A Cartoon That I'm Happy Not to Draw

I’m a pessimist, and I drew this sketch, anticipating that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court would strike down Obamacare this morning -of-course, I’m a lazy pessimist, so I didn’t actually draw the finished cartoon in advance, just a sketch so I could knock it out faster this morning. Some other cartoonists actually drew two cartoons in advance, anticipating different outcomes.

The Court surprised me and upheld Obamacare, so I’m delighted not to be finishing the drawing!

RELATED: Our cartoons about the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare

By Daryl Cagle

Daryl Cagle is the founder and owner of Cagle Cartoons, Inc. He is one of the most widely published editorial cartoonists and is also the editor of The Cagle Post.

8 replies on “A Cartoon That I'm Happy Not to Draw”

The Tea Baggers can only blame the Republicans, because that's who put John Roberts on the Supreme Court as Chief Justice.

Those Republicans, like Cagle, assumed their appointees would toe the party line and kill Health Care Reform. None of them gave Justice Roberts any credit for his honesty and integrity. Now they are disapointed in his decision and everyone else is astonished.

The reason? Nobody expected any honesty or integrity from the conservative Cheif Justice because we see so little of it from the presumptive G-O-P standard bearer, their Speaker of the House and most of their Congressional delligation.

I'm old enough to remember Sen. Dirkson of Illinois and Cong. Halleck of Indiana when those conservatives were G-O-P leaders. They worked WITH Democratic leaders to get things done for all Americans, rathedr than just their most wealthy supporters.

It's too bad the current G-O-P has foregotten that lesson.

The Roberts ruling brilliantly threads the needle: it gives the lowly rated SC some appearance of not being partisan, it respects the legislative function of government (and thus avoids the criticism of judicial activism) and it gives the Republicans a powerful tool to campaign on, with the potential of winning the election (running against "unwanted taxes" and then repealing it in Congress.

Clearly, the rejected commerce clause justification that Roberts dismissed, is applicable, as the Federal government has for a long time regulated (along with states) auto insurance. Healthcare insurance companies operate among the states and nationally, so they are subject to the commerce clause. But by rejedting he has attached a dreaded feature to the HC Act, namely taxes.

That;s all we will hear from now on, the unwanted tax of healthcare, repeated endlessly. Will it work?
How the hell should I know?

And Eisenhower, and Senator Cahill (NJ), et al. It used to be a political party of pretty respectable and principled people. It used to be a real alternative to the Democratic Party. It used to be……..

Well if old Bonner would quit crying and wake up to realize that the American people do want health care maybe something positive would get done in Washington for a change!

"A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June." 9/09

The lowest public option approval was 57% (Wash Post/ABC News) and the highest poll approval was 82%.

The Act not liked because the public option approved by the House was removed by Senate conservatives, a slap in the face to a strong majority of Americans who want the choice of a private or public plan. Choice is freedom: Americans don't like being stripped of their freedom to choose.

Comments are closed.