What's Mallard raving about today?
And yet it still degenerates into another one of his "everyone but me is stupid" rants.
And what is his source on this? Mostly because his tiny handwriting is so illegible that I have no clue what it says.
Sauce is findlaw.com, without him specifying in any more detail than that.
Just as a blind pig can find the occasional acorn, so the drunken duck can stumble onto an actual semi-funny joke,Also, what Factinista said.
Plaudits for an actual coherent joke, though the visuals still contribute nothing, as usual.
He still draws Souter to look like some sort of demon-imp-Smeagol, in his standard style. What I'll be interested to see is if, should he ever have to draw Scalia, he finds a way to do a semi-flattering version of him.
Why not just cite to google?I wanna give Tinkley points for an o.k. drawing and a non-hateful script with an o.k. punchline. But lose the non-cite citations; they don't actually do anything except scream "I don't know how to cite!"
Gee, Mallard. Maybe if "education presidents" didn't do such a spectacular job of hobbling public education, we'd actually have... you know... educated people.But then, who would you make fun of? Ah, it's becoming clear now...
Souter has left a book behind - the title is, "To Serve Man".
Of course, if Congress didn't so casually abdicate its constitutional functions and therefore allow the Supreme Court to make law, it wouldn't be very necessary to know who's on the Court. As it is, the Court decides most of the important public issues which our elected legislators duck. Hardly what our founders intended or what a republic should be.
We currently have one of the most activist Courts ever, if by "activist Court" one means a court that overturns legislative enactments (a.k.a. "thwart the will of the people") and/or previous court precedent (a.k.a. "making new law").Whether this is good or bad, I leave up to you but I think it's kinda funny that many of those who complain about the court "making law" agree with the law that the current court makes.
Dear 9:57;Cite precise, exacting, numerous examples and the Constitutional Articles. Otherwise, stop squawking back brain-dead populist talking points like a hungry baby bird. "Founding Fathers" is not an argument.The Supreme Court is pretty much working as intended. If the Constitutional Convention of 1787 didn't want the Supreme Court to have the power to overturn laws it believes to be detrimental to the well being of the United States and its Constitution, they wouldn't have given the court that power.Congress and the Executive's oversight of these courts is limited to appointed who gets to be on them, and how many there are to be. Beyond that, the court is fairly autonomous and limited in power. This is by design, as the Convention wanted the court to be as un-affected as possible by the popular swaying of the people and the Congress.Like, oh say, "Federal government needs to over ride the established and sensible rule of law, and save Terri Shaivo."That sorta thing.Oh, yeah, Ducky. If he wasn't such a cantankerous old fart, this would in fact be almost funny.
3:54I believe the principle of judicial review was established by the case Marbury v. Madison, rather than being in the Constitution itself. But the point is the same.
3:54 and 6:35,You're both right. Interesting thing about Article III is that, unlike Article I and II, it does not define the power it describes. Thus, Article III refers to a "judicial power" without ever saying what it is (or isn't). The only thing Article III tells us is where the "judicial power" is vested and to where it extends. With that in mind, Marbury v. Madison served as a means to actually define "judicial power." Likewise, while 9:57 dredges up that hallowed reichwing trope that the Court shouldn't "make" law (as if there weren't parts of the Constitution that aren't susceptible to multiple interpretations, thus requiring a final determination as to their meaning), he does have a point when he notes that Congress often punts the hard issues and lets the Supreme Court take the flak.
"Cite precise, exacting, numerous examples and the Constitutional Articles. Otherwise, stop squawking back brain-dead populist talking points like a hungry baby bird. "Founding Fathers" is not an argument."Wow, you're sure smart! I don't think this is quite the place to supply such cites, and I'm fairly sure you'd be incapable of finding them or understanding them. But then I am a lawyer who practices in constitutional law, and you're a.. what, exactly? Oh yeah, a "progressive" who obsesses over cartoons. Try to get over the notion that anyone who challenges your pop, "progressive" views in any way is your enemy or is stupid.
"...But then I am a lawyer who practices in constitutional law,..."Yep. And you're dating Morgan Fairchild too!
rewinn, I've heard you also drive a Ferrari F60 and live in a 36 bedroom mansion in Malibu. And there was something about a Macarthur fellowship and curing cancer. Or was that me, I keep getting my "facts" mixed up.;)
I spend every day throwing incontinent shrieking fits on this website because you "progressives" dare to defy the will of Rush Limbaugh! Sometimes I pretend to be a vietnam veteran and constitutional law scholar, becaues I assume that if I'm gullible enough for fall for that, everybody else must be, too!So why don't you "progressives" get a life?
"...But then I am a lawyer who practices in constitutional law,..."Yep. And you're dating Morgan Fairchild too!rewinn, you are made of the second half of your screen name. Also, I must award an Internets each to Squid Vicious and the parody Anonymous. Or at least an enclersi.
Post a Comment