Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for February 26, 2016
Transcript:
man: The constitution says the president "shall" Nominate supreme court justices. SO, should Obama nominate a replacement for judge scalia even though its the last year of his term? Scalia: Boo... Man: Wha...Its...the ghost of JUDGE SCALIA!! Scalia: Thats right, Ive come back to set everyone straight! Scalia: My life was devoted to the interpretation of laws by the plain, original meaning of there texts. Man: So...youre saying "the president shall nominate" means he has a constitutional obligation to do so, Scalia: No, You fool! Clearly, in this case , "shall" wasn't meant by the framers to apply to a lame duck president! Man: But thats not what the words say, Man: wait a minute, Im starting to think that you used this supposedly objective "orginalism" to reach the results you wanted! What?! Man: You selectively interpreted text so that you could deny rights to the oppressed and support the privileged! Scalia: Nonsense!! How dare you?? Of course the framers would agree with my consistent plain interpretation their words over my career, Oh judge scalia.... Scalia' Er...the framers of the constitution!! Founding fathers: we've been waiting for you to join us! Wed like to have a word with you! Next: The founding fathers "Take off their belts'!
InColorado over 8 years ago
Reminds me of the Robin Williams joke where a jihadist arrives in the afterlife expecting his 72 virgins and instead gets his ass kicked by 72 Virginians.
buzzkillington over 8 years ago
Rather kind of Ruben to depict Scalia in what would appear to be the prototypical representation of “heaven”, instead of elsewhere…
Alabama Al over 8 years ago
Scalia was unquestionably a learned jurist. However, being consistent in his “originalist” view regarding the U.S. Constitution doesn’t hold up to even cursory scrutiny. It is not hard to find examples where Scalia unhesitatedly ignored precedence, legislative history, and even seemingly clear language in the Constitution to justify his world view.
Dr.Otter over 8 years ago
Scalia’s opinion on Obama’s lame duck status is correct for an originalist. The strict interpretation of the original wording indicates that Obama is only 3/5 of a president.
meetinthemiddle over 8 years ago
The irony is that the constitution is vague on what exactly the powers of the judiciary are. Chief Justice Marshall asserted for decades that the court had the power to invalidate “unconstitutional” law, but it took a long time for that to be accepted. Andrew Jackson, for example, said “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
cipactli77 over 8 years ago
By definition he’s not a lame duck because his successor hasn’t been elected yet.
Funny_Ha_Ha over 8 years ago
Common sense doesn’t apply anymore. For the majority of Americans it’s tantamount to taxation without representation. Where have I heard that before?
Kip W over 8 years ago
Scalia failed to recuse himself on glaring conflicts of interest. (I’d add, “So did Thomas,” but that’s kind of automatic.)
mgrossberg over 8 years ago
Conservatives should be just as nervous about a Justice nominated by Trump as we are! “The Art of the Deal”…
ChrisV over 8 years ago
Actually you’d think the founding fathers would agree with his view that only rich white men should be allowed to vote.
markjoseph125 over 8 years ago
The sixth panel also applies to biblical interpretation.
William Powers over 8 years ago
Nothing is preventing the President from appointing a Justice. He just needs to do so. Then Senate can’t stop him nor has anyone suggested he cannot. There are no rules that the Senate must confirm his nomination, it is the reason for the advise and consent clause. Nor is there a requirement to even take up a vote on the successor before the next President is sworn in. This dust-up is political on both sides. to get the ideologues fighting back and forth over nothing.
mgrossberg over 8 years ago
In case you didn’t catch it, Scalia isn’t appearing as an angel, but a “spirit”. An evil and hypocritical spirit.