Thursday, September 22, 2005

Feddie for SCOTUS!

Click on image for larger version
Let's dispense with the undercover lobbying and the hush-hush meetings to suggest potential Supreme Court nominees—we need an all-out campaign for the guy brave enough to proclaim that "stare decisis is fo' suckas!" If a precedent is worthless, overturn it! Come on, Dubya, we want Steve "Feddie" Dillard from Southern Appeal!

Update: "Feddie for SCOTUS" t-shirts are now available here.


Steve Dillard (aka Feddie) said...

That is awesome! I am going to put your blog in my "First Brigade" category.

If only you had given me a bow tie it would be perfect. :)

Zach Brissett said...

Thanks, Feddie. I thought about giving you the bow tie, but in the end decided to go with the classic Southern lawyer look from "To Kill a Mockingbird". Thanks again for the kind words and for your great work at Southern Appeal.

Steve Dillard (aka Feddie) said...


Where can I shoot you an email? if you don't want to post it here, just email me at

BTW, I am already getting requests for t-shirts. :)

tim said...

Excellent! As much as I'd prefer Steve for CJOTSCOTUS ("Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States"...or am I just making up this acronym?), we've still got a position open for O'Connor's seat.

Frist just told President Bush that if he submits a name within the next week and a half, that Frist would hold hearings by Thanksgiving! Steve--how's your fall schedule looking?

Colleen said...

Wow, Zach, your cartoons are great. It is almost impossible to say which is my favorite. But I am leaning towards "Misunderestimating the great Equivocator". I am going to have to visit you again. And again. If you keep it up!

Anonymous said...

eliminate stare decisis! equal protection under the law if fo' suckas! who cares if injustice is the result? we are taking over the scotus and those who disagree are wrong -- error has no rights!

Anonymous said...

Actually, Roberts's new title will be Chief Justice of the United States, or CJOTUS if you prefer.

Centinel said...

eliminate stare decisis! equal protection under the law if fo' suckas! who cares if injustice is the result?

Sure, fealty to stare decisis is the answer to equal protection. A big Dred Scott supporter, are you? Moron.

Boethius said...

Great job Zach!

Anonymous said...

A big Dred Scott supporter, are you? Moron.

The 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution took care of that problem, didn't they? The wonderful thing about this country is that there is an orderly process for the legislature and the states to change the laws when the citizens are unhappy with the current set.

The Dred Scott decision was clearly based on original intent. Thus, we can be assured that barring the 13th and 14th amendments, Roberts, were he on the court at the time, would have written the opinion in much the same way.

Am I a big fan of Dred Scott v. Sanford? Yes. As morally reprehensible as the effect of the decision was, it was consistent with The Constitution. It placed the larger question of Justice where it belonged, in the lap of the people and the legislature. Had the decision just given Dred Scott his freedom, it would have let the Missouri Compromise stand, some anti-slavery middle-of-the-roaders would have been pacified, and slavery would have been prolonged for decades.

If you don't like the interpretations the court arrives at, then amend the Constitution. Appointing fascist judges who hold their political ideologies superior to the written law will just lead to violent revolution.

If you can't change the law because you do not have the votes, then work to change the opinions of the people. BTW, you won't get very far persuading people the best argument you can muster is to call your opponents morons.