100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
http://nypost.com/2016/02/14/scalias-gift-to-america-saving-the-supreme-court/ Scalia’s gift to America — saving the Supreme Court By Post Editorial Board Modal TriggerTrigger Scalia’s gift to America — saving the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death at 79 robs the high court of one of its most important and influential jurists ever. President Obama’s announced intent to choose Scalia’s successor promises a bitter battle — and a futile one: No Supreme Court nominee been named and confirmed in a presidential election year since 1940. Nor should partisan rancor overshadow the record Scalia built in three decades on the high court, whose fundamental outlook he helped redefine through his brilliant mind, pointed wit and zest for intellectual combat. A Jersey native who grew up in Elmhurst, Queens, Scalia was already the leader of the fight against judicial activism when he became the first Italian-American justice. Indeed, as Elena Kagan said long before she joined the high court, Scalia “really transformed the terms of legal debate in this country. He is the justice who has had the most important impact over the years on how we think and talk about law.” Scalia was the most eloquent and passionate advocate of “original understanding” — the notion that judges should decide a law’s constitutionality by its actual words, not the “intent” behind it or the needs of society. “It is not supposed to be our judgment as to what is the socially desirable answer to all of these questions,” he said. “That’s supposed to be the judgment of Congress.” Indeed, he wrote in one of his many memorable opinions, “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.” He believed not in a “living” Constitution, subject to “the passions of the moment that may cause individual liberties to be disregarded,” but an “enduring” one, dedicated to federalism and the separation of powers. Which is why, though a strong social conservative, he argued that Constitution neither guarantees the right to an abortion nor precludes the states from allowing it. This divide over the purpose of judicial power is the main reason confirmation fights have become circuses. Scalia was confirmed unanimously — which would never happen today. In his remarkable 30-year tenure, Scalia became the left’s favorite judicial bogeyman. Yet his closest personal relationships on the court were with his two most liberal colleagues, Justices Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who once said, “I love him. But sometimes I just want to strangle him.” Best known for his thunderous dissents, he also penned (at least) his share of than landmark majority opinions. Everything he wrote was eminently quotable. As Terry Eastland noted in The Weekly Standard a decade ago, Scalia wrote for the long term, aiming to influence the next generation of lawyers. That he most certainly did — and this nation and its rule of law are much the better for it. RIP. Filed under antonin scalia , editorial , Ginsburg : that is her quote, however she said that in reference to an argument over opera. Which they both loved & had in common. This is in other recent articles * ---------------------------------------- Top Stories: Antonin Scalia’s Death Puts A Spotlight On West Texas By Krystina Martinez • 6 hours ago Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died at Cibolo Creek Ranch, a remote resort ranch south of Marfa. http://keranews.org/post/top-stories-antonin-scalia-s-death-puts-spotlight-west-texas/ * AUDIO- 07:36 seconds* The top local stories this morning from KERA News: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death this weekend has caused a scramble in Washington to find his replacement. It’s also put a spotlight on West Texas. Scalia died at a remote resort ranch in West Texas. The location was so far removed that the inquest had to be done by telephone.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
washingtonpost.com
Conspiracy theories swirl around the death of Antonin Scalia http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/15/conspiracy-theories-swirl-around-the-death-of-antonin-scalia/ * Video 01:23, embedded links, pics* ------------------- EVIDENCE POINTS TO SCALIA ASSASSINATION: http://youtu.be/sA5aBmkYF6Y/ --------------------------------- Supreme Court Nominee - How Process Works & BILLS http://youtu.be/Qm5uhwREJkA/ Scalia WOULD of had a huge impact on these issues.. 1- Imigration - Abortion rights 3- Union Labor ---------------------------------------- Washington Post Two days after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in remote West Texas, a former D.C. homicide commander is raising questions about how the death was handled by local and federal authorities. “As a former homicide commander, I am stunned that no autopsy was ordered for Justice Scalia,” William O. Ritchie, former head of criminal investigations for D.C. police, wrote in a post on Facebook on Sunday. [The death of Antonin Scalia: Chaos, confusion and conflicting reports] Scalia was found dead in his room at a luxury hunting resort in the state’s Big Bend region by the resort’s owner. It took hours for authorities to find a justice of the peace. When they did, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body — which is permissible under Texas law — and without ordering an autopsy. On Sunday, the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides security for Supreme Court justices, said that Scalia had declined a security detail while at the ranch, so marshals were not present when he died. When the marshals were notified, deputy marshals from the Western District of Texas went to the scene, the service said in a statement. Guevara said she declared Scalia dead based on information from law enforcement officials on the scene, who assured her that “there were no signs of foul play.” She also spoke to Scalia’s doctor, who told her that the justice had been to see him Wednesday and Thursday last week for a shoulder injury and that he had ordered an MRI for Scalia, according to WFAA-TV in Dallas. The 79-year-old justice also suffered from several chronic conditions, Guevara said. She said she was awaiting a statement from the physician to complete Scalia’s death certificate. The manager of the El Paso funeral home that handled Scalia’s body said Scalia’s family insisted on not having an autopsy done. But the decision has spawned a host of conspiracy theories online, as well as skeptical questions from law enforcement experts such as Ritchie. “You have a Supreme Court Justice who died, not in attendance of a physician,” he wrote. “You have a non-homicide trained US Marshal tell the justice of peace that no foul play was observed. You have a justice of the peace pronounce death while not being on the scene and without any medical training opining that the justice died of a heart attack. What medical proof exists of a myocardial Infarction? Why not a cerebral hemorrhage?” In an interview with The Washington Post, Guevara has said she rebutted a report by a Dallas TV station that Scalia had died of “myocardial infarction.” She said she meant only that his heart had stopped. Ritchie also raised questions about the marshals’ actions: “How can the Marshal say, without a thorough post mortem, that he was not injected with an illegal substance that would simulate a heart attack…” “Did the US Marshal check for petechial hemorrhage in his eyes or under his lips that would have suggested suffocation? Did the US Marshal smell his breath for any unusual odor that might suggest poisoning? My gut tells me there is something fishy going on in Texas.” A spokesman for the marshals service said Monday that the marshals did not make a formal determination of death. He directed questions to the county judge who made the call. Scalia’s physician, Brian Monahan, is a U.S. Navy rear admiral and the attending physician for the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court. He declined to comment on Scalia’s health when reached by telephone Monday at his home in Maryland. “Patient confidentiality forbids me to make any comment on the subject,” he said. When asked whether he planned to make public the statement he’s preparing for Guevara, Monahan repeated the same statement and hung up on a reporter. The Texas resort spans 30,000 acres. Feb. 14, 2016 The Texas flag flies at the entrance to the Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Tex., early Sunday, the day after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://nypost.com/2016/02/14/scalias-gift-to-america-saving-the-supreme-court/ Scalia’s gift to America — saving the Supreme Court By Post Editorial Board Modal TriggerTrigger Scalia’s gift to America — saving the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death at 79 robs the high court of one of its most important and influential jurists ever. President Obama’s announced intent to choose Scalia’s successor promises a bitter battle — and a futile one: No Supreme Court nominee been named and confirmed in a presidential election year since 1940. Nor should partisan rancor overshadow the record Scalia built in three decades on the high court, whose fundamental outlook he helped redefine through his brilliant mind, pointed wit and zest for intellectual combat. A Jersey native who grew up in Elmhurst, Queens, Scalia was already the leader of the fight against judicial activism when he became the first Italian-American justice. Indeed, as Elena Kagan said long before she joined the high court, Scalia “really transformed the terms of legal debate in this country. He is the justice who has had the most important impact over the years on how we think and talk about law.” Scalia was the most eloquent and passionate advocate of “original understanding” — the notion that judges should decide a law’s constitutionality by its actual words, not the “intent” behind it or the needs of society. “It is not supposed to be our judgment as to what is the socially desirable answer to all of these questions,” he said. “That’s supposed to be the judgment of Congress.” Indeed, he wrote in one of his many memorable opinions, “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.” He believed not in a “living” Constitution, subject to “the passions of the moment that may cause individual liberties to be disregarded,” but an “enduring” one, dedicated to federalism and the separation of powers. Which is why, though a strong social conservative, he argued that Constitution neither guarantees the right to an abortion nor precludes the states from allowing it. This divide over the purpose of judicial power is the main reason confirmation fights have become circuses. Scalia was confirmed unanimously — which would never happen today. In his remarkable 30-year tenure, Scalia became the left’s favorite judicial bogeyman. Yet his closest personal relationships on the court were with his two most liberal colleagues, Justices Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who once said, “I love him. But sometimes I just want to strangle him.” Best known for his thunderous dissents, he also penned (at least) his share of than landmark majority opinions. Everything he wrote was eminently quotable. As Terry Eastland noted in The Weekly Standard a decade ago, Scalia wrote for the long term, aiming to influence the next generation of lawyers. That he most certainly did — and this nation and its rule of law are much the better for it. RIP. Filed under antonin scalia , editorial , Ginsburg : that is her quote, however she said that in reference to an argument over opera. Which they both loved & had in common. This is in other recent articles * ---------------------------------------- Top Stories: Antonin Scalia’s Death Puts A Spotlight On West Texas By Krystina Martinez • 6 hours ago Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died at Cibolo Creek Ranch, a remote resort ranch south of Marfa. http://keranews.org/post/top-stories-antonin-scalia-s-death-puts-spotlight-west-texas/ * AUDIO- 07:36 seconds* The top local stories this morning from KERA News: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death this weekend has caused a scramble in Washington to find his replacement. It’s also put a spotlight on West Texas. Scalia died at a remote resort ranch in West Texas. The location was so far removed that the inquest had to be done by telephone. The Pelican Brief (1993) Official Trailer - Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts http://youtu.be/N7seUNbY1_w/ The Pelican Brief is a 1993 legal political thriller based on the novel of the same name by John Grisham. Directed by Alan J. Pakula, the film stars Julia Roberts in the role of young law student Darby Shaw and Denzel Washington as Washington Herald reporter Gray Grantham. Music was composed by James Horner. This was the last film to feature Pakula as a producer and writer before his death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pelican_Brief_(film)/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SassyEuro2
on
Tue 02/16/16 04:07 AM
|
|
Justice Scalia’s Dissent On Gay Marriage Had A Frightening Warning For Americans
Justice Scalia’s Dissent On Gay Marriage Had A Frightening Warning For Americans By V. Saxena Justice Antonin Scalia When late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent for Obergefell v. Hodges, the groundbreaking case that declared gay marriage a right in 2015, he issued an eye-opening warning about the future of American democracy. “I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,” Scalia wrote. “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.” His point was that by declaring gay marriage legal on the federal level, the Supreme Court violated the rights of those states whose constituents preferred that gay marriage remain illegal. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” Scalia continued. “The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.” Scalia essentially argued that the Supreme Court officially overstepped its bounds when it legalized gay marriage. Instead of acting as a judge, the court took it upon itself to identify what constitutes a liberty in America. What makes this threat even more frightening is that President Barack Obama is now poised to try and replace Scalia, who died this past Saturday, with a liberal justice, thus giving liberals a majority in an already over-politicized Supreme Court. Now cue the Stanford Law Review: Politicization of the Court is dangerous because it primes the public for a power grab by the political branches. If the Court loses authority to check political power and make unpopular decisions, it cannot enforce the Constitution with the same effectiveness. Without enforcement of the Constitution, Congress is free to invade constitutional rights and exceed its lawful powers. Scalia’s fear was that this had already occurred. What with him having just passed, R.I.P., I fear that he was indeed right … http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/justice-scalias-dissent-on-gay-marriage-had-a-frightening-warning-for-americans/ ------------------- Gay Marriage Ruling – All’s Not Well in America http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/gay-marriage-ruling-alls-not-well-in-america/ Justice Scalia is right – the Supreme Court has now become impotent in matters pertaining to the Constitution. Both of their rulings have committed them to the ranks of petty, partisan politicians whose vote is available to the highest bidder. In another scalding portion of his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia also attacked the Court as an institution. CNS News has the details: In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex marriage was a right, Justice Antonin Scalia declared that this Supreme Court has become a “threat to American democracy. “I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,” Scalia said. “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.” It used to be that the Court was viewed as the defender of democracy. Now, thanks largely to Bill and Hillary (I’ll pick the nominees) Clinton and Barack Obama, the Supreme Court is nothing more than an “enforcer” for the atheist, socialist dogma the left is dumping on the American people. What the Court has done, in the “same sex” marriage ruling is essentially declare itself to be “god.” Breitbart provides more details: The day after declaring Obamacare magically rewritten and that the lawsuits against discrimination in housing require no proof of actual discrimination, the Supreme Court found a unicorn in the 14th Amendment. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy under that aforementioned 14th Amendment (adopted in 1868, when every state in America criminalized sodomy) requires that every state in America grant marriage licenses to men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women, and that every state recognize such licenses from every other state. ------------------------------------ CNN Says It’s Not ‘LEGAL’ For Justice Scalia To Talk About Gay People Like He Used To CNN Says It’s Not ‘LEGAL’ For Justice Scalia To Talk About Gay People Like He Used To By Brittany Soares Justice Antonin Scalia, along with three others, did not vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage nationwide. So naturally, liberal news media went on attack mode. Scalia has gotten much criticism over the years, as liberals have hated on him for his outright conservative stances on gay marriage and other topics. During CNN’s live coverage of the Supreme Court ruling mandating the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin repeatedly dissed Scalia and at one point said that it wasn’t legal “to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people.” http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/cnn-says-its-not-legal-for-justice-scalia-to-talk-about-gay-people-like-he-used-to/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
LittleLeftofRight
on
Tue 02/16/16 04:18 AM
|
|
washingtonpost.com Conspiracy theories swirl around the death of Antonin Scalia Well the signals are flashing red so its understandable. He goes to a party feels sick then allegedly dies of natural causes in his sleep. Sure its possible. The biggest red light however is the sweepers coming in to investigate a state matter. That in and of itself sets off every warning alarm and begs the question what cases are being decided on the bench right now and who stood to get hurt by an decision. Remember Arizona, high court judges are not out of reach of political expediency. These conspiracies happen all the time even with county and city government, (remembering "Making a murder" documentary on netflix) where the county sent up a couple of innocent young men for life it would certainly not be surprising at the federal level. Though I did not agree with scalia on everything he did stand for what he believed was accurate constitutional intent and imo got it right more often than not. “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.” On that note he is entirely correct, and that may have been enough to off him. The people who set up this government do have the power of god behind the scenes. We are led to believe that this is a democracy and nothing could be farhter from the truth. Ask yourselves what the last constitutional amendment any of you got to vote on. The idea we are a democracy depends on people not looking any further than the tip of their noses where we democratically elect our next set of rulers and that is where american democracy ends. As scalia puts it a small club at the top chosen by our rulers that we are led to believe operate in our best interest decides how we will all live, not us, but then a lot of hay can be made out of public cognitive dissonance. . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
LittleLeftofRight
on
Tue 02/16/16 04:36 AM
|
|
[imgD-OCP0219635.jpg img] "IF" there is foul play at hand the below is the SOP for covering it up which is why the questions are being asked: “Did the US Marshal check for petechial hemorrhage in his eyes or under his lips that would have suggested suffocation? Did the US Marshal smell his breath for any unusual odor that might suggest poisoning? My gut tells me there is something fishy going on in Texas.” First procedural incompetence, willful negligence, finally silence. Always works because its beyond the systems ability to convict ;) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All claims of conspiracy and murder RE Scalia, have to address the fact that is was his own family who said NOT to do an autopsy, and it was his own long time physician who said that he was suffering from a number of problems, any of which could have been the cause of death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All claims of conspiracy and murder RE Scalia, have to address the fact that is was his own family who said NOT to do an autopsy, and it was his own long time physician who said that he was suffering from a number of problems, any of which could have been the cause of death. and not to mention he was 79... most people don't live that long... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All claims of conspiracy and murder RE Scalia, have to address the fact that is was his own family who said NOT to do an autopsy, and it was his own long time physician who said that he was suffering from a number of problems, any of which could have been the cause of death. and not to mention he was 79... most people don't live that long... I understand, however you wish me to summarily conclude it was just his time, then look the other way and move on. Unfortunately that approach never gets to the bottom of anything and in the event there was malfeasance no one would be the wiser and the perps would get away with it clean. Very convenient. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All claims of conspiracy and murder RE Scalia, have to address the fact that is was his own family who said NOT to do an autopsy, and it was his own long time physician who said that he was suffering from a number of problems, any of which could have been the cause of death. Its very possible thats what the bottom line is, however that does not rule out other possibilities. Look at the families of 911, they were all paid off to turn their heads. I am not saying this is the case, just that its common place in government operations and people usually just take the money and run :) It does not absolve us of the need for at least asking the question however imo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All claims of conspiracy and murder RE Scalia, have to address the fact that is was his own family who said NOT to do an autopsy, and it was his own long time physician who said that he was suffering from a number of problems, any of which could have been the cause of death. and not to mention he was 79... most people don't live that long... I understand, however you wish me to summarily conclude it was just his time, then look the other way and move on. Unfortunately that approach never gets to the bottom of anything and in the event there was malfeasance no one would be the wiser and the perps would get away with it clean. Very convenient. think what you want... IMO, i don't see any need to jump on board a conspiracy here... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
LittleLeftofRight
on
Tue 02/16/16 08:16 AM
|
|
All claims of conspiracy and murder RE Scalia, have to address the fact that is was his own family who said NOT to do an autopsy, and it was his own long time physician who said that he was suffering from a number of problems, any of which could have been the cause of death. and not to mention he was 79... most people don't live that long... I understand, however you wish me to summarily conclude it was just his time, then look the other way and move on. Unfortunately that approach never gets to the bottom of anything and in the event there was malfeasance no one would be the wiser and the perps would get away with it clean. Very convenient. think what you want... IMO, i don't see any need to jump on board a conspiracy here... I did not say or imply there was a conspiracy at hand so there was no board to jump on at this point. My point was merely to express the necessity to remain vigilant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His loss will affect the United States for possiably the next 30 years
or more! We need Trump to become President so he can fill the 3 or more open slots. Note I said 3 or more. With Ginsburg being 82, maybe her number will be up during his term? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-14/justice-scalia-s-death-brings-out-the-worst-in-opponents
Scalia's Grave-Dancers Deserve a Harsh Verdict 342 Feb 14, 2016 11:06 AM EST By Stephen L. Carter When the news broke Saturday that Justice Antonin Scalia had died at age 79, my Twitter feed began to fill with hate. Not disagreement or disrespect -- actual hate. He was an ignorant waste of flesh, wrote one young fool. His death was the best news in decades, cheered another. Then there was the woman who just had to tell the world that she felt safer now than she had at the death of Osama bin Laden. And several people expressed the hope -- the hope! -- that Clarence Thomas would die next. Thus we see the discursive toll of our depressing Supreme Court deathwatch. We’re actually rooting for people to die. It’s unusual for a vacancy to occur in the midst of a presidential campaign, but it’s common as cake for activists to dream the hours away speculating on who’ll be next to go, and for journalists to count up the number of appointments they think the next president will get to make. Sometimes in their earnestness the activists of left and right do indeed sound as if they’re rooting for a death or two. They seem to think the justices whose votes enrage them deserve to go. None of this is entirely new. My mentor, Justice Thurgood Marshall, didn’t die in harness, but I remember the deathwatch all the same. I was serving as one of his law clerks in 1980, the year Ronald Reagan was elected, and on election night, one of the television networks reported that Marshall had decided to quit the court, in order to give Jimmy Carter the opportunity to make an appointment. The report was false, of course, and Marshall was furious. Some in the building speculated that the story had been planted by activists hoping he would get the message and depart, clearing the way for a younger liberal voice -- much as, in recent years, some on the left have openly if cruelly urged Ruth Bader Ginsburg to step down, as though she owes them some special fealty. Throughout the Reagan administration, movement conservatives kept their envious eyes on Marshall’s precarious health. After George H.W. Bush was elected in 1988, one silly activist went so far as to tell a reporter that he hoped that Marshall was keeping the seat warm for Thomas. Disgusting. But here’s the thing. When Marshall, his health broken, at last stepped down in 1991, with a year and a half to live, there were only encomiums, even from conservatives. True, Twitter didn’t exist. If it had, perhaps the gleeful right would have been dancing in public. Instead, whatever champagne was drunk was poured in private. And that makes all the difference. To mute those cheers shows respect not only for the dead, but also for the institution. When Chief Justice Fred Vinson died during the pendency of Brown v. Board of Education, Felix Frankfurter memorably called the event “the first solid piece of evidence I've ever had that there really is a God.” But he said it in private, and would have been justifiably furious had the clerk to whom he had made the comment publicized it during Frankfurter’s own lifetime. To trash the justices because we don’t like their votes (usually on a handful of issues) is to diminish the majesty of the court itself. The more we do it, the less reason there is for anybody to respect the justices when at last whichever side we’re on has a majority. Marshall took a similar view. During the last year of his life, I was assisting him with his oral history, and we spent many hours together. One of the many delights of listening to his tales was the generosity of spirit with which he described his opponents. He spoke with warmth of the very justices who were busily chipping away at his legacy. Nor was his affection reserved for his colleagues. Before becoming a judge, Marshall spent years litigating civil-rights cases, often at great risk to his life. In the course of his travels, he got to know many of the leading segregationists of the age, some quite well. When he talked about them in the oral history, his eyes would glow with affection. They were dead wrong on race, he said, but they weren’t bad people. Across the nation’s greatest moral divide, Marshall respected, and now and then even admired, those who fought him. That quality didn’t make him unique among his generation. But it’s a talent we’ve largely lost. Nowadays we burn too much energy evaluating people based on whether we agree with them or not. It’s a pardonable vice, and in the worst case perhaps a necessary one, but it can get out of hand. There’s a vast difference between “He’s wrong” and “He’s a worthless bag of flesh who deserved to die.” Sadly, we live in an era when every case is the worst. The late Christopher Hitchens once wrote: “One test of un homme sérieux is that it is possible to learn from him even when one radically disagrees with him.” He was right. Those with whom we disagree will often have things to teach us, if we’ll let them. Scalia was un homme sérieux in the classic sense -- a person of both seriousness and character, a man hard to bully. Did I disagree with his positions? Frequently, and often with passion. But he was a brilliant scholar and jurist, as well as a marvelous writer, and I never failed to learn from his wonderfully crafted opinions. The need to counter his arguments made mine better. And on some issues (the importance of robust protection of Sixth Amendment rights, for instance) Scalia’s opinions converted me to his cause. It’s tragic that we can’t respect and admire each other across our many differences. It’s worse that we dance when people die. If the depressing deathwatch is the best we can do, I for one would rather go without a Supreme Court of the United States. Seriously. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-14/justice-scalia-s-death-brings-out-the-worst-in-opponents Scalia's Grave-Dancers Deserve a Harsh Verdict 342 Feb 14, 2016 11:06 AM EST By Stephen L. Carter When the news broke Saturday that Justice Antonin Scalia had died at age 79, my Twitter feed began to fill with hate. Not disagreement or disrespect -- actual hate. He was an ignorant waste of flesh, wrote one young fool. His death was the best news in decades, cheered another. Then there was the woman who just had to tell the world that she felt safer now than she had at the death of Osama bin Laden. And several people expressed the hope -- the hope! -- that Clarence Thomas would die next. Thus we see the discursive toll of our depressing Supreme Court deathwatch. We’re actually rooting for people to die. It’s unusual for a vacancy to occur in the midst of a presidential campaign, but it’s common as cake for activists to dream the hours away speculating on who’ll be next to go, and for journalists to count up the number of appointments they think the next president will get to make. Sometimes in their earnestness the activists of left and right do indeed sound as if they’re rooting for a death or two. They seem to think the justices whose votes enrage them deserve to go. None of this is entirely new. My mentor, Justice Thurgood Marshall, didn’t die in harness, but I remember the deathwatch all the same. I was serving as one of his law clerks in 1980, the year Ronald Reagan was elected, and on election night, one of the television networks reported that Marshall had decided to quit the court, in order to give Jimmy Carter the opportunity to make an appointment. The report was false, of course, and Marshall was furious. Some in the building speculated that the story had been planted by activists hoping he would get the message and depart, clearing the way for a younger liberal voice -- much as, in recent years, some on the left have openly if cruelly urged Ruth Bader Ginsburg to step down, as though she owes them some special fealty. Throughout the Reagan administration, movement conservatives kept their envious eyes on Marshall’s precarious health. After George H.W. Bush was elected in 1988, one silly activist went so far as to tell a reporter that he hoped that Marshall was keeping the seat warm for Thomas. Disgusting. But here’s the thing. When Marshall, his health broken, at last stepped down in 1991, with a year and a half to live, there were only encomiums, even from conservatives. True, Twitter didn’t exist. If it had, perhaps the gleeful right would have been dancing in public. Instead, whatever champagne was drunk was poured in private. And that makes all the difference. To mute those cheers shows respect not only for the dead, but also for the institution. When Chief Justice Fred Vinson died during the pendency of Brown v. Board of Education, Felix Frankfurter memorably called the event “the first solid piece of evidence I've ever had that there really is a God.” But he said it in private, and would have been justifiably furious had the clerk to whom he had made the comment publicized it during Frankfurter’s own lifetime. To trash the justices because we don’t like their votes (usually on a handful of issues) is to diminish the majesty of the court itself. The more we do it, the less reason there is for anybody to respect the justices when at last whichever side we’re on has a majority. Marshall took a similar view. During the last year of his life, I was assisting him with his oral history, and we spent many hours together. One of the many delights of listening to his tales was the generosity of spirit with which he described his opponents. He spoke with warmth of the very justices who were busily chipping away at his legacy. Nor was his affection reserved for his colleagues. Before becoming a judge, Marshall spent years litigating civil-rights cases, often at great risk to his life. In the course of his travels, he got to know many of the leading segregationists of the age, some quite well. When he talked about them in the oral history, his eyes would glow with affection. They were dead wrong on race, he said, but they weren’t bad people. Across the nation’s greatest moral divide, Marshall respected, and now and then even admired, those who fought him. That quality didn’t make him unique among his generation. But it’s a talent we’ve largely lost. Nowadays we burn too much energy evaluating people based on whether we agree with them or not. It’s a pardonable vice, and in the worst case perhaps a necessary one, but it can get out of hand. There’s a vast difference between “He’s wrong” and “He’s a worthless bag of flesh who deserved to die.” Sadly, we live in an era when every case is the worst. The late Christopher Hitchens once wrote: “One test of un homme sérieux is that it is possible to learn from him even when one radically disagrees with him.” He was right. Those with whom we disagree will often have things to teach us, if we’ll let them. Scalia was un homme sérieux in the classic sense -- a person of both seriousness and character, a man hard to bully. Did I disagree with his positions? Frequently, and often with passion. But he was a brilliant scholar and jurist, as well as a marvelous writer, and I never failed to learn from his wonderfully crafted opinions. The need to counter his arguments made mine better. And on some issues (the importance of robust protection of Sixth Amendment rights, for instance) Scalia’s opinions converted me to his cause. It’s tragic that we can’t respect and admire each other across our many differences. It’s worse that we dance when people die. If the depressing deathwatch is the best we can do, I for one would rather go without a Supreme Court of the United States. Seriously. They don't even realize.. If it wasn't for people like Supreme Justice Scalia.. They would NOT even have the right to say those things. Clueless as to what they are REALLY giving up. . 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All claims of conspiracy and murder RE Scalia, have to address the fact that is was his own family who said NOT to do an autopsy, and it was his own long time physician who said that he was suffering from a number of problems, any of which could have been the cause of death. and not to mention he was 79... most people don't live that long... I understand, however you wish me to summarily conclude it was just his time, then look the other way and move on. Unfortunately that approach never gets to the bottom of anything and in the event there was malfeasance no one would be the wiser and the perps would get away with it clean. Very convenient. think what you want... IMO, i don't see any need to jump on board a conspiracy here... I did not say or imply there was a conspiracy at hand so there was no board to jump on at this point. My point was merely to express the necessity to remain vigilant. i fail to see what there is to gain by his death, other than talking about who will be installed after the election... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All claims of conspiracy and murder RE Scalia, have to address the fact that is was his own family who said NOT to do an autopsy, and it was his own long time physician who said that he was suffering from a number of problems, any of which could have been the cause of death. and not to mention he was 79... most people don't live that long... I understand, however you wish me to summarily conclude it was just his time, then look the other way and move on. Unfortunately that approach never gets to the bottom of anything and in the event there was malfeasance no one would be the wiser and the perps would get away with it clean. Very convenient. think what you want... IMO, i don't see any need to jump on board a conspiracy here... I did not say or imply there was a conspiracy at hand so there was no board to jump on at this point. My point was merely to express the necessity to remain vigilant. R.I.P. Justice Scalia Hmm... Trump sure seems to think there is foul play. It was Cruz calling attention to how many Supreme Court Justices - in particular - not appellate courts, not lower circuit courts who hear hundreds if not thousands of cases that never reach the supreme court every year, but the death or resignation of Supreme Court. Let's look at a few facts. Scalia, refused a security detail that would normally accompany him or any Justice anywhere. He was on vacation. He could ask for subdued security or a force armed to the teeth. Supposedly he asked for none, proof? He reportedly had ongoing health issues, but he was playing tennis recently with a friend and co-author of two books and on fishing trips with other friends. Pretty active for 79. Neither suspected an illness or injury that would result in death. The co-author and friend didn't appear emotive, rather reading a scripted joke about tennis "losing" a great. No one laughed. Cruz and McConnell leapt at the news before the family had even been notified. So called 'strict constitutionalists' call for and vow to block ANY appointee no matter what. They say it's "unconstitutional" for the POTUS to nominate a justice. The Constitution says it is the duty of the POTUS to do exactly that and the Senate to confirm or deny that nominee based on merit and record. Filibustering a SPECIFIC nominee is not the same as outright denial of ANY nominee before we even know who it is and how qualified they are for appointment. Obama did filibuster Justice Alito's appointment by Bush, but he was confirmed in Bush's 2nd term. Reagan also appointed a justice in 1988, a vacancy from 87 by retirement whose first nominee was denied by Senate. The 80 year precedent argument is an outright lie. Cinderella Guevara, the Texas Judge who pronounced him dead hours after he was found after missing breakfast and lunch at the ranch resort, was the only person they could find to pronounce him dead... during the day...? #######Pronounced him dead VIA TELEPHONE WITHOUT HAVING SEEN THE BODY. Cause of death? Something, anything, disease? No. Something fatal ended his life because he is dead. Judge Guevara spoke with Scalia's physician and ####### A (unamed) U.S. Law enforcement agency on the scene who reported nothing out of the ordinary ####### except they are not named so as not to be held accountable. Who were they? It's kinda important. ####### Judge Guevara reportedly said of Scalia's death that ####### 'he died of natural causes because his heart stopped'???? REALLY?????? Aren't all dead people's hearts stopped? Are there any dead people whose heart is still beating? THIS IS PRECISELY WHY THIS HAS TO BE FORENSICALLY INVESTIGATED BY PHYSICIANS CORONERS AND CSI's. ####### According to the owner of the ranch who found him dead found a pillow over his head. He didn't speak, his statement was written. Perhaps that U.S. Law Enforcement Agency (unnamed) wanted to make 100% certain he didn't slip like the Redland CA landlord or the Sandyhook M.E. Can't have that falling on their heads later, Hyuck! There is no photo of how he was found. There is a photo of a bed without the body, which means we have no proof this was even the room he was in. Anyone could have remade the bed, staged a second room when they took custody of the scene. #######The former D.C. Commander of the Homicide Division points out that there is no medical examiner's report which should have been the VERY FIRST thing any of US saw regardless of the law of the State and who can legally (key word) pronounce death. A crime against a Federal official is out of the jurisdiction of the State, it is a Federal crime to be heard in Federal Courts and carry FEDERAL PENALTY. ####### The 'family' 'doesn't want an autopsy performed' and refuses to comment to the media. It's unexpected. He will be missed. He was a good man. He loved his country. He loved serving his country. He loved life. We are deeply saddened. He will be remembered. They could have said anything even if not on camera. Some liked him some hated him some loved him and HE WILL BE REMEMBERED. One thing we know for certain is that Scalia believed in the U.S. Constitution as originally written. Ted (actually Rafael Edward) Cruz has said on more than one occasion at debates ####### 'The next president will get as many as 3 Supreme Court nominees, we cannot let those nominations go to the Democrats.' No Justices were announced to be of ill health or in grave or critical condition. Was Justice Antonin Scalia murdered? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All claims of conspiracy and murder RE Scalia, have to address the fact that is was his own family who said NOT to do an autopsy, and it was his own long time physician who said that he was suffering from a number of problems, any of which could have been the cause of death. and not to mention he was 79... most people don't live that long... I understand, however you wish me to summarily conclude it was just his time, then look the other way and move on. Unfortunately that approach never gets to the bottom of anything and in the event there was malfeasance no one would be the wiser and the perps would get away with it clean. Very convenient. think what you want... IMO, i don't see any need to jump on board a conspiracy here... I did not say or imply there was a conspiracy at hand so there was no board to jump on at this point. My point was merely to express the necessity to remain vigilant. R.I.P. Justice Scalia Hmm... Trump sure seems to think there is foul play. It was Cruz calling attention to how many Supreme Court Justices - in particular - not appellate courts, not lower circuit courts who hear hundreds if not thousands of cases that never reach the supreme court every year, but the death or resignation of Supreme Court. Let's look at a few facts. Scalia, refused a security detail that would normally accompany him or any Justice anywhere. He was on vacation. He could ask for subdued security or a force armed to the teeth. Supposedly he asked for none, proof? He reportedly had ongoing health issues, but he was playing tennis recently with a friend and co-author of two books and on fishing trips with other friends. Pretty active for 79. Neither suspected an illness or injury that would result in death. The co-author and friend didn't appear emotive, rather reading a scripted joke about tennis "losing" a great. No one laughed. Cruz and McConnell leapt at the news before the family had even been notified. So called 'strict constitutionalists' call for and vow to block ANY appointee no matter what. They say it's "unconstitutional" for the POTUS to nominate a justice. The Constitution says it is the duty of the POTUS to do exactly that and the Senate to confirm or deny that nominee based on merit and record. Filibustering a SPECIFIC nominee is not the same as outright denial of ANY nominee before we even know who it is and how qualified they are for appointment. Obama did filibuster Justice Alito's appointment by Bush, but he was confirmed in Bush's 2nd term. Reagan also appointed a justice in 1988, a vacancy from 87 by retirement whose first nominee was denied by Senate. The 80 year precedent argument is an outright lie. Cinderella Guevara, the Texas Judge who pronounced him dead hours after he was found after missing breakfast and lunch at the ranch resort, was the only person they could find to pronounce him dead... during the day...? #######Pronounced him dead VIA TELEPHONE WITHOUT HAVING SEEN THE BODY. Cause of death? Something, anything, disease? No. Something fatal ended his life because he is dead. Judge Guevara spoke with Scalia's physician and ####### A (unamed) U.S. Law enforcement agency on the scene who reported nothing out of the ordinary ####### except they are not named so as not to be held accountable. Who were they? It's kinda important. ####### Judge Guevara reportedly said of Scalia's death that ####### 'he died of natural causes because his heart stopped'???? REALLY?????? Aren't all dead people's hearts stopped? Are there any dead people whose heart is still beating? THIS IS PRECISELY WHY THIS HAS TO BE FORENSICALLY INVESTIGATED BY PHYSICIANS CORONERS AND CSI's. ####### According to the owner of the ranch who found him dead found a pillow over his head. He didn't speak, his statement was written. Perhaps that U.S. Law Enforcement Agency (unnamed) wanted to make 100% certain he didn't slip like the Redland CA landlord or the Sandyhook M.E. Can't have that falling on their heads later, Hyuck! There is no photo of how he was found. There is a photo of a bed without the body, which means we have no proof this was even the room he was in. Anyone could have remade the bed, staged a second room when they took custody of the scene. #######The former D.C. Commander of the Homicide Division points out that there is no medical examiner's report which should have been the VERY FIRST thing any of US saw regardless of the law of the State and who can legally (key word) pronounce death. A crime against a Federal official is out of the jurisdiction of the State, it is a Federal crime to be heard in Federal Courts and carry FEDERAL PENALTY. ####### The 'family' 'doesn't want an autopsy performed' and refuses to comment to the media. It's unexpected. He will be missed. He was a good man. He loved his country. He loved serving his country. He loved life. We are deeply saddened. He will be remembered. They could have said anything even if not on camera. Some liked him some hated him some loved him and HE WILL BE REMEMBERED. One thing we know for certain is that Scalia believed in the U.S. Constitution as originally written. Ted (actually Rafael Edward) Cruz has said on more than one occasion at debates ####### 'The next president will get as many as 3 Supreme Court nominees, we cannot let those nominations go to the Democrats.' No Justices were announced to be of ill health or in grave or critical condition. Was Justice Antonin Scalia murdered? ----------------------------------------------- Excellent..  And also.. "The report from the San Antonio Express-News also notes that the U.S. Marshal Service, the FBI and the Presidio County sheriff are all investigating the incident." http://mashable.com/2016/02/13/antonin-scalia-dead/#09kJqZzk665D/ ------------------------ "The U.S. Marshals Service is helping to arrange for his body to be returned, an official told CNN, not to investigate his death." "They were already present because marshals sometimes help supplement security for traveling justices" http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/index.html?sr=twCNN021416supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-791236AMVODtopLink&linkId=21252727/ .Yesterday there was a 3d version saying the sheriffs went there. Smfh. And the pillow story changed also. Yet.. It was supposed to be such a remote location than the body was not transported out to be examined. And he was declared by phone which is LEGAL in the area. Lots & lots, too many conveniences to be coincidences IMO. ---------- I have not read at all that any Republican said, the President does not have the legal right to pick a name. ( I would NEVER call Cruz a Constitutionalist. He is Canadian & too chummy with Obama). They were b@tching immediately because they know Obama will try to take advantage & name a 3rd Democrat, as soon as possible, perhaps even a progressive,(or God forbid, a NON American). They are saying it would not be 'the right thing', for him to pick a 3rd , nor would it be unusual for it to be postponed. It has happened in the past , been postponed, by Democratic request. It may just be legal for Obama to pick a 3rd name, simply because it isn't illegal. In other words, no president. Comes in handy having a President who just happen to study Constitutional law.. doesn't it? The country will not suffer. The number of cases does not matter. That is just an excuse. Cases are always back logged. And the Supremes decide what cases that will hear or toss back to a lower court anyway. I am surprised that Obama wasn't on TV in the first 24hrs trying to convince the masses that the country would fall apart unless he picks a name. Hhhaaa.. B@tching stopped that strategy. And he only would of proven how IMPORTANT the Supremes truly are. (We can always get another President & their time is limited). And that would of put more focus on Scalia. Scalia is the tragic loss for the United States, there is no filling his seat (in theory). Let's face it. There were a lot of big issues coming up, that MANY didn't want Scalia to make decisions on. However, none need immediate attention. Remember, they are there to 'interpret law, by the Constitution', not make law. * Even though they did make law w/gay marriage nationwide. And Scalia changed his mind on that! Saying it was not Constitutional, because it is each state's right of Sovereignty & each state had pre-existing sodomy laws. Interesting... Hun? * .Yesterday there was a 3d version saying the sheriffs went there. Yet.. It was supposed to be such a remote location than the body was not transported out to be examined. And he was declared by phone which is LEGAL in the area. An extremely convenient way & place & time to die? Was he ever actually there at all? Who benefits? That is a no brainer. Suprime Court Justice Scalia NWO Assassination? http://youtu.be/0Wi6oU8nEi0/ 16 embedded links. February 17, 2016  |
|
|
|
|
