Supreme Court

Boofing


cjones10042018

Yesterday, I made a huge mistake. I referred to “boofing” as a sex term. Maybe it is and was for Brett Kavanaugh when he was a young man groping women in high school and college, but there’s a much more commonly accepted definition. We’ll get to that.

I don’t know what kind of parent you are, but if your child asks you, “what’s boofing?” you’re probably going to make something up. Maybe you won’t say it’s for flatulence, as Kavanaugh claimed, but maybe something even milder, like…Hell, I don’t know. What else could it mean?

When you intentionally give your child an incorrect answer to protect them, you’re assuming their mind isn’t developed enough to know Mom and Dad is full of it. When you answer this way to another adult, you’re assuming they’re stupid and if they know you’re lying, that they expect you to be stupid enough to believe it.

You probably wouldn’t do this with another adult, less enough a United States Senator. You would think the last person who would try to make that work would be a federal judge.

Brett Kavanaugh is hoping we’re stupid and that we think the same of him while we give him a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It will be the first time the drunk choir boy defense won over an entire political party. This is what happens when a stupid person nominates another stupid person.

It’s bad enough that Kavanaugh channeled 4chan to defend himself by blaming people bitter over Donald Trump’s stolen election and Hillary Clinton supporters. It’s totally shucking responsibility by blaming the staff of the high school yearbook for all the dumb things about you, like the clubs you’re in.

But, you can’t expect a United States Senator to swallow obviously stupid and lying answers unless that Senator is a Republican, particularly Lindsey Graham.

No one in their right mind will believe “Devil’s Triangle” is a drinking game and not a sex term for two guys and one girl. It’s called “Devil’s Triangle” because of the danger it poses to heterosexual homophobic males that their penises might accidentally touch each other. Truly, the work of Satan. I only know this because I read and I’ve had conversations in bars. The name does not have any connotation to any danger posed to the female. I’m going to guess a guy came up with it.

The “Renate Alumni” is not the name of a group of guys who respect a girl named “Renate.” It’s used to describe Kavanaugh and each of his friends, including Mark Judge, who claimed they had slept with the same girl, who is named “Renate.”  There are 14 references to the woman, now named Renate Dolphin, in the Georgetown Prep yearbook from 1983. One of the “alumni” members even wrote the line, “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.” Respectful sounding, indeed.

This brings us back to boofing. In the same yearbook, “Beach Week Ralph Club-Biggest Contributor,” is applied to Kavanaugh. He claims he earned the distinction, not from vomiting from excessive drinking, but from his queasy stomach and spicy food. Sure, Delaware is known for tamales. Kavanaugh wrote in the yearbook to Mark Judge, the witness named by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, “Judge—Have You Boofed Yet?” Kavanaugh told a Senator that it’s a reference to flatulence. Apparently, Judge didn’t just have a drinking problem, but he was extremely gassy. You’d think Mark Judge would testify against him just for that. I’d kick my best friend’s ass if he defended himself by telling the entire nation I was a farter.

So, the line, “have you boofed yet?” is supposed to be about farting” who would ask that? Or, is it about vomiting? Or, is it about sex? No. It’s worse. Much, much worse.

Kavanaugh admitted he liked beer and that there have been times when he had too much. He even deflected a couple of times by asking Senator Amy Klobuchar if she’s ever blacked out from drinking (that’s the same kind of respect he gave Renate), and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse if he likes beer, and he wanted to know “what he likes to drink.” That’s why you were there, Brett. To take drink orders from senators. Usually, people this defensive about drinking still have a drinking problem.

As he freely admits, Kavanaugh likes beer. After looking up the definition in Urban Dictionary, (don’t click that link) Oh my God, he really, really, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally likes beer. My dad was a massive beer drinker and alcoholic to the day he died. He started and ended each day with a beer and went through a case daily, and I know he didn’t like beer this much. I have never heard of or thought of such a thing. Who would?

In case you didn’t click the link, I’ll put it this way; he likes beer to the point that he feels the need to administer it the way people administer hemorrhoids cream. Sounds like a good time, right?

Thankfully, Senator Jeff Flake was pressured to flake on Kavanaugh and demand an investigation into the charges against the alcoholic nominee of sexual harassment. The FBI, ordered by Trump, now has a week to look in on it. There were reports that they were attempting to interview people as early as late last night in California.

Hopefully, the information the FBI reports back keeps Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court and the Republicans in the United States Senate from giving us all a good boofing.

Your support in the form of donations is appreciated. I am fully independent as I’m not employed by a newspaper or with a major syndicate (leaving one to be independent). It does take a lot of work to provide you with cartoons, columns, and videos almost every day (more than any other political cartoonist), and I don’t charge my clients much at all. If you can, please consider making a financial contribution to keep the fun flowing, or purchase a signed print for $40. Whether you can help support, can’t, or just choose not to, please continue to enjoy and keep reading my work. Thank you!!!

You can purchase a signed print of this cartoon.

Watch me draw.

Advertisements

The #SoWhat Movement


cjones09222018

It really shouldn’t surprise anyone that Republicans are defending Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee who is accused of sexual assault and attempted rape. They’ve already defended Nazis.

Donald Trump says “Judge Kavanaugh is one of the finest people he’s ever known,” but Trump has known people like Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Stephen Miller, Roy Cohn, Rodrigo Duterte, Recep Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un.

Kavanaugh is accused of sexually assaulting and trying to rape Christine Blasey Ford, a research psychologist in Northern California, at a social gather in the 1980s when they were both teenagers. She claims Kavanaugh was holding her down and trying to get her clothes off, covering her mouth, so she couldn’t scream, while one of his friends watched. Kavanaugh claims he didn’t do it, and then claimed he wasn’t even at the party. Ford says she was afraid Kavanaugh would inadvertently kill her.

The friend that Ford says witnessed the incident claims it didn’t happen, but he’s also written a book titled, “Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk.” Kavanaugh’s witness is a guy who has boasted about binge drinking until he blacked out.

One of Kavanaugh’s defenses is a list produced by Republicans of 65 women, who knew the nominee during high school, who say Kavanaugh never sexually assaulted them. Seriously. There are a few weird things about this list. One is, it was revealed shortly after Senator Dianne Feinstein revealed the letter detailing the accusation against him. While Feinstein has been criticized for holding back on the letter, there’s speculation that Republicans were also aware of the accusation and had the list ready just in case.

Another problem with the letter is how did Kavanaugh even know 65 women during his high schooldays since he went to an all-boys Catholic school? Granted, I wasn’t the most popular kid in high school, but it was public and I didn’t know 65 girls. In fact, I still don’t know 65 women. Out of those 65 women vouching for the judge, only two will actually go on the record and publicly defend him.

Also, while it’s good there are 65 girls he didn’t assault, even Jeffrey Dahmer could have produced a list of people he’s known that he didn’t eat.

When asked Monday if he may withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination, Trump said, “what a ridiculous question.” He also said he hasn’t spoken to Kavanaugh since the accusations came out, despite the nominee spending nine hours at the White House Monday (maybe it was for the famous meatloaf). But, we don’t know what will come from the hearings next week. Kavanaugh may come off so poorly that they have no choice but to pull his nomination. Seeing that Trump has wilted on “always deny, deny, deny” and says he’s OK with waiting for the confirmation, and he’s known to throw people under the bus quickly, it may not be a “ridiculous” question.

Republicans, who believed all the accusations against Harvey Weinstein and wanted Al Franken tossed from the Senate for pretending to grope a woman, don’t believe Kavanaugh’s accuser. Senator Orrin Hatch, who is on the Judiciary Committee, says the woman is mistaken and may be “all mixed up.” Hatch was also on the committee in 1991 for Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court, where he defended him against sexually harassing Anita Hill, called her a liar, and later said she owed Thomas an apology.

Republicans also argue that if it did happen, then it was so long ago and while he was a teenager, so it shouldn’t be important now. Would you want to hire a guy suspected of being a rapist while he was in high school thirty years ago? Would you want him setting legal policy? Would you want to give him a lifetime appointment?

Just like in 1991, Republicans are not going to come out of the hearing smelling like roses. Their questioning of Ford next week will likely contribute to the women vote and the blue wave coming in November.

The one thing we definitely will not receive from next week’s hearings is proof. Each of us will believe one or the other. Do I believe her at this point? I do. She’s passed a polygraph, had mentioned it years ago before Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court, and it wouldn’t make sense for an intelligent person to subject herself to the lifetime of bullying and harassment she’s about to be the beneficiary of from Republicans. Who in the right minds would look at what they did to Anita Hill and say, “I want some of that?”

And, since Brett Kavanaugh is already on the record as a liar, I don’t believe him.

Your support in the form of donations is appreciated. I am fully independent as I’m not employed by a newspaper or with a major syndicate (leaving one to be independent). It does take a lot of work to provide you with cartoons, columns, and videos almost every day (more than any other political cartoonist), and I don’t charge my clients much at all. If you can, please consider making a financial contribution to keep the fun flowing, or purchase a signed print for $40. Whether you can help support, can’t, or just choose not to, please continue to enjoy and keep reading my work. Thank you!!!

You can purchase a signed print of this cartoon.

Watch me draw.

Kavanaugh’s Hangups


cjones07122018

Leave it to Donald Trump to make a Supreme Court nomination that reminds us just how bad the Bush administration was.

Shortly after being nominated to the court, Bush issued a statement on Brett Kavanaugh. “President Trump has made an outstanding decision in nominating Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” said the 43rd president.

Kavanaugh served as counsel in the Bush White House, and then as secretary before finally being nominated by Bush for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. His confirmation was stalled for three years on accusations that he was too partisan. Why would he be viewed as too partisan?

Working in the White House for either party can be considered partisan. He also represented the Miami family of Elian Gonzalez, pro bono, in a losing battle to keep the boy from being reunited with his father in Cuba. Perhaps most partisan was working on Kenneth Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton and being one of the author’s of Starr’s report recommending impeachment of the president.

In contrast to the tight lips of Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion and obstruction by Donald Trump, the Starr investigation was constantly leaking to the press. Republicans supposedly hate leakers. If it turns out that Kavanaugh was leaking to the press, will Republicans hold it against him? No. Republicans don’t have problems with hypocrisy, even if Kavanaugh may be deciding cases in the future on government leakers.

Speaking of hypocrisy, in 2009, the nominee wrote an article that presidents should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations. Did I mention he worked on the investigation of Bill Clinton and recommended that he be impeached for lying? How does he feel about being nominated by the biggest liar-in-chief in history?

He may be the only candidate on Trump’s list who is on public record with that opinion. Since the question of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted is not settled, it may land before the Supreme Court. Now, we have Donald Trump sending someone to the court who believes presidents shouldn’t be investigated. He may argue that Trump shouldn’t be distracted from golf and retweeting Nazis.

Kavanaugh should not be confirmed, at least not while the Mueller investigation is ongoing. Forget the election. Forget the abortion debate. Forget Mitch McConnell’s hypocrisy of refusing to hold a hearing for Obama’s nominee and allowing it to be stolen by Trump. What shouldn’t be allowed is an appointment to the Supreme Court by a president who is suspected of collusion with Russian spies, thus potentially sending someone to the court who will protect him.

Trump has a history of asking everyone for their loyalty. Does anyone believe he’s capable of not asking SCOTUS candidates for their loyalty?

Trump has the legal right to nominate for the court. But, he was elected by a minority of the people with help from a government hostile to the United States. He welcomed that help. Do we want his appointments sitting on the court for the next thirty years if it turns out he is guilty?

Religious Republicans and other assorted scary fundamentalists believe their deal with the devil will eventually give them a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade. It just might, but that doesn’t appear to be Trump’s first concern with his nomination.

As exhibited by making the announcement at prime time, as if it’s reality television, Trump’s first concern is for himself. Trump’s selection may be what’s best for Trump. It’s no wonder that even the North Koreans believe they’re dealing with gangsters.

The bar has been lowered for Trump. Even his nominees require fewer votes for confirmation than past nominees. The bar shouldn’t be lowered for the rest of us.

Watch me draw.

Thank you for your support. Reader contributions really do help and are appreciated in a time of dwindling revenue for political cartoonists. You will also be supporting free speech and the First Amendment, and independent journalism while those in power are doing all they can to suppress it. You can also support by purchasing a signed print for $40.00. Just look at the right of this page and click the PayPal button, or you can email and make other arrangements. Thank you!

SCOTUS Chicks


cjones07082018

Donald Trump plans to make his horrible selection for the Supreme Court either today or tomorrow. Because he takes the responsibility of a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the last about as seriously as he takes firing Gary Busey, he plans to make the announcement Monday during prime time.

Staunch conservatives are bickering over some of Trump’s candidates as they’re afraid one or two aren’t adequately terrifying. They don’t want Trump to make the mistakes of past presidential appointments where a justice becomes an independent thinker. They want a candidate who will overturn Roe v. Wade, rule in favor of big business every time, suppress minorities, and restrict voting rights as much as possible. Another interest for Trump will be a justice who will stand up for him in case any part of the Russia investigation lands before the court.

Trump says he hasn’t asked any of the candidates if they’ll ban abortion, but he’s probably asked each of them for their personal loyalty.

While there’s speculation he may appoint a woman, there’s no mystery if the nominee will be white.

We’re about to have a second justice placed on the Supreme Court by a guy who shouldn’t be allowed to pick his own nose. Whether it’s a man or a woman, this person will work with four other justices to set this nation as far backward as possible. We’ll be cleaning up after Donald Trump long after he’s left the Oval Office, but the court will be a reflection of Trumpism for decades to come.

Half of Trump’s judicial nominees have refused to say if they agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to end racial discrimination in public schools. Trump has also promised to get the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing birthright citizenship, “amended” out of the Constitution by his second term.

Republicans like to say they’re against activist judges except when they’re their activists judges. A Republican Senate will select any activist judge Trump sends them. Trump and the GOP stole his first selection from Obama and Democrats don’t have the numbers to stop his second.

This is why Republicans are subservient to Trump. They’ll tolerate and ignore his lies, accept hits on the economy from his trade war, turn a blind eye to bad deals with North Korea while he tears apart our alliances, and help him obstruct investigations into his debt to Vladimir Putin. Even if Trump destroys the Republican Party, they’ll pay the cost for owning the Supreme Court.

Watch Me Draw.

Thank you for your support. Reader contributions really do help and are appreciated in a time of dwindling revenue for political cartoonists. You will also be supporting free speech and the First Amendment, and independent journalism while those in power are doing all they can to suppress it. You can also support by purchasing a signed print for $40.00. Just look at the right of this page and click the PayPal button, or you can email and make other arrangements. Thank you!

Hater Cakes


cjones06092018

A baker in Colorado is so homophobic that he refuses to take money from gay couples. He was sued by a couple after refusing to bake them a cake, citing his religious beliefs as justification for denying their business. The couple sued over the discrimination. The state’s civil rights commission ruled against the baker.

The baker, supported by conservative religious fundamentalists and fellow homophobes, took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supremes narrowly ruled in the baker’s favor. Narrowly, as in, they left a lot of questions to be answered.

The Court said the cake man was a victim of religious bias by the civil rights commission. So, the baker can’t be a victim of bias but the gay couple can?

The court said it wasn’t changing laws and this doesn’t open the door for future discrimination, just that this one baker had the right to discriminate in this case because they didn’t like the way the commission treated him. But, conservatives are rejoicing and will use this for future discrimination.

Conservatives are not good with facts and will skip the court’s statement, “these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” That sounds less like a legal ruling and more like “I hope you kids play nice. Good luck out there.” Have the Supremes never watched a political debate on Facebook?

I like to start these arguments with; why do you care what’s on the cake? You make cakes for a living. Someone orders a cake. You make them a cake. They pay for the cake. You take money for the cake. Everyone wins. Who cares if the writing on top reads, “congrats, Jack and Diane,” or “congrats, Chuck and Larry?”

I was married once. There was a wedding. We even had a cake. It never did occur to me that we needed the baker’s approval of our nuptials. What if the baker thought my spouse could do a lot better than me? He could have thought, “that guy’s a shiftless cartoonist, plus, he’s kinda goofy looking. And, on your wedding night, he’s going to insist on watching Harry and the Hendersons.” I wouldn’t have lost any sleep over that, and it was 1988 and Harry and the Hendersons weren’t on HBO every night.

But, the baker has his own issues for why he won’t make the cake. What’s important to him isn’t important to me. That brings us to the legal arguments. Can someone refuse service, whether it’s a cake, flowers, or photography if it’s a mixed-race couple? Can Wal-Mart start refusing to allow certain couples from entering their stores their relationship violates their religious beliefs?

I respect religious beliefs and freedom. You can be in your forties and still believe in Santa for all I care. But I do not respect using your beliefs to discriminate. Everyone deserves the same treatment. You’re not being victimized by providing the same service equally. Can you be a Santa believer and refuse service to Jews despite the fact you still carry latkes in your store?

How is a gay cake different from a straight cake? Can’t you just bake a cake and don’t ask if it is gay or not? Can the cake stay in the closet of your mind until the wedding? Are the figurines the problem? How do you know both figurines are gay and that one isn’t being forced into a shotgun-gay-figurine wedding? How do you know the figurines even like each other? Or, is it the idea that the cake is going to be consumed at a celebration for gay people? Aren’t all weddings kinda gay anyway? Will making a gay cake tempt you to be gay? What if someone has some leftover gay wedding cake, and they don’t discover it’s gay until later? If you’re against gay marriage, would you make a cake celebrating a gay divorce? Are you afraid of taking gay money? Are you afraid the gayness will rub off the money while it’s in your wallet near your butt? Are these questions stupid? Because I tend to pose stupid questions to stupid people.

If I was in the marriage business, I would have been ecstatic about gay marriage becoming legal. Who doesn’t want more business? But, maybe the homophobic baker has the legal right to be a dumbass. He could always make the cake and do what Chick-fil-A does, give the money to a hate group.

The one good thing is as customers, we still have the freedom of choosing where we want to shop. This baker will soon discover that a lot of people have strongly held beliefs against doing business with an asshole.

Watch me draw.

Thank you for your support. Reader contributions really do help and are appreciated in a time of dwindling revenue for political cartoonists. You will also be supporting free speech and the First Amendment, and independent journalism while those in power are doing all they can to suppress it. You can also support by purchasing a signed print for $40.00. Just look at the right of this page and click the PayPal button, or you can email and make other arrangements. Thank you!

Betting On Impeachment


cjones05212018

My career started in 1990 in Mississippi and at that time there wasn’t any legal gambling in the state. A law was passed that year to allow it along the Mississippi River and Gulf Coast only if a community approved it. Within two years there were casinos popping up. By 2005, there were over 30 in the state. One debate at the time was; Why are some communities allowed to profit from this while others are not? It was a good question that still hasn’t been answered.

That question was asked about legalized sports betting and this week the Supreme Court answered it. Nevada, Delaware, Oregon, and Montana were the only states where federal law allowed legal sports gambling. The highest court in the land declared that unconstitutional. Now, states that want legalized sports betting can place their bets.

Since you don’t have to erect a casino on a river to allow betting on sports, expect some states to have it legalized by the time football season starts in three months. Hell, New Jersey will probably have it legalized in time for the NBA Finals and Stanley Cup. Bababooey!

Now each state that legalizes it has to decide how limited or widespread they want it to be. Should it only be allowed in a casino or a bookie’s office? Can any dillhole in a bar bet on the Browns going to the Super Bowl? Can a 12-year-old on a tablet bet on a game when he’s not looking at porn? Will college sports be off limits? Will the Trump Organization get involved?

Politics isn’t a sport, but in a way it is. Can we bet on what will bring down Trump?

Pundits and assorted talking heads on the news argue whether it’ll be collusion or obstruction when in the end, it could be the porn star. About the only thing that’ll make Trump sycophants give up on the guy is if they find out he’s not really a billionaire.

Which option would you wager on? Porn star? Cheeseburger? Stairs?

One thing is for sure. The odds for Trump not finishing his first term are a lot better than the Browns going to the Super Bowl.

Here’s the video.

Please consider making a donation to keep the cartoons, columns, and videos coming. Reader contributions, small and large, really do help and are appreciated in a time of dwindling revenue for political cartoonists. You will also be supporting free speech and liberty while those in power are doing all they can to suppress it. You can also support by purchasing a signed print for $40.00. Just look at the right of this page and click the PayPal button, or you can email and make other arrangements. Thank you!

Whose Squat To Pop?


cjones02032017

On Tuesday Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia. In doing so the Republican party effectively stole a Supreme Court appointment from President Obama and the Democrats.

The GOP gambled in not allowing Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland a hearing for the seat. Their argument was that it was a seat to be filled by the next president. Their actual argument was that it was for the next Republican president and Ted Cruz even said it should remain unfilled if Hillary Clinton wins the election.

Presidents serve four year terms. Not three. They still execute the powers and responsibilities of the office, even during the last year of their term. Apparently the United States senate does not.

Republicans also argued that Obama was a lame duck president. He was not. The lame duck stage is between the election and inauguration day. Not a year before the election.

The GOP gambled and they won. They played partisan politics with a Supreme Court nomination. They neglected their duty and responsibility. Now they’re crying that Trump’s nominee shouldn’t be held up in political purgatory, even though they did the same thing and without a good reason.

Trump promised a staunch conservative to fill the seat. He also promised to unite the nation and be a president for everyone, even those who didn’t vote for him. If he actually wanted to fulfill that pledge who would have nominated Merrick Garland. At least then he’d finally get a hearing, less enough a vote.

Republicans are the party of “no.” Even when it comes to hearing.

Did you like this cartoon? Want to help a cartoonist make a living? Look to the right of this page and make a donation through Paypal. I need to buy pens, paper, sandwiches, etc.. The starving cartoonist appreciates it. If you’ve donated in the past, THANK YOU!!!