Matt Bors for March 23, 2016

  1. Missing large
    Technojunkie  over 7 years ago

    Garland is anti-Second Amendment, so that’s an instant fail.

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    WestNYC Premium Member over 7 years ago

    So long as that nominee in the 4th panel is respects property rights she’s fine by me.

     •  Reply
  3. Kernel
    Diane Lee Premium Member over 7 years ago

    I love the idea of blocking the nomination until after the election. The Republicans don’t have a viable candidate for President, the fact that the senate is refusing makes a great campaign issue against them, and there is an outstanding chance that the Democrats would take the senate even without that hanging over the Republican’s heads. Then, President Sanders or Clinton, who will carry a lot of downticket candidates on their coat tails, further insuring that Democrats take the senate, can nominate and confirm a really well qualified person for that position. He was head of the Harvard Law Review, taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, and has served in both other branches of government. And for those who care about such things, he’s even half Black.

     •  Reply
  4. Tor johnson
    William Bednar Premium Member over 7 years ago

    Well, just wait for President Trump to nominate one of his KKK buddies to replace Scalia – probably David Duke. The Congress will jump for joy then and approve that nomination without a dissenting vote!

     •  Reply
  5. Rustfungus2a
    Cerabooge  over 7 years ago

    I’d be satisfied with someone who merely said “You idiot, of course corporations are not people, and money is not speech”.

     •  Reply
  6. Crow
    Happy Two Shoes  over 7 years ago

    Republicans are obstructionists who lie for partisan reasons.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    lopaka  over 7 years ago

    Irony:Does anyone remember 1988 – Reagan and McConnell?

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    ron2nips  over 7 years ago

    It’s too bad McConnel has a bug up his bj’s, but if Butter and Cheese were free for the taking the Senate Republicans would most likely prefer it be free whiskey and grits in the making. ?

     •  Reply
  9. And you wonder why
    Kylop  over 7 years ago

    Matt, presuming Judge Garland gets a vote and it doesn’t result in being placed on the court I would like to see the future nominee be either Bernie or Hillary. Whomever doesn’t get the nomination.

     •  Reply
  10. Bill
    Mr. Blawt  over 7 years ago

    I wanted to see his first pick be a very liberal judge, I don’t want anything like Scalia back on the Supreme Court. The stubborn refusal of senate Republicans to consider any nominee is outrageous and irresponsible. A cheap partisan exercise in obstructionism. Holding the appointment power hostage to the result of the November election with the preposterous and cynical argument of “giving the people a voice in the filling of the vacancy” McConnell’s snap decision to refuse to even consider Obama’s nominee no matter who it turns out to be.

     •  Reply
  11. Bill
    Mr. Blawt  over 7 years ago

    I called this one – he wanted to uphold a law where gun-buyers had to store records. You know – the enforce the laws that are on the book crowd are trying to pull laws out. So there are less restrictions. This judge didn’t help knock down barriers so we could have another school shooting. He is obviously anti-gun.

     •  Reply
  12. Ys
    HabaneroBuck  over 7 years ago

    Obama has already nominated two lesbians, and Ginsburg is still on the court. So, seriously, we are advocating FOUR lesbians for the US Supreme Court? How is that remotely representative government?

     •  Reply
  13. Missing large
    BuckOH  over 7 years ago

    I don’t think anyone’s pro abortion unless they’re thoroughly evil. I’m pro choice and pro contraception. If u don’t want kids wear a rubber. Things shouldn’t get that far where an abortion would be necessary if contraception is used. Control your own re-productivity.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Matt Bors