Does Danziger go too far with this toon?

[n2doc]

[madokie]

1. no

[bigwillq]

2. No (nt)

[PeoViejo]

3. No n/t

[COLGATE4]

4. Not far enough nt

[ablamj]

128. I agree

Where's Alito? He's one of the R.A.T.S.

[2naSalit]

131. ^^THIS^^ n/t

[Lochloosa]

5. Truth hurts.

[Scuba]

6. Nope.

[99Forever]

7. Well, he WAS a little too nice to ...

.. the Supreme Scumbags in robes.

[homegirl]

83. If only

Holder and the president had begun a legal process to remove the unqualified Thomas from the Supreme Court. Thomas is married to a woman who is very active in politics, he attends and speaks at political events, so, plenty of grounds for impeachment (removal). Time to clean house at the Supreme Court.

[calimary]

92. Welcome to DU, homegirl!

Glad you're here. I wish like crazy that we COULD remove some of these assholes. But I'd start with scalia. THEN thomas. Then alito and roberts. I'd get rid of ALL FOUR of those bastards and start over. I'd add Goodwin Liu as associate justice. I'd find at least one more woman and maybe elevate Eric Holder - OR (hey, this'd piss off the opposition!) - our retiring-in-two-years President, Mr. Barack Obama, and I'd make HIM Chief Justice. If by chance Hillary Clinton did not run for president, I'd elevate HER to the Supreme Court, too, as an associate justice. If for no other reason - to stick it to the bad guys. Whoever they wouldn't like, I'd appoint. Because the mere fact that they wouldn't like it would tell me it was a wise choice and the smartest, wisest move to make.

[mountain grammy]

96. I like the way you think.

I would love to see the next president nominate Barack Obama to the Supreme Court.

[calimary]

104. Wouldn't that just beat all?

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE to see that!!! The sheer beauty of being able to stick it to his enemies - a LIFETIME position on the Supreme Court! All that is, of course, ASIDE from the positive-oriented benefits (being able to stick it to his enemies would be a negative-oriented benefit) of his being a Constitutional scholar and an attorney, as well as a legislator at both the state AND federal level, I think he would be EMINENTLY qualified to join the highest bench in the land. It'd mean he'd have an impact on public policy LONG after he's left the White House, especially anticipating all the efforts being launched in the future to nullify everything and anything he's accomplished.

[hopemountain]

130. ^^^^+1000 nt

[gringo43]

142. ++++

[kelliekat44]

8. Hell NO!! nt

[msanthrope]

9. No.....this is why elections matter...SCOTUS. nt

[Cha]

22. Yeah, the big fascist fuckers at the top.

[Half-Century Man]

10. Justice Alletto hair appears thicker.

His face needs to be more pronounced jowls.

[Cal33]

43. There was no mention of Justice Alito in the cartoon, was there?

[Half-Century Man]

46. Ah, my bad.

Scalia.
Shit I even got his name spelled wrong, it's Alito.

This is what happens posting pre-coffee.

[Cal33]

50. I, too, got his name wrong the first time. Had to edit it. :)

[TBF]

11. No. nt

[lunasun]

12. No. Has there been some controversy or do you think so? Is it the Ginsberg ref that gets it in trouble?

[n2doc]

13. The latter n/t

[malaise]

14. He nails it

Rec

[Gothmog]

15. Great cartoon

No this cartoon is great

[BuelahWitch]

16. Pushing it

Clarence Thomas dreaming of lynching Justice Ginsberg has an ick factor. The other two are spot on.

[libodem]

23. There is an ick factor

But Clarence, is such an Uncle Tom Turncoat, silent participant, freakazoid, it fits

[Cal33]

44. Or could it be a case of "The Stockholm Syndrome?"

[libodem]

49. He's captured by something

Probably Ginny Teabags Thomas. Seriously fucked up traitor to humanistic values and beliefs. Sellout to the 1%.
He is a piece of twisted work. Hell is for miscreants like him.

I've held back. I need to stop before I blurt out how I really feel.

[hifiguy]

74. Doubtful.

He's EXACTLY like Uncle Ruckus in The Boondocks - a self-loathing black man. Which is why I refuse to call him anything other than Uncle Ruckus.

[bravenak]

103. +1

[Scootaloo]

133. I hate the term "self-loathing"

First off, for the implication that there is such a thing as "race-treason," which is a loathesome concept on its own.

But more pointedly, because i find that the people described as self-loathing are usually anything but. I imagine that Clarence Thomas is the only person in the world whom Clarence Thomas loves totally and unconditionally.

[libodem]

17. Hell to the, No!

[albino65]

18. Absolutely Not n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Sadly, no.

[jtuck004]

20. Clarence Thomas Pushes Past Ruth Bader Ginsberg In A Display Of Utter Disrespect

As the Supreme Court entered the chamber last night, it was nice to see Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg return to the court and make a public appearance after undergoing surgery for cancer of the pancreas. In a sign of respect, the other justices that came in behind her actually slowed their pace and walked behind her since she still is recovering -- except Clarence Thomas.

This was her moment, and he barged over it like an ignorant teenager.

It didn't take that long for her to get to her seat, but he couldn't be bothered to wait and barged right past her. I watched the entirety of it and it wasn't like he had very far to go. She became an object of affection by the media and the Congress as she has come back so quickly. I know he wishes her no ill will, but Clarence could show a little respect at least.

What an ass.

[RoBear]

34. Got to disagree about one thing...

Given his attitude and actions, I don't think "he wishes her no ill will." I think if he could, he would be rid of her so that his ass-kissing of Scalia and his maltreatment of minorities could go on untethered.

[jtuck004]

38. I think he would push her down a marble staircase if the opportunity presented itself to

appear as an accident.

[RoBear]

53. true.

I didn't have the nerve to say it, since I didn't want to be flamed. I have nothing but contempt for him.

[jtuck004]

63. “Do what you feel in your heart to be right – for you’ll be criticized anyway.

You’ll be damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.” ~Eleanor Roosevelt

[zeemike]

21. Nope n/t

[noiretextatique]

24. no...it is spot on

so very true

[paulkienitz]

25. mmmmmmmmmmmaaaayyyybe

The Ginsburg part is OTT...

[Plucketeer]

26. NO

[GoCubsGo]

27. Not far enough.

He leaves out Alito, and to a good extent, Kennedy.

[gordianot]

30. Alito is in a corner moving his lips, hard to show in a cartoon.

[world wide wally]

28. Where's Alito?

[asjr]

29. No. Danziger has balls!

[Paladin]

31. No. The targets are completely deserving of such a depiction.

No pearl-clutching about good manners on this, OK? These three individuals are doing harm of historical proportions to this nation. The more full-force reflections of that, the better.

[Takket]

32. No. Not at all

[pscot]

33. I can see where a couple of the

justices might take umbrage.

[Dirty Socialist]

35. Yes

Last edited Thu Oct 23, 2014, 02:48 PM - Edit history (1)

But I've seen stuff just as bad from Michael Ramirez

[ellenfl]

36. ted cruz is a supreme? he has not gone too far, if it's true, and it is. eom

[spike91nz]

37. no

the right does appear to imagine purification of America of those liberal miscreants and unbelievers. Look who Oliver North and Reagan were considering for rounding up and placement in camps under pretense of a national disaster. They were civil right leaders, civil liberties advocates, labor leaders and liberals. The impulse toward purification is a consequence of the authoritarian position failing to deliver on utopian promises and redirecting the blame to those imagined to be the responsible contaminating elements. They fail to understand that such impulse toward purity is an endless enterprise finally resulting in theocratic solutions of form over substance and the selection of scapegoats to explain the failure of the project. Authoritarianism is self defeating in the long-run and cannot provide the opportunity for the diversity necessary for adaptation to changing conditions. Authoritarianism is always past oriented and inherently paranoid in its with respect to reason and critical thought. Why those in power fail to understand the basic structural issues of the authoritarian position is either attributable to the distortion of their thought process in the service of their unexamined assumptions or to a lack of intellectual capacity. In either case their failure to see the effects of their strategy in the long-term is sufficient to disqualify them from holding such power over our common human destiny.

[libodem]

52. .

[sarge43]

39. Danziger always nails it.

He's one of the best in the business

[proReality]

40. He's right on.

And he could have gone farther if he'd had more room.

[jwirr]

41. No.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. Yes.

It's silly and crude, and doesn't make any interesting or valid point.

[Cal33]

54. One interesting point is, Can any Republican get into any high position today without being a

sociopath first?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Yes.

I wish all questions were that easy. I don't agree that that's an interesting point, though.

[hifiguy]

76. These days? No.

Once upon a time there were sane, responsible Republicans who listened to reason and considered the good of the country. The last of them died out or were purged by the Rand worshipers and, especially, the Jebus-wheezers in the early-mid 1990s.

[Cal33]

87. You're correct. The Neo-Cons joined the Republican Party some 40+ years ago, worked

their way up the power structure ladder, and managed to kick out the old-time
Republican Establishment to the last man. It was all done quietly. The Neo-Cons
were smart enough to keep the Republican name. The vast majority of those who
vote Republican never knew, to this day, that a coup had taken place. They still
think they are "voting Republican."

I wonder if the Tea Partiers are trying to do the same thing to the Neo-Cons
right now? We know that there is in-fighting going on.

Today, the Republican Party is anything but Republican, but their voting masses
haven't a clue that what they think of as their Party no longer exists.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. spoken like a man. whereas, I can totally relate to the Ginsberg imagery. The point is Spot On.

[Renew Deal]

45. Is the Ginsburg imagery necessary?

It's over the top.

[zentrum]

48. Agree. It worked,

...except for the that image.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

68. no. It is Dead On.

[RobinA]

98. I Must Be Missing

something, but I don't even understand the Ginsburg imagery. That said, it's hard to imagine that I wouldn't think that is a little much.

[Enthusiast]

47. It's almost accurate.

[GP6971]

51. No n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

56. No. Go farther, Danziger. Do it. Go There. K&R

[Enrique]

57. it depends what the lynching part is about

I assume there is a reason it shows Thomas wanting to lynch Ginsburg, but I have no idea what it is about.

The rest of it is 100% fine.

[n2doc]

60. It might be a reference to Thomas' Senate hearings

"High Tech Lynching" and all that.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

62. as a woman, I see it as a metaphor for silencing the woman's voice and I think it is powerfully done

and I applaud him for taking it there.

[Enrique]

64. did something happen?

did something happen between Thomas and Ginsburg that this refers to?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

67. The Hobby Lobby Decision ... anyone ...

In the news
John Oliver's SCOTUS canines used to reenact the Hobby Lobby arguments
Salon.com‎ - 2 days ago
The outcome of this case, or Hobby Lobby decision, has wide repercussions whether you ...
A 9/11 Suspect Is Using the Hobby Lobby Ruling to Argue Female Prison Guards Violate His Rights
VICE News‎ - 20 hours ago
The ongoing Hobby Lobby battle: Who else can get an exemption?
Washington Post‎ - 20 hours ago
More news for the hobby lobby decision

ww.salon.com/2014/10/21/john_olivers_scotus_canines_used_to_reenact_the_hobby_lobby_decision/

[Cal33]

82. During the Senate's hearing of the nomination of Clarence Thomas as a candidate justice to the US

Last edited Thu Oct 23, 2014, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Supreme Court, there was a young female lawyer who objected. She accused him
of having sexually harassed her when she was working under him. Many thought
that Thomas would never make it. But he did. As Tuesday Afternoon said, the
cartoon "could be looked upon as a metaphor for "...silencing the woman's voice..."

[LeftInTX]

120. She is a very strong advocate of voting rights

Thomas isn't

[byronius]

58. No.

[Glorfindel]

61. Not at all. The toon is a masterpiece of restraint.

It gives the monsters far more dignity and respect than they deserve.

[JEB]

65. NO.

[Nye Bevan]

66. Well I guess they can't all be Lukovich (nt)

[WhiteTara]

69. This is on point and target! Thanks nt

[gregcrawford]

71. Hardly. I'd say it doesn't go far enough...

... Scalia is a certifiable psychopath who is fast losing his grip on reality. Roberts has the moral compass of a snake, and was right there when Bolton and a horde of other Neocons busted up a Florida recount BEFORE they had any authorization to disrupt the democratic process. Thomas' misogyny in general, and his open hostility toward Ruth Bader-Ginzbrug in particular, is no secret, and he follows Scalia's lead in lockstep. Alito is a sanctimonious tigh-ass whose legal arguments can be dismantled by a fourth-grader, and Kennedy never had an original thought in his life. In total, this Supreme Court majority is the most corrupt and morally bankrupt gang of incompetent fools in living memory. So there.
I knew Jeff, though not well, when he worked at the Rutland Herald many years ago, and found him to be an intelligent and principled guy. I still follow his work closely.

[irisblue]

80. welcome to DU, and your description is spot on

[hifiguy]

72. No, nay, never.

HELL NO.

[malthaussen]

73. Justice Ginsberg hanging from a tree? Yes, that goes too far.

Doubt it's actionable, though.

-- Mal

[get the red out]

75. Hell no!

The truth hurts.

[prairierose]

77. No......hell No... n/t

[Iwillnevergiveup]

78. Uhh, no

These 3 plus Alito are contemptible and have done serious damage to our country.

[rock]

79. No, but I must correct Roberts

We the people cannot directly do anything about but Congress can. Note I don't mean to imply they would. For some reason ALL politicians are deathly afraid of impeachment and will do no more than talk about it (sometimes referring to it as the "I" word)!
Incidentally, repiggies (not just Scalia) no longer know what Democracy means.

[Cal33]

89. It's more than "not knowing what democracy means," Republicans are out to destroy democracy,

because they find it profitable to do so. Money (and the power that goes with it) is their god.

[hedgehog]

81. Not far enough.

[Tommymac]

84. NO

[DhhD]

85. Cartoon is fine. Next forge for the 5 Royalist; remove the right to vote for women starting in

Texas by waiting to act on a future appeal until after the 2016 election.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/18/supreme-court-texas-enforce-draconian-voter-id-law-u-s-a.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/ginsburg_s_dissent_in_texas_voter_id_law_supreme_court_order.html

It is very important that Democrats win in Texas. Receiving little help with campaign expenses may lead to the skipping of the right to vote for women in America if the SC again decides to wait until after the election to decide that women do not have to prove at a voting who they are in order to vote. Texas has been providing alias IDs to women for many fears.

Hopefully Democrats will win in Texas as we have a crop of dangerous Tea Party conservatives running to destroy Texas.

[hughee99]

86. Only republican cartoons can go too far. n/t

[arthritisR_US]

88. No. nt

[calimary]

90. Nope.

Not at all. Seems like it didn't go far enough.

Besides, if the question is "did X, Y, or Z go too far?" you would be FAR more accurate to apply that question to the Supreme Court itself, rather than some cartoonist's drawn comment about them.

[The CCC]

91. Does Danziger go too far with this toon?

No.

[heaven05]

93. no, no, no

not too far at all. I want more truth like this, instead of less.

[madamesilverspurs]

94. Who'd have thought

that a SCOTUS costume would ever be appropriately scary for Halloween?

[aquart]

95. No. Drawing is also speech.

[valerief]

102. Yes, but drawing isn't money, and SCOTUS has ruled only money is speech.

That's why protestors get tear-gassed, beaten, and arrested. They're human, not thousand-dollar bills.

[mountain grammy]

97. Not far enough, robes should be white with hoods.

[demigoddess]

99. NO

[Duval]

100. Not at all. n/t

[valerief]

101. Not a whit. You can't go too far with these assholes. nt

[MADem]

105. Yes, but that's the point. nt

[tclambert]

106. The Ginsburg lynching part pushes it

and Thomas holding a noose. Though it kind of dovetails with the Voter Id Laws subject matter, since some lynchings in Mississippi were specifically intended to discourage black voting.

An ironic thing about the Supreme Court: they don't answer to voters themselves. It's the one branch of government not dependent on democracy.

[daleanime]

107. Hell no....

[librechik]

108. oh, my.

stunning

[Not a Fan]

109. No

Danziger is too good. The Ginsburg reference means something and I don't know what it is. A few good theories suggested here - but none seem to satisfy the extreme nature of the image. But I'm sure there's a real, probably good, reason for it. I just wish I knew what it was. It suggests a deep-seated animus for Ginsburg on Thomas's part.

[Enrique]

122. that's my attitude

it appears pretty much gratuitous, but Danziger has too much credibility and I think it's unlikely he can't back this up. Maybe someone will make a stink about it and he will explain.

[padruig]

110. did he go to far ?

did he go to far?

no he did not ... truth is singular, even when ugly

[raven mad]

111. Nope.

Brutal truth.

[7962]

112. Yes, but to most here its celebrated.

I always use my filter of "what would I think if the other side did this?". And i certainly wouldnt like it.
We have members who long for Scalias heart to explode, same with Cheney and Thomas. Call Palin every name in the book. The list goes on. limbaugh calls someone a slut and rightfully gets raked over the coals for it. Ed Schultz does the same and its hilarious.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

124. It's all in the context...

...eom.

[Sparhawk60]

113. Nope!

Some times the truth hurts

[rhett o rick]

114. No

[Warpy]

115. Danziger often dips his pen in acid

So, no.

[Skittles]

116. no

that is spot on

[GeoWilliam750]

117. No

[Dollysmom]

118. no. eom

[Hekate]

119. Not in my book.

[Dont call me Shirley]

121. No.

These 5 (Alito and Kennedy too) Bigots, Mysogenists, Corporatists, are the ones who have gone too far, way too far!

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

123. No...

... I am sure at least one of those 3 have said as much over a glass of single malt scotch.

[blackspade]

125. That would be no.

[indepat]

126. No and so much more could have added to fully encapsulate the misfeasance and nonfeasance

of the one group who imo perhaps has inflicted more harm and damage to our country and society than any person, group, or nation ever has.

[jopacaco]

127. Absolutely not nt

[niyad]

129. not far enough!

[LoisB]

132. Absolutely not.

[WestCoasterDude]

134. NO!

Truth to power.......

[colsohlibgal]

135. No Way!

[joshdawg]

136. No!

[LiberalElite]

137. NO! nt

[Thespian2]

138. Scalia

and Thomas should be joined at the head since Thomas must use Scalia's brain, not possessing one himself.

[Javaman]

139. nope. and I would say, not far enough. nt

[20score]

140. You mean because he made Scalia and Thomas out to be sex symbols as

opposed to showing their truly ugly souls?

Yeah, kinda.

[shenmue]

141. Spot on

I bet the RWers raise a fuss, but sometimes certain things just need to be said.