What's Mallard raving about today?
The Supreme Court, Job Applicants.
If Mallard had ever done anything to warrant granting him the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that was a general complaint about the Senate confirmation process, which is a farce no matter who is nominated.
As it is, I am sure this is some sort of criticism of Elena Kagan who Mallard thinks lacks qualifications. Probably because she was nominated by a Secret Muslim Socialist Nazi who isn't even an American citizen.
11 comments:
Dear God. You mean this is the punchline to YESTERDAY's strip? Coming from a clown who will merrily blow a Sunday strip on a single panel?
I shouldn't be surprised. The content of any given Mallard strip illustrates Batshit's complete absence of a sense of proportion...(.)
Tinsley's in quite a conundrum here. I'm sure he would like to mention the spill in the Gulf, but even Brucie would have a hard time blaming Obama for that one. So Tinsley does what he always does, a lazy, pointless "comic" that only appeals to, well, nobody actually.
Well, he's certainly not leaving a humor trail.
Isn't this joke a little late by several years for Bush's nomination?
Oh right, it's about Elena Kagan. Who has a paper trail. Poor Mr. Fillmore can't recognize when people make a fuss just to make a fuss.
Back of Somebody's Head is my second favorite character in this strip, after Sheaf of Papers.
There is a legitimate issue here, even if the Duck is incapable of an making an intelligent comment on it. The hearings on Supreme Court candidates have been disgraceful, for the most part, with senators on both sides posturing for the cameras, and nominees routinely perjuring themselves by declaring they have formed "no opinion" on the legality of abortion or a host of other hot-button issues.
Anonymous is mostly right; does anyone thing Tinsley is belatedly attacking the Alito and Roberts nomination? Or are paper-trail-free judges a good idea only for conservatives?
Our Supreme Court hearings have been shams at least since the Reagan era. If you can imagine a practicising Roman Catholic in law school around the time of Roe v. Wade never having formed an opinion on the case ... and so testifying under oath at his Supreme Court hearing ... then you have just imagined Clarence Thomas!
While it's nice to see a centerist like Obama fight back with the same the tactic (Kagan would be a conservative in Nixon's day), it's a terrible thing for our nation. One obvious solution would be to amend out constitution to give federal judges limited terms, perhaps 16 years, so that our great nation is not burdened by liars like Thomas or ideologues like Scalia until the day they die. We havd over ONE MILLION LAWYERS so there's no shortage of talent out there.
Rewin is mostly right, even if he is apparently unaware that Thomas was not a Catholic (practicing or otherwise)at the time of his nomination, but converted a number of years afterward. And of course Catholics on the Court have voted for abortion rights, so it's a more complex issue than that.
When do get to be informed how empathy equals genocide, Ducks?
Once again, the potential for a decent joke is there, this one isn't even terrible. I won't say that I laughed but it at least had the advantage of relative brevity and clarity. The problem is that due to the route taken rather than carrying any punch it sort of limps along.
I'm with Rootbeer on this one. R., you've pointed to just about the only convincing actors in the half-vast Mallard Fillmore cast of ... damn, I almost said "characters" here, but there really aren't any.
Post a Comment