Reports of His Death Are Greatly Appreciated

Graphical History Tour looks forward to remembering Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), reported to be serving out the remainder of his congressional term in a vegetative state.

McConnell was elected to the Senate in 1984, ousting a Democratic incumbent in the Reagan landslide that year. I drew no cartoons about McConnell that early in his career; perhaps Joel Pett can put a retrospective of his Lexington Herald Leader cartoons of the McConnell record. I'll leave it to him.

McConnell has been no stranger to purposeful inactivity.

March, 2019

McConnell's facial features, especially with his eyeglasses, suited him to caricature as an owl or a tortoise; influenced by Jon Stewart's characterization of him on The Daily Show, I drew McConnell as a turtle again and again. 

This cartoon dealt with Democrats' "Equality Act" to extend existing federal anti-discrimination protections in employment, housing, credit, jury selection, and education to include persons on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. The legislation passed the House, but McConnell kept it off the Senate's agenda.

February, 2016

McConnell's longest lasting legacy is likely to be the Republican supermajority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The GOP had enjoyed a 5-to-4 majority on the Court when Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, leaving an evenly split Court and one empty seat for President Barack Obama to fill. McConnell declared that the Senate would refuse to consider Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, supposedly because there would be a new president eleven months later.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell wrote, discounting the voice of the American people in 2008 and 2012. "Therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

September, 2020

Four years later, liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, a mere seven weeks before another presidential election. Rather than let the American people weigh in on the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, McConnell rammed Donald Trump's choice, Amy Coney Barrett, through the Senate faster than any SCOTUS nominee since President Martin Van Buren's nomination of Peter Vivian Daniel one week before leaving office in 1841.

July, 2018

Having declared during President Obama's first term that McConnell's primary goal was to make sure that Obama wouldn't serve a second one, McConnell's primary goal in Trump's first term was to make sure that Trump got everything he wanted.

Trump would name Brett Kavanaugh, not the Dictator of North Korea, to this particular Supreme Court vacancy. McConnell couldn't keep Democrats from asking Kavanaugh about sexual assault allegations; but as long as McConnell kept Republicans in line, Democrats couldn't keep Kavanaugh off the Court.

November, 2018

On the other hand, McConnell and his Republicans had blockaded several of President Obama's lower court nominations from getting through the Senate. While in the minority, Senate Republicans repeatedly filibustered Obama's nominations, and denied cloture votes to end debate; Senate Majority Harry Reid responded by limiting debate on district and circuit court nominations to 30 hours, and lowering the needed vote to confirm to 50% — the so-called "nuclear option."

When Republicans won a Senate majority in 2014, McConnell changed Senate rules so that even a single GOP Senator could block a judicial appointment.

"A large number of vacancies were from states with two Republican senators or one Republican and one Democrat," [Sheldon Goldman, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst] explained. "Until McConnell and the Republicans upended the practice of senatorial courtesy, both senators had to sign off on the recommended judicial nominees. Republican senators did their best to delay the process. As we now know, that tactic of obstruct and delay was successful."

"That Obama left office with so many unfilled vacancies was largely by design — by Mitch McConnell," said the University of Vermont’s Lisa Holmes.

December, 2019

McConnell's ploy left 105 judicial vacancies — not counting that seat on the Supreme Court —waiting for Donald Trump to fill on his first inauguration day. He proceeded to nominate the most right-wing, reactionary ideologues the Heritage Foundation could dredge up, one after another. They included ten nominees in his first term rated "not qualified" by the American Bar Association, seven of whom were confirmed by the Senate anyway.

January, 2022

McConnell (and now John Thune) had the advantage of having Democrats like Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin, and John Fetterman willing, even eager, to reach across the aisle to make deals and pass legislation. For their part, Republicans have been content to let Democrats reach toward them; but the only Republicans who dare to reach across the aisle are the ones who are going home soon because they lost a primary race against someone even more opposed to bipartisan cooperation.

January, 2020

No assessment of McConnell's legacy would be complete without bringing up his role in the two impeachment trials (so far) of Donald Commodus Trump.

When the House voted to impeach Donald Trump in 2019, McConnell denied House managers' request to call four witnesses for the Senate trial, explaining, "The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury. To hear a trial. Not to re-run the entire fact-finding investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it."

McConnell reportedly supported the second impeachment of Trump for inciting the January 3, 2021 storming of the Capitol. The Senate calendar prevented the trial from starting until after Trump was out of office, which McConnell used as his excuse for voting with 42 other Republican Senators for acquittal. 

He told the nation, however, "There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."

Thus, Mitch McConnell, and the 42 other Republicans Senators who put party above country and acquitted on a technicality a scoundrel they knew to be guilty, deserve their share of the blame for returning that fascist tyrant to the White House four years later.

The Recycling Bin of History

Every once in a while, I come across editorial cartoons for these Graphical History Tours that I like, but which don't make the cut for one reason or another.

Which is just to say that there ain't much by way of an overall theme to today's post. And here we go!

"The Grist of War" by Winsor McCay in New York Herald, ca. June 18, 1926

I was all set to include this Winsor McCay cartoon in a recent post about Abd El-Krim's surrender to  colonial French and Spain troops in Morocco, but something just seemed off about it.

Given the timing of its publication, it seems that the cartoon ought to be about the Rif War, but it's curious why the "Militarist" character is drawn with ridiculously exaggerated white lips, in the manner that White cartoonists and minstrel shows of the day portrayed Black people.

German cartoonists in the aftermath of World War I frequently drew African soldiers carrying out French military actions as a way of highlighting African soldiers' presence in France's occupation of the Ruhr region; the cartooning practice was meant to inflame German resentment at being policed by untermenschen.

Was McCay echoing that same racist propaganda here? If so, the cartoon was more likely about French policy against Germany, not France's adventures in Morocco.

"Well, Anyway, a Good Time Was Had By All" by James North in Washington Post, June 4, 1926

Meanwhile, a much-ballyhooed disarmament conference was underway. The French poppinjay in the foreground of James North's cartoon is more representative of how U.S. cartoonists represented France: stiffly waxed goatee and upturned mustache.

"But Isn't It Kind of Dangerous" by Jay N. "Ding" Darling in Des Moines Register, June 1, 1926

Here’s a “Ding” Darling cartoon I liked about New York Governor Al Smith’s position on Prohibition. It didn’t quite fit in with my post on spring primary results — Smith was not in a reelection race — and I already had two other Darling cartoons having to do with Iowa’s GOP Senate primary.

I do like to keep an eye out for cartoons featuring the men who were destined to run for president and vice president later on. I shouldn’t need to warn of a spoiler alert when I explain that Smith would be the Democratic presidential nominee in 1928, and it’s not as if the "Happy Warrior" were an obscure pol in 1926. Nor is he largely forgotten today.

Unlike his 1928 running mate.

By the way, I came across this campaign button at a resale store recently. I wonder whether whoever wrote the price sticker was unaware that Franklin Roosevelt was not at the top of the ticket, but was the vice presidential nominee in that 1920 campaign.

"Kompromissflaggen" by Oskar Garvens in Kladderadatsch, Berlin, June 6, 1926

This cartoon suggesting designs various German political parties and interests might have had for the Weimar Republic's flag didn't fit in with recent posts on European affairs. This is an unretouched image from the Heidelberg's on-line archive; besides adding English translations, I would have tried to eliminate the yellowing of the page and to emphasize the black lines.

Perhaps Herr Garvens would have appreciated my coloring in some red on his flags, too, assuming I would be coloring the correct rectangles. My guess is that the red isn't missing because it has faded over time, but rather that it was never there — because Kladderadatsch could only afford black and yellow ink for the cartoons on its inside pages that week.

Finally, it would have been timely, in this week when the Supreme Court floods the zone with a blizzard of rulings like a college student cranking out all his term papers at once, to have put together a post about historic Supreme Court decisions. Sadly, editorial cartoons about the Court are somewhat rare in the 1920's.

"Memories of Dred Scott" by Wilbert Holloway in Pittsburgh Courier, June 5, 1926

Cartoons about the Court do show up in newspapers appealing to a Black audience, however. This Wilbert Holloway cartoon concerns the Supreme Court's decision that it had no jurisdiction to rule in Curtis & Corrigan v. Buckley et al., a case contesting the legality of private contracts restricting the sale of homes to Black persons.

The case made by the bill is this: the parties are citizens of the United States, residing in the District [of Columbia]. The plaintiff and the defendant Corrigan are white persons, and the defendant Curtis is a person of the negro race. In 1921, thirty white persons, including the plaintiff and the defendant Corrigan, owning twenty-five parcels of land, improved by dwelling houses, situated on S Street, between 18th and New Hampshire Avenue, in the City of Washington, executed an indenture, duly recorded, in which they recited that, for their mutual benefit and the best interests of the neighborhood comprising these properties, they mutually covenanted and agreed that no part of these properties should ever be used or occupied by, or sold, leased or given to, any person of the negro race or blood, and that this covenant should run with the land and bind their respective heirs and assigns for twenty-one years from and after its date.

Justice Edward T. Sanford delivered the Court's decision that the 5th, 13th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution did not apply to private contracts. Sanford, a Harding appointee from Tennessee, was a friend and protegé of Chief Justice William Howard Taft. Like Taft a conservative jurist, his earlier majority opinion in Gitlow v. New York ironically established precedent for the liberal Warren Court's decisions expanding civil rights. 

When It's Least Expected, You're Elected

Our Graphical History Tour returns to Iowa in 1926

"Making a Banquet for the Democrats" by J.N. "Ding" Darling in Des Moines Register, June 4, 1926

If you were on the Tour when we welcomed "Ding" Darling back to his drawing board in April, you may remember Senator Smith Wildman Brookhart, a Progressive Republican whose 1924 election win was overturned by his fellow Senators almost a year and a half after Iowans had cast their votes. The Republicans in the majority decided that they would rather add Daniel Steck to the Democratic minority than continue suffering Brookhart in their own caucus.

Brookhart, wielding an axe on the left in Darling's cartoon, immediately announced that he would challenge Iowa's other Senator, Republican Albert Cummins (with the sword in the foreground). Darling includes a third Republican candidate, Howard Clark, a banker who offered himself as a compromise candidate.

"Why Good Men Don't Go In For Politics" by J.N. "Ding" Darling in Des Moines Register, June 6, 1926

The leading two candidates ran a bitter race for the time. The incumbent campaigned on a motto of "Cummins or Communism”; Brookhart complained that a railroads bill Cummins had co-sponsored benefited Wall Street at farmers' expense.  

"Well, Now Where To" by Ed LeCocq in Des Moines Evening Tribune, June 8, 1926

When the sun came up after election day, Brookhart had bested the rest of the field, winning just over 50% of Republicans' votes. (Senator Cummins died the next month at age 75; attorney David Stewart was appointed to serve out the remaining months of Cummins's term.)

"Hoeing His Own Row" by Bill Sykes in Life, June 3, 1926

Brookart's victory was widely seen as a rebuke to Republicans and the Coolidge administration for shelving the McNary-Haugen Farm Relief Bill, a central theme of Brookhart's campaign. Responding to a post-war drop in the price of American farm crops, the bill's sponsors, both Republicans, proposed having the federal government buy a set amount from farmers to sell at a loss.

"He Don't Know Nothin' About Hosses" by J.P. Alley in Memphis Commercial Appeal, June 9, 1926

McNary-Haugen was opposed by laissez-faire business interests, predominantly in eastern states, as costing money, involving the government in business, and encouraging farmers to reduce production. Big business and the railroad magnates further objected to the bill's endorsement of farmers banding together in cooperatives to negotiate commodities price levels.

"Now, Consarn Ye, Don't Go Hog-Wild" by J.P. Alley in Memphis Commercial Appeal, June 10, 1926

Smith Brookhart's primary win was another in a series of rebukes by the party faithful to one aspect or another of Coolidge administration policies. 

"Lotsa Pep" by Dorman H. Smith for Newspaper Enterprise Assn., ca. June 12, 1926

Brookhart, by the way, was a staunch advocate of Prohibition, although cartoonists overlooked that aspect of his election; Cummins and Clark supported it, too, and Coolidge was pledged to enforce it. Prohibition, rather than agricultural subsidies, had been the dominant issue in the primary elections in Pennsylvania in May (we visited them here). 

But now Quaker State Republicans had a new issue.

"The Biggest Parade Yet" by Jesse Cargill for Central Press Assn., ca. June 16, 1926

Reflecting new electioneering methods of the 20th Century, campaign spending on the Pennsylvania primaries prompted congressional hearings in June, as it was revealed to have reached levels unheard of to that date. 

Jesse Cargill's cartoon recalls the previously unprecedented spending by Republican Truman H. Newberry in his 1918 primary race against Henry Ford for Michigan's Senate seat. Newberry's conviction for having spent ten times the maximum legal amount of $10,000 allowed under the Corrupt Practices Act was overturned by the Supreme Court, on the grounds that the federal government had no authority to regulate partisan primary elections. Newberry ended up resigning from the Senate in 1922, anyway.

"Late Primary Returns" by Nelson Harding in Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 16, 1926

Nelson Harding rests this cartoon on the actual dollar amounts reportedly spent by the Republican gubernatorial and senatorial candidates. If they seem almost quaint today, I'd note that they dwarf Mr. Newberry's expenditures to insignificance.

Adjusted for inflation, the 2026 amounts would be $20,885,171 by Pepper-Fisher, $11,221,269 by Vare-Beidelman, and $3,668,864 by Pinchot.

"And They All Chipped In" by Rollin Kirby in New York World, ca. June 28, 1926

While a main focus of the Pennsylvania primaries was on the issue of Prohibition, Rollin Kirby did not spare criticism of the Manufacturers Association. (It should also be noted that the majority of Gov. Gifford Pinchot's campaign expenditures came from his own very deep pockets.)

And since we're updating earlier History Tour stops...

"Not Very Neighborly" by John T. McCutcheon in Chicago Tribune, June 11, 1926

The governments of Great Lakes states from Wisconsin to Ohio opposed a plan to connect Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River through Chicago's sanitary district canal. Arguing in its favor, the Chicago Tribune concluded that "it becomes increasingly difficult to find any motive behind their antagonism other than a great sectional selfishness."

"Among all the voices raised against the Mississippi valley waterway proposal, those of Michigan and Ohio have perhaps been the loudest. The Mississippi valley states are constrained to wonder whether it is entirely coincidence that Michigan and Ohio, are, of all the central western states, the most advantageously placed in relation to the St. Lawrence route to the sea, their ports of Toledo and Detroit standing at the head of Lake Erie, obviating the need of passing around the whole state of Michigan, as must ships from Illinois, Indiana, western Michigan, and Wisconsin ports.

"It seems strange indeed that Wisconsin, Indiana, and western Michigan are not with the Mississippi valley on the side of the waterway. ... Their natural route to the sea is by way of the Mississippi, not the St. Lawrence. The valley states search for their reason and find nothing but the Chicago diversion — a five inch lowering of the lake levels out of a total lowering of almost three feet."

"While Rip Van Winkle Snores" by Hal Donahey in Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 12, 1926

The Cleveland Plain Dealer countered,

"Advocates of the rivers and harbors bill now pending in the senate, which authorizes the improvement of the Illinois river and by clear implication recognizes the legality of Chicago's attack on the level of the lakes, try constantly to make it appear that opponents are opposed to a waterway from Lake Michigan to the gulf. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

"Every speaker representing the interests threatened by Chicago's continued extraction of water has made it plain that the fight of Ohio and other lake states is not against a lakes-to-gulf canal but is against a policy which for twenty-five years has been raiding the commerce of the lakes...

"This rivers and harbors bill as it passed the house over the protest of practically every member of the lake district, except those from Illinois, is almost a perfect example of pork barrel legislation."

In another editorial, the Tribune attacked what it called "the Ohio gang," which the Plain Dealer presumed meant diversion opponents Senator Frank Willis and Rep. Theodore Burton.

"For some years, Ohio has been the brat of the American family," the Tribune fulminated, "overfed and dirty. If Congress can't wash its ears and keep it in its place, the Mississippi valley will see that the effects are felt in Congress."

"You Can't Blame the Children" by Jesse Cargill for Central Press Assn., ca. June 19, 1926

Canadian editorial cartoonists who had weighed in against Chicago's lakes-to-gulf canal in earlier stops of our Graphical History Tour were silent on the U.S. Congress's Rivers and Harbors bill in June, distracted by other matters. We'll turn to their issues later this month.

"Liable to Get His Feet Wet" by Sam Hunter in Toronto Daily Star, June 11, 1926

Although Sam Hunter did take a moment to keep Toronto readers apprised of that Iowa senate primary.

Q Toon: Remembering Barney Frank

I promised to draw a memorial cartoon for the late Congressman Barney Frank, the first gay member of Congress to out himself, and here it is. 

The quotation in my cartoon is from a January 12, 2009 New Yorker article by Jeffrey Toobin, and it's a slightly condensed version of a statement Barney Frank had made on the House floor the previous March.

It's important to point out that in 2009, none of the rights he was advocating for — marriage equality, the end of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," or Employment Non-Discrimination — were yet the law of the land. And none of them came about by acts of Congress, meaning that any of them could be negated by an antigay president, Supreme Court, or Secretary of Whatever They're Calling What We're Doing In Iran These Days.

Barney Frank made these statements in response to Republicans who charged that advocating these rights was "radical" (a boiler plate response by Republicans to any Democratic proposal, even those that borrow from Republican ones).

But Frank was an incrementalist, which resulted in attacks from the idealists and purists to his left. Transgender advocates are still upset by his willingness to excise them from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in order to get Congress to pass workplace protections for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals — a ploy that failed anyway.

He was defensive about that in his final interview, with Lou Chibarro, Jr. in Washington Blade, but confident that the protections afforded by Bostock v. Clayton County would stand:

Blade: Are you saying we may not need an LGBTQ non-discrimination act by Congress for the states that haven’t passed that?

Frank: I would be in favor of that, yes. But again, I think you and I – you have always been pessimistic. There is a political time now that works in our favor. And as I said, on abortion, they burned themselves very badly on abortion. And yes, I’m still for a national anti-discrimination bill. But I do not think the right wing wants to be caught taking rights away that already exist. Because that’s a lot harder than denying them in the first place. And I don’t see any movement for that. You tell me what you are worried about. What bills are you worried about? 

Blade: I was simply saying they haven’t yet passed a federal non-discrimination bill. 

Frank: No, what’s going to change on the Supreme Court? I don’t see a pretty quick reversal on the Supreme Court. So, I think people are just – they have to have a cause. And they are inflating the likelihood that we are going to lose some rights when I see no evidence of it. And in fact, I see a lot of political reasons why those in Congress don’t want to do that.

Perhaps he was correct that "people's rights to get married, join the army, and make a living" are mainstream values now.

That assumes that there is a "mainstream" any more.

"The left and the right live in parallel universes. The right listens to talk radio, the left's on the internet, and they just reinforce one another. They have no sense of reality." ― Barney Frank

Toon: The 60% Solution

At the risk of giving GQP politicians ideas...

On April 29, well ahead of its usual timetable of issuing rulings in June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a congressional map that had been the result of a lawsuit against Louisiana's 2021 redistricting plan. A lower court had ruled that the 2021 map packed the state's Black voters into a single congressional district in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Supremes continued their gutting of that Act, decreeing that as long as lawmakers are not actually wearing swastikas and Klan robes when they draw congressional district lines, they can discriminate against whomever they want.

Louisiana Republicans immediately called a halt to the state's primary elections in which early voting was already underway, so that they could re-redraw district boundaries. (Yesterday’s Senate primary went right on ahead as scheduled.) Fellow Republicans in Tennessee, Alabama, and Utah hurriedly followed suit.

This mid-decade scramble to jigger maps to tilt districts against Democrats was started by Donald Gimme-Gimme Trump's gerrymandering demand to the state of Texas — a demand with which Texan Republicans eagerly and speedily complied. 

Democrats have attempted to answer Texas's unprecedented move, but with mixed results. California drew up new Democrat-favoring maps; but Maryland refused to. New York is constitutionally prevented from mid-decade redistricting, and Virginia's high court tossed out a pro-redistricting popular vote on a legislative technicality that nobody seems to quite understand. The Supreme Court in D.C., after rushing to overrule the lower court ruling in Louisiana, has just decided to let the ruling in Virginia stand without comment.

Is my cartoon really such a far-fetched notion? I wouldn't put it past today's ReTrumplicans to push exactly this idea through every legislature in Dixie and the Great Plains.

Q Toon: None Taken

The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a pair of cases over transgender student athletes' rights in Idaho and West Virginia. The two states are among several Republican-run states with blanket bans prohibiting transgender youth from participating in school athletics.

That the present Republican majority will rule against the two girls is sadly a foregone conclusion; the only suspense is whether their ruling will be so broad as to prevent transgender students from athletic activities anywhere, or so narrow as to apply only to Idaho and West Virginia.

The primary concern of the majority justices appears to be how the lawyers arguing on behalf of the two athletes want to define what a female is and whether laws prohibiting gender discrimination apply to that definition. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are predictably hostile to non-cisgender, non-heterosexual plaintiffs, but former girls’ basketball coach Brett Kavanaugh took a moment to offer sympathy to transgender student athletes. That sympathy, however, is countered by his sympathy for hypothetical cisgender student athletes who don't make the team:

“I hate–hate that a kid who wants to play sports might not be able to play sports. I hate that,” Kavanaugh said. “But … it’s kind of a zero-sum game for a lot of teams. And someone who tries out and makes it, who is a transgender girl, will bump from the starting lineup, from playing time, from the team, from the all league, and those things matter to people big time, will bump someone else.”

“We have to recognize on both sides the zero-sum. It’s not like, ‘Oh, just add another person to the team.’ That’s not how sports works. ... Someone else is going to get disadvantaged.”

It’s a shame that there isn’t enough room on a team’s bench for everybody who was promised a seat.

Q Toon: Just Deserted

The Supreme Court declined to hear Kim Davis's appeal of a $100,000 judgment against her in suit brought against her by David Moore and David Ermold because she refused to issue them a marriage license.

Davis was elected Rowan County Clerk as a Democrat in 2014, a position whose job description includes the issuing of marriage licenses. When the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision made marriage equality the law of the land in 2015, the Davids applied for a marriage license; but she refused "under God's authority" and told them to go to some other county. She then went further and stopped issuing marriage licenses to all applicants to protest the prospect of having to issue them to same-sex couples.

Two different lawsuits followed: one by Moore and Ermold, who contended that she had violated their constitutional right to marry; and one challenging her refusal to issue any marriage licenses. In the latter case, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to issue licenses to both gay and straight couples. That prompted Moore and Ermold to try once again to obtain a license, but Davis and her deputies rejected that request, as well. Kentucky eventually enacted a law that would accommodate county clerks like Davis by removing their names and signatures from the forms used for marriage licenses. 

Moore and Ermold’s case against Davis went to trial, and a jury awarded each of them $50,000. Davis then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which upheld that award. It rejected Davis’ argument that requiring her to issue a marriage license to Moore and Ermold would have violated her First Amendment right to freely exercise her religion. In that court’s view, because Davis was acting on behalf of the government when she refused to issue the license, her actions were not protected by the First Amendment. 

In the meantime, Davis switched her party affiliation to Republican as the Grand Old Party rallied around her as a cause celebre. Republican Presidential candidates fought over who got to champion her case loudest (see this cartoon). Rowan County voters, however, threw her out of office in the next election.

Marriage equality advocates were quite worried that the current Supreme Court would seize on Davis's case as a vehicle to overturn Obergefell. The right-wing supermajority on the Court today includes three of the justices who ruled in the minority, two of whom, Thomas and Alito, have been very vocal in their continued opposition to the decision. They have been joined by Trump appointees who have demonstrated that their lip service to the concept of stare decisis ain't worth a 2015 penny.

This Supreme Court has already decreed that wedding cake bakers, florists, and pharmacists are free to discriminate against whomever they dislike, provided they claim that God made them do it. And along comes Davis asking to extend the privilege to public servants.

So virtually everyone was surprised when the Court refused to hear her appeal. One has to assume that the current majority thought that Davis's case made for lousy law.

They're probably waiting for another case better suited to putting an end to same-sex marriage, even when the County Clerk is pleased to assist the happy couple.

Q Toon: Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Go Back in the Lair

He's back! And just in time for Hallowe'en.

The Supreme Court heard opening arguments in Chiles v. Salazar last week.

Kaley Chiles, who bills herself as a Christian therapist, has sued the state of Colorado over its Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), which bars mental health professionals from offering "conversion therapy," the widely discredited practice of pressuring a patient who identifies as LGBTQ+ to change their sexual orientation.

Chiles, who is a practicing Christian, contends that although she does not try to “convert” her clients, she does try to help them with objectives that may include “seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions” or becoming more comfortable with their bodies. Chiles filed a lawsuit in Colorado, asking a federal court to block the state from enforcing the conversion therapy ban against her.

Colorado has not taken any action to enforce its ban against Chiles, or, for that matter, anyone else during the six years that the MCTL has been on its books, which brings into question what standing she has to bring a case to the nation's highest court. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out, "we [even] have the entity charged with administering the law saying 'We’re not going to apply it to your kind of … therapy.'" 

That didn't stop the right-wing "Alliance Defending Freedom" from bringing the case before a Court majority eager to overrule Colorado's legislature, or the Absolutely Corrupt Trump Regime™ from filing an amicus curiae brief in support. Calling Colorado's law "blatant viewpoint discrimination," Justice Samuel Alito, for one, agrees with the plaintiff's argument that while the law does allow exceptions for religious practice, it violates her freedom of speech.

Twenty other states have laws similar to Colorado's MCTL, which could very well be rendered moot by Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Comey Barrett, and Roberts, in spite of bipartisan, professional and religious condemnation of conversion practices. Even some former "ex-gay" advocates have weighed in against conversion therapy:

"We once believed that there was something morally wrong and psychologically 'broken' about being LGBTQ. We know better now. We once believed that sexual orientation or gender identity were somehow chosen or could be changed. We know better now. We once thought it was impossible to embrace our sexual orientation or gender identity as an intrinsic, healthy part of who we are and who we were created to be. We know better now...

"In light of this, we now stand united in our conviction that conversion therapy is not 'therapy,' but is instead both ineffective and harmful. We align ourselves with every major mainstream professional medical and mental health organization in denouncing attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity."

But we now live in a country where the conspiracy fabulists in charge of the nation's health care system have not merely freedom of speech but governmental imprimatur to say Tylenol causes autism, salmonella is good for you, and gender identity is a figment of your imagination. And any medical professional who disagrees is free to find other employment whether they want to or not.

And where a majority on the Supreme Court are free to prescribe the U.S. Constitution some conversion therapy into Project 2025.

Q Toon: Whatever Happened?

Since Max has asked:

A weekly editorial cartoon might not have been the best medium for an extended story arc. I have publications running my cartoons that only publish biweekly or monthly, for one thing. There are other news events worthy of comment a lot of the time. And installments like today’s lack a specifically LGBTQ+ element.

Last February, I drew a cartoon in which Max, the MAGA half of the Max and Leo household, discovered that Leo had been swept up in an ICE abduction action while volunteering at a food pantry. I anticipated that this Completely Corrupt Trump Regime's modus operandi would be similar to that of its previous iteration: incarcerate people in cells and cages, and dump them back in their nations of origin.

Instead, the Trump Troopers are now sentencing its captives without due process or fair trial to life imprisonment in squalid, Kafkaesque concentration camps in third world dictatorships, notably El Salvador, South Sudan, and Florida. 

You may have thought that the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect persons against unreasonable search and seizure and deprivation of liberty without due process, and guarantee trial by an impartial jury. Our professed "strict constructionists" on the republic's highest court, however, have discovered a much looser interpretation of the nation's founding document.

Meanwhile, it has been three months since an ICE guard at the concentration camp where Leo has been held took note of the tattoo of Max’s initials on Leo's butt and misread it as "MS13." 

Given our polICE state enforcers’ policy of Deport ’Em All, Let History Sort ’Em Out, it doesn't seem reasonable to imagine that someone at Stalag Trumpteen would suddenly realize that Leo was swept up by mistake in that ethnic cleansing sweep back in February and send him home now.

Nor has the Trump regime chickened out on their goal of an Aryan Nation. Rather, when it comes to reining in executive branch overreach, it is the current Supreme Court that Always Chickens Out.

Eyes on Julies

It's sabbath time again, so strap on your dust masks and join our Graphical History Tour as we rummage through my old cartoon files. What cherished treasures shall we find from Julies (that is the plural of July, isn't it?) of ten, twenty, thirty, and forty years ago?

for Q Syndicate, July, 2015

Ten Julies ago, the sovereign state of Texas spared no expense to monitor a U.S. military exercise named Jade Helm. A Russian disinformation campaign was apparently responsible for convincing Lone Star politicians that Jade Helm was part of some nefarious scheme by the Obama administration to round up political dissidents and ... I dunno, ship them off to an El Salvadoran concentration camp, I suppose.

Weeks before the exercise began, [Gov. Greg] Abbott wrote a letter to the State Guard asking them to keep an eye on the operation so “Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.”

Undeterred by embarrassment over his overreaction to a routine military training exercise, Gov. Abbott and the Texas State Guard have been keeping a close eye on the current round-up of political dissidents, and the infringement of safety, constitutional rights, private property rights, and civil liberties in Texas and elsewhere.

Ain't sneakin' a dang thing past them folks, pardner.

Insert here your own tasteless flooding remark that gets you cancelled by the vast right-wing conspiracy.

✍

Digging back another ten years to July, 2005:

for Q Syndicate, July, 2005

Dancing up a storm, four-year-old Jack Roberts upstaged his father's nomination to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in July, 2005. With a Republican majority in the Senate sure to confirm the President George Dubya Bush nominee, right-wing judicial activists also rejoiced.

He was replacing the far-right William Rehnquist, nominated to the Court by Richard Nixon and elevated to Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan, so Roberts's nomination wasn't exactly a tear-out-your-hair-the-sky-is-falling moment for liberal interests.

As Circuit Court of Appeals Judge in 2003, John Roberts had pooh-poohed concerns over what he called "a hapless toad" in a lawsuit brought against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service by a San Diego real estate developer whose planned housing development included breeding grounds of the arroyo southwestern toad. Roberts, dissenting from the Court of Appeals finding, agreed with the developer's argument that the toads had no connection to any economic or interstate activity and had no commercial value, so their protection was unrelated to interstate commerce and thus unconstitutional.

✍

in InStep, Milwaukee, July 20, 1995

This was my first cartoon in one of Wisconsin's LGBTQ+ newspapers. I didn't start drawing regularly for InStep ("Wisconsin's LesBiGay Newsmagazine") until a year later, so I wasn't yet listed as a columnist or contributor on the masthead.

Jesse Helms, for those of you too young to remember, was a virulently antigay Republican Senator from North Carolina. His racist and homophobic campaign ads cemented his national reputation as the Senate's leading culture warrior. He authored an amendment, passed with President Reagan's full support, to the 1987 AIDS appropriation bill, prohibiting the use of federal funding for any HIV/AIDS educational materials that would "promote or encourage, directly or indirectly, homosexual activities" served to exacerbate the spread of the disease.

He stubbornly opposed all federal spending on HIV/AIDS research in each and every budget cycle (hence my cartoon) throughout his Senate tenure. He retired in January, 2003, died in 2008, and I'm not sorry that he's gone.

✍

As it happens, I cannot find a single cartoon that I drew the entire month of July, 1985.

It's not for want of cartoonable news stories. At the time, I had discovered that while the local university newspaper was only too happy to have my editorial cartoons, daily newspapers around the country were, shall we say, a bit more discriminating in their tastes. With the UW-Parkside Ranger on summer hiatus, the impetus to keep drawing (particularly while maintaining a second-shift job that had nothing to do with publishing) just wasn't as urgent.

Since I have nothing of my own to show for the month, I'll close instead with a July, 1985 cartoon by Steve Benson, who succumbed this week to a devastating stroke that he suffered soon after retiring from the edtooning biz last year.

"Could You Describe Your Feelings" by Steve Benson in Arizona Republic, July, 1985

Benson, a grandson of former Agriculture Secretary cum Mormon Church President Ezra Taft Benson, started out his career during the Carter administration as a conservative. But by the time I met him, at the 2015 convention of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, he had gone fully left-wing libertarian, proselytizing atheist, and rabble rouser. 

At the 2015 AAEC convention panel "Free Speech or Hate Speech?" Per the October 2015 edition of AAEC's Notebook: "Steve Benson arose to pose the question he was asked by one of his editors. If he were to do a Muhammad cartoon, he would be putting himself at risk—but also every other staff member of his newspaper (Arizona Republic). By what right was he entitled to endanger everyone around him?" I remember it as having been a much longer question.

By all accounts, he held strong opinions, and wasn't the least bit shy about sharing them at length. His conversion from right to left and from religious to atheist must have been a seismic shock to those who lived and worked closely with him.

I was not one of them. I wish I had had the opportunity to get to know him better, but by the time I finally made it to another AAEC convention, he had stopped attending them — permanently, as it turned out. I don't know why.

Maybe it's not exactly appropriate to wish Rest In Peace to someone who rejected the whole idea of any sort of afterlife, but... well... So long. Peace out.

And thanks for giving us hope that not all conservatives are lost souls.

Q Toon: Parental Rights and Wrongs

The Supreme Court wrapped up its work for the litigation season at the end of June, its 6-to-3 right-wing supermajority handing down a thoroughly predictable series of rulings in support of Trumpster goodthink.

Of interest and disappointment to the LGBTQ+ community, the Court ruled in Mahmoud v. Taylor in favor of a group of parents who demanded to exempt their children from exposure to LGBTQ+ history and literature. The Muslim, Ukrainian Orthodox, and Catholic litigants had sued the Montgomery County, Maryland, school board to provide alternative curricula for their children. 

The dispute stems from the county school board’s 2022 approval of books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for use in its language-arts curriculum. One book, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, tells the story of a little girl’s reaction to her uncle’s same-sex wedding; another book, Pride Puppy, describes a puppy that becomes lost during a Pride parade. 

The county initially allowed parents to excuse their children from instruction using the LGBTQ-themed storybooks. When the county removed that option in 2023, several parents went to federal court.

Writing for the majority, Dubya-appointed Justice Samuel Alito “what the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement that burdens their well-established right ‘to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children.’”

Clinton nominee Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, countered that the Court's grant of a parental right to veto LGBTQ+-positive public school curriculum materials on religious grounds could mean that “books on evolution and interfaith marriage, and history may be next.”

It's easy to imagine that today's Court majority would have no problem with that.

Meanwhile, the Supremes declined to rule whether parental rights exist outside of their religious rights. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Court ruled Tennessee's SB1 (the number indicating it was the state senate's most urgent business this session) banning medical care for transgender minors, even against the wishes of patient, parents, and medical professionals.

No, parents: you and your transgender child have no say in the child's health care. That is up to the State. No opt-out for you.

The plaintiffs had tried to argue that Skrmetti was about gender discrimination: e.g., a minor the state identifies as male could be prescribed hormone blockers, but a minor the state identifies as female cannot. Chief Justice John Roberts rejected that argument, because the second patient is being discriminated against for being transgender, not for being female, and that's okay.

Influence of Skrmetti has already begun to spread to other transgender concerns. The Seventh Circuit vacated its prior rulin g against anti-trans bathroom policies in public schools. The Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have been instructed to review two decisions involving Medicaid exclusions for gender-affirming medical care, one involving public teachers health insurance plans, and one involving birth certificate policies.

If nobody can come up with a religious liberty argument in favor of transgender medical care, health insurance coverage, and lavatory use, perhaps, my cartoon character suggests, someone could at least raise a faith-based objection to the State mandating who The Lord Your God is.

But I suspect the theocrats on the Court would find some excuse to find reason to infringe that particular religious exercise.

June Toons, Goons, and Honeymoons

Today's Graphical History Tour whisks us through four decades worth of my editorial cartoons in Junes.

Bergetoons.com Exclusive! June, 1985

Since I was drawing exclusively for the UW-Parkside Ranger in 1985, and they didn't publish during the summer, it appears that this is the the one and only cartoon I committed to bristol board in the first month of their summer vacation.

I had taken a second-shift job to pay the bills, but it didn't pay enough for me to afford a vacation myself. For that matter, it wasn't great at paying the bills, either.

At any rate, for the benefit of any editor and publisher types who have difficulty understanding editorial cartoons, I was commenting on the impotence of the U.S. nuclear arsenal when faced with a terrorist action — in this case, the hijacking of TWA flight 847.

On June 14, Shi'ite terrorists hijacked the Cairo-to-San Diego flight during its Athens-to-Rome leg, forcing it to land in Beirut. They held passengers and crew hostage for 17 days, while forcing the plane to fly back and forth from there to Algiers. The hijackers separated hostages with Jewish-sounding names and sent them to a Shia-controlled prison in Beirut. They also executed U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem, throwing his body onto the tarmac and shooting his corpse some more.

The ordeal was immensely frustrating for the Ronald Reagan administration, which had come to office largely thanks to portraying Jimmy Carter's response to the Iran hostage crisis as ineffective. The crisis ended only after Israel agreed to release some Lebanese prisoners.

One of the hijackers, Mohammed ali Hammadi, was arrested in West Germany two years later, tried, and sentenced to life in prison, but released on parole in 2005. He was fatally shot outside his home in the Beqaa Valley by unknown gunmen this past January. The remaining hijackers have been at large for the past four decades.

✍

Jumping ahead to June of 1995, I feel like the local newscaster tasked with segueing from a tragic news story of death and destruction to a feel-good feature item about cute puppies delighting residents of an assisted living home. 

But it is Pride Month, after all.

"Consider the Source" in Lavender Lifestyles, Minneapolis, June 27, 1995

My very dear friend from college days, Jeff, asked me to draw this illustration in June of 1995. His friend Julie Daffyd wrote a regular gossip/dish/advice/humor column, "Consider the Source," in one of the Twin Cities' LGBTQ+ publications; if I recall correctly, she wanted a caricature of herself on the publication's Pride float surrounded by a bevy of pulchritudinous hunks.

Commissioning for a caricature of yourself is a risky move, especially for publication. She must not have been terribly upset at how I drew her, however, as she had Jeff ask me for one more later on. But only once more.

✍

Setting the WABAC machine for June of  2005:

in Business Journal of Greater Milwaukee, June 17, 2005

Here's one I have always been pleased with, mostly on account of how the light and shade worked out.

The Northridge Mall was a failed shopping center on Milwaukee's far north side; and what is astonishing here is that, in spite of becoming a target for graffiti, drug use, and arson, it has taken twenty more years after I drew this cartoon to get Northridge Mall torn down. It closed for good in 2003; a home goods store and a grocery store opened on the property for a while, but proposals to revitalize the mall itself went nowhere.

The mall was bought in 2014 by an investment company in China, U.S. Black Spruce Enterprise Group, which then spent years fighting the City of Milwaukee's efforts to condemn the building (and has refused to pay for Milwaukee Fire Department responses to arson fires there). In 2023, Governor Tony Evers authorized a $15 million grant to the city for Northridge's demolition, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of this year.

✍

Last but not least, our Tour makes one of  our most popular stops, June of 2015.

for Q Syndicate and on Fusion.net, June/July, 2015

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of marriage equality in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges. Each of the four dissenting justices, pictured in my cartoon, published his own dissenting opinion, a rather unusual move. While it is not uncommon for a justice to issue a concurring or a separate dissenting opinion, seldom have we ever seen four dissenting opinions on the same case.

Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito basically agreed in their contention that the Court majority was overstepping jurisprudence because the U.S. Constitution does not specifically mention a right to marry one's sweetheart. Scalia, citing the precedent of Jiggery v. Pokery, and Alito protested that defining marriage is the purview of state legislatures, not the federal government. Thomas wrote that marriage equality for same-sex couples violated homophobes' First Amendment right of religious freedom.

This serves as a reminder that there is a right-wing Republican supermajority on the Court now, and this is the month to expect a flurry of rulings on everything from health care for transgender youth, to religious liberties, to voting rights, to gun control, to environmental protection. The three Justices elevated by the Blatantly Corrupt Trump Maladministration since I drew this cartoon have moved the Court so far to the right that Amy Comey Barrett passes for the Court's "swing vote."

Under cover of the daily Trumpster fire these days, who knows what draconian, puritan mischief the current Supreme Court will be able to get away with?