Friday Funnies

Obama's Supreme Court pick

Chip Bok | May 22, 2009

Comments

robc|5.22.09 @ 7:05AM|#

Wow.

Chip, check out yesterday's cartoon. See if you can pick up a clue about funny.

|5.22.09 @ 7:15AM|#

Not so much funny as terrifying. Glad I read this in early a.m. and not right before bedtime! Still, if I have nightmares about this, do I have grounds for a lawsuit?

Suki|5.22.09 @ 7:54AM|#

AAAAAAAAA!

Reason, that was mean.

|5.22.09 @ 7:57AM|#

I'm not sure you even have to be an attorney to be appointed, but if you are one, it sure would be awkward to appoint an attorney that resigned from the Supreme Court bar.

ed|5.22.09 @ 8:05AM|#

B+

CaptainSmartass|5.22.09 @ 8:13AM|#

Cab | May 22, 2009, 7:57am | #
I'm not sure you even have to be an attorney to be appointed, but if you are one, it sure would be awkward to appoint an attorney that resigned was disbarred from the Supreme Court bar.

FTFY.

Untermensch|5.22.09 @ 8:15AM|#

Stop making fun of Hilary's mustache, Chip.

Highbrow Art Critic|5.22.09 @ 8:37AM|#

This fails the Marmaduke test

|5.22.09 @ 8:41AM|#

Hillary's wearing a blue dress [snicker].

ed|5.22.09 @ 8:42AM|#

Marmaduke gets no empathy at all.

|5.22.09 @ 8:42AM|#

That one gave me lulz. I think it caught me off guard.

Fascitis Necrotizante|5.22.09 @ 9:02AM|#

If Bok colored Obama white he would look like Ralph Nader.

Xeones|5.22.09 @ 9:11AM|#

Way to make me actually feel bad for Hillary Clinton, Bok.

|5.22.09 @ 9:13AM|#

Xeones,

Wha? I thought his caricature was incredibly kind to her on the subject of looks.

|5.22.09 @ 9:39AM|#

I thought this was a decent one.

For the record, there's no constitutional requirements for a Supreme Court justice. No age restrictions, no professional credentials, no citizenship issues, no nothing. I'm not even sure you have to be human.

As far as tradition goes, I believe that every single justice since the beginning has been a lawyer. Which is reasonable enough for this job, I think.

KT|5.22.09 @ 9:40AM|#

Don't quit your day job, Chip.

If this is your day job, what the fuck.

|5.22.09 @ 9:42AM|#

Ow, my eye!

|5.22.09 @ 9:45AM|#

I'm not even sure you have to be human.

This was fixed by the 43rd Admendment passed after the tyrannical reign of Chief Justice Grxno!rgak.

Solanum|5.22.09 @ 9:54AM|#

I'm not even sure you have to be human.

The best nominee available.

|5.22.09 @ 9:58AM|#

Zaius is good, but there is a more apropos candidate: The Lawgiver.

I wonder if we'll ever see a computer or robot in the job?

|5.22.09 @ 9:59AM|#

I wonder if we'll ever see a computer or robot in the job?

When will you racists stop ignoring Thomas' service to SCOTUS?

grimaldius mensch|5.22.09 @ 10:06AM|#

there is another

|5.22.09 @ 10:09AM|#

Look, the composition of the Supreme Court is serious business. We shouldn't be wasting our time talking about fictional characters or nonexistent AI being appointed.

Because there's a real candidate for the job.

|5.22.09 @ 10:17AM|#

I want Charles Manson on the Court. We're headed in that direction, anyway.

wingnutx|5.22.09 @ 10:59AM|#

If Bok colored Obama white he would look like Ralph Nader.

It's all so clear to me now.

|5.22.09 @ 11:03AM|#

Well, this one has to be an affirmative action pick - a chick, someone with the Right Color skin, etc.

But, when one of the old white men kicks off, I see a strong case for Obama to appoint Bill Clinton:

(1) Empathy - the man practically oozes.
(2) Paralyzing a political opponent. Don't think for a minute that the Clintons aren't still laying for Obama.

That pretty much checks off the boxes, doesn't it?

|5.22.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Is this supposed to be funny? I guess I don't even get the political commentary here. What's the point? You don't like the Clintons? BORING!

|5.22.09 @ 12:35PM|#

Appointing someone who had his license suspended and who doesn't exactly light the world up with his legal credentials, anyway, is a bad idea. Not to mention that he was impeached. Whether you agree or not with his impeachment, is that a good precedent?

|5.22.09 @ 1:27PM|#

"Appointing someone who had his license suspended and who doesn't exactly light the world up with his legal credentials, anyway, is a bad idea. Not to mention that he was impeached. Whether you agree or not with his impeachment, is that a good precedent?"

I have two views on the impeachment of Bill Clinton. (1) It is the stupidest and worst thing the GOP has ever done. (2) It didn't actually happen, because the GOP wouldn't be such a bunch of hyper-political pieces of shit. Bill McCullom!!

So I don't just disagree with his impeachment, I think Bill Clinton came out looking better. They investigated every last detail, including his penis and ejaculate matter, and all they came up with was lying about who he was banging?

I think the impeachment was a bad precedent.

|5.22.09 @ 1:34PM|#

I think the impeachment was a bad precedent.

It did just what it was supposed to do; that fucking clown show made it impossible to ever bring impeachment proceedings again.

|5.22.09 @ 2:56PM|#

Lamar,

I'm not arguing the merits of the impeachment, but there are people who still defend Nixon. Better to keep them all off the Supreme Court. Maybe that'd prove unfair to one or two people, but I'd rather do that than see people with tainted histories getting lifetime tenure on the federal bench. It's not like there aren't a million other lawyers to choose from.

Solanum|5.22.09 @ 4:28PM|#

Zaius is good, but there is a more apropos candidate: The Lawgiver.

Meh, the Lawgiver was a bleeding heart who condoned apes & humans living together. Zaius was smart enough to recognize the blight that humans would wreak on ape society, and thus wisely kept those pesky secret scrolls locked away.

|5.23.09 @ 3:57PM|#

Summer resort.

You live
in the youth
of a summer
resort, your
delicate voice
appears in
my mind like
a winged creature,
and even a
pleasure describes
in a moment
a bright sensibility.

Francesco Sinibaldi

Fascitis Necrotizante|5.29.09 @ 4:22AM|#

Shut the fuck up, Sinibaldi.