Tony Auth by Tony Auth

Tony Auth

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, about 1 year ago

    Does escalate things. But how many times should you turn the other cheek. The elephant is a lot like a bully who is shocked, shocked, when the other kid actually kicks him in the shins.

  2. pirate227

    pirate227 said, about 1 year ago

    About time! Get some!

  3. mskemple

    mskemple said, about 1 year ago

    The elephant may be crying , crocodile tears. Payback’s a bitch – if played correctly.

  4. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, about 1 year ago

    Eliminating the ‘painless’ filibuster is going to come back and bite the Democrats.


    It’s all a cunning plan by the Tea types.

  5. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Another right wing whiner.

  6. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Excellent ’toon, may be over-rating the level of maturity however.

  7. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 1 year ago

    So if perchance the republicans should obtain control of the senate in 2014, will you still be so joyous that the filibuster rule is gone?

  8. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, about 1 year ago

    @Bruce4671

    The painless filibuster rule is like “the rules of civilized warfare”: they last only as long as neither side abuses them.

    The GOP filibustered more appointments in 5 years than had been filibustered in the 220 years before that, combined. They did not even pretend it had to do with the qualifications of the nominee: it was to force the administration to give way in other things. Their use of the filibuster was like someone using the red cross to camoflage military targets. Eventually the other side will start ignoring the red cross and the real hospitals on both sides will suffer as a consequence. It is an escalation in the partisan conflict, but the abusers of the filibuster are as much to blame as those who made the change. Yes, this is a sad thing for the nation, but it is a symptom, not a cause.

    Of course, if the GOP are not hypocrites, if they are sincere in thinking it a bad thing that the rule was changes, they can change it back if they take control in 2014. But I don’t think they will. They weren’t against the change, both sides knew finally that it was going to come, fair play is dead, each side just tried to avoid being the one to effect the change.

    And by the way, Richard Nixon, back in the 1950s, was the first one to suggest this, though I don’t think he recommended it at the time: just suggested that it might be necessary some time.

  9. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, about 1 year ago

    At least the filibuster can still be used to prevent extremist appointments to the Supreme Court.

  10. wbr

    wbr said, about 1 year ago

    so the democrats want wwe rules // this will become better tv

  11. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, about 1 year ago

    @Tigger

    “Odd yow you love the Democrats using Filibuster for 8 years to block Bush 43 Appointees, you said it was needed”


    Where did I say that? Where did I suggest that? You really have to stop imagining thing and putting things in other people’s mouths.

    Anyway, the unprecedented number of filibusters in recent years was the result of the abuse of the rule: the rule was to enable the minority party to block extreme nominees. The GOP has been using it instead to blackmail the administration: “We will block every nominee, no matter who, until our demands are met in this other area.” Often they had no objection to nominee, they were simply using him as a pawn. When a loophole in the law is abused to the extent that it does more harm than good, it will sometimes be closed, even when it exists for a good reason. This is one such case.

    Personally, I would have preferred the old rule be left in place, but only if were used as it was from 1790 to 2000. Recent use has been qualitatively different. Beginning in a small way with the Democrats in the reign of GII, and soaring under the present administration.

    Anyway the rule change only effects the painless “virtual” filibuster. If a member wants to filibuster the old-fashioned way, holding the floor and blocking all business, he still can.

  12. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, about 1 year ago

    “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. Republicans labeled it an unwarranted obstruction of professionally qualified judicial nominees.

    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. 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.”

    On May 9, 2001, President Bush announced his first eleven court of appeals nominees in a special White House ceremony. 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. 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.”

    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.

    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. 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. 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: ”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies">Wikipedia: George W. Bush Judicial Appointments Controversies

    Conclusion? Libs can dish it out, but they can’t take it.

  13. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, about 1 year ago

    You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you.


    Of all the appointments filibustered in the entire history of the United States, just about half been done since Obama took office. Your comments make as much sense as noting that for 200 years A and B were permitted to strike one another, and for 200 years they occasionally slapped one another. Now A has started using a hammer, and B has made a rule against hitting, and you crow, B can dish it out, but can’t take it.

    You mention 10 appointments being held up in Bush’s time: I think there were more than that, but in any case 82 appointments have been blocked since Obama took office. Often without even the excuse that the nominee was “too liberal”: this was done simply to obstruct, or gain some other advantage. Many fewer than that lead the Republicans nearly to change the rule a few years ago.


    Let’s put it another way. Democrats have never dished it out the way Republicans have in the last few years, not even close. And if the Democrats can’t take it, we have no reason to think that Republicans can take it any better: they’ve never had to. Not even close.


    And by the way: the new rule only applies to some appointments, not to legislation or to nominations for the Supreme Court.


    Here’s something from a year ago:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html
    And more recently: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster

  14. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, about 1 year ago

    “The last straw came when Republicans announced their intention to filibuster all of Obama’s nominees to the DC circuit court simply because they didn’t want a Democratic president to be able to fill any more vacancies. At that point, even moderate Democrats had finally had enough. For all practical purposes, Republicans had declared war on Obama’s very legitimacy as president, forbidding him from carrying out a core constitutional duty. Begging and pleading and cutting deals was no longer on the table. Eliminating the filibuster for judicial and executive branch nominees was the only option left, and on Thursday that’s what Democrats finally did.”

  15. 1BiGl3dFo0tS

    1BiGl3dFo0tS GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @churchillwasright

    So, your bullies got a smack in the face and you immediately begin whining about it. Tough. If you cannot accept that the blocking of 82 nominations for Obama against 86 for all prior Presidents equals unfair and ridiculous opposition, you are not of a balance mental state.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (2).