, either one way or the other.

    Again, if the administration of justice were simply a matter of finding and following the right precedent, then we wouldn’t need judges at all, just technicians. Judges reach their positions because we trust them to apply their judgment.

    And again, don’t assume that I’m LIMITING Sotomayor’s qualifications to those based on “street smarts”; her credentials and record are sound.

36. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    ANandy, I have a tendency to get familiar with my interlocutors, as I tend to consider those with whom I debate ideas my friends. Forgive me for apparently becoming overly chummy and using the term “man” (an assumption based on the prevalence of persons named “Andy” being male).

    At ANY point did you ever read a comment of mine that implied even slightly that an opinion of an old white man was categorically incorrect because he was an old white man?

    If you inferred such, that is because you have attempted to read a bias into my factual statement that the long history of power and its uses has, in large part, been unfriendly to persons who do not share certain traits with those in power. This fact cannot be refuted by saying that old white men have also made good and just decisions. Nobody here argues that they have not.

37. 

    ANandy said, 5 months ago

    tpenna said: “ANandy, I have a tendency to get familiar with my interlocutors, as I tend to consider those with whom I debate ideas my friends. Forgive me for apparently becoming overly chummy and using the term “man” (an assumption based on the prevalence of persons named ‘Andy’ being male).”

    ANandy replies: I am quick to forgive, as I have been forgiven by God, against whom I have greatly sinned.
    I am flattered that you consider me your friend. I don’t know where you identified me as Andy. I assumed this identity to be provocative.
    When you made the statement “All this goes back to the assertion made by Auth that old white men have historically held the most power and have exercised said power most often in favor of white men.” I take that as meaning old white men exercise their power to surpress other classes. I take issue with that premise. I am convinced that all in power have the best interests of our country at heart until I find myself convinced otherwise. I regret I misread your intent. Please forgive me.

38. 

    ANandy said, 5 months ago

    fritzoid said: “ANandy, are you equating being a Latina with being a crackhead, i.e. one whose experiences are such that they could NOT be relied upon to offer sound judgment? Or are you saying that the experiences of a Latina and the experiences of a white male from a privileged background would/should lead to the same conclusions about what is just?”

    ANandy replies: I suggest you have a test for ADD. Your entire post justifies the wisdom of the founders for a representative Republic. Every point you raised pertains to the Congress, not the Supreme Court.
    My opposition to Sotomayor is my perceived unsuitability for appointment because of her bias and her concept of the responsibility of the Supreme Court. To illustrate, I offer:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBwm8TTktdQ&NR=1

39. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    No problem, ANandy. (I simply got “Andy” from shortening your screen name into the most easily recognizable proper name.)

    As it happens, you did misread my intent. I do my best to include qualifiers like “most often” to avoid rash generalizations (which are “most often” incorrect). That said, I am usually quick to forgive as well. So we’re cool.

40. 

    fritzoid said, 5 months ago

    ANandy, I suggest you learn to count to nine. If there were only one “proper” way to exercise judgment, then we would only need one Supreme Court Justice. Either that, or else we should demand that every decision be unanimous.

    As it is, the idea that the Court should be representative of a varied population is of long standing. Even Roman Hruska’s (R. Nebraska) defense of Nixon nominee G. Harrold Carswell, widely described as a “mediocre” judge, has been vindicated in Clarence Thomas:

    “Even if he is mediocre,” Hruska said of Carswell, “there are a lot of mediocre judges and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there.”

41. 

    fritzoid said, 5 months ago

    I posted the beginning of this song on another cartoon just now, but a later portion is appropriate here, too. From Randy Newman’s “A Few Words In Defense of Our Country”:

    You know it pisses me off a little
    That this Supreme Court is gonna outlive me
    A couple of young Italian fellas and a brother on the Court now too
    But I defy you, anywhere in the world
    To find me two Italians as tightass as the two Italians we got

    And as for the brother…
    Well, Pluto’s not a planet anymore either

42. 

    ANandy said, 5 months ago

    fritzoid said “As it is, the idea that the Court should be representative of a varied population is of long standing. Even Roman Hruska’s (R. Nebraska) defense of Nixon nominee G. Harrold Carswell, widely described as a ‘mediocre’ judge, has been vindicated in Clarence Thomas: ‘Even if he is mediocre,’ Hruska said of Carswell, ‘there are a lot of mediocre judges and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there.’”

    ANandy replies: You are citing Hruska as the authority for your claim that the Supreme Court should be a representative body. Good luck with that, as there are far more than nine identities who will clammor for a seat.
    Suppose instead we seat those who have demonstrated sound, committed support for our Constitution.

43. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    I can’t help but think ANandy would only consider the right-leaning Justices as meeting his criteria.

44. 

    fritzoid said, 5 months ago

    Remember, an “activist judge” is only an “activist judge” when you disagree with the decision rendered.

45. 

    tpenna said, 5 months ago

    The last two comments are axiomatic. Take ‘em to the bank.