Antonin Scalia Dies

[Guest]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was just found dead this morning.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

Although the article says it was natural causes, as given to conspiracy theories as I am, this sure smells of one.  The timing is just a little too perfect.  We were doing ok with a fairly balanced SCOTUS, Obamacare rulings notwithstanding.  But this is just too close to the election to seem coincidental and stalling for nomination of a new justice until after a new Pres inauguration is "iffy".  

Whether it really was murder or not, whether they can stall or not, it is a win for Democrats.  If they can get a new justice, they own the SCOTUS. They barely did already. If they can stall, it still riles up the liberal base.  I can't tell you how many liberals I've known only call themselves liberals because of this one issue.  

They already played the race card with Obama -- it's gotten old.  They're trying to play the gender card currently and it isn't working. They're trying to do the freebies and it is only finding mild success. But abortion is such a sacred sacrament to hardcore liberals that the recent PP videos are being used to encourage more abortions rather than curtail them.

Protecting abortion tends to rile up the far left just as much as a devout Christian would rile up the Conservative base and actually get them out to vote.

Note to moderators: Please note that I have not mentioned nor did I intend to insinuate any particular candidate.  I've done what I believe to be a fairly forensic analysis of political strategy.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think foul play unlikely, but I do hope the coroner does a very thorough autopsy.  (I'm still shaking my head over Andrew Breitbart's passing, which I think stunk to high heaven.)

As a conservative, I hope this at least brings some attention on SCOTUS nominations back into the Republican primary.  Elections are ultimately going to be of little value if we continue to get SCOTUS justices who limit individual liberties in the name of ensuring individual conformance to ever-evolving "collective" social norms.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

There is no conspiracy. He was old, smoked heavily and in bad shape. Ockham's Razor everyone. Think hard. People of his age who smoke, eat bad food, are in poor physical condition often die. This isn't complicated. It's deeply tragic and I'm crushed by it, but there is no conspiracy. 

Edited February 14, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

Conspiracy aside, there is a reality to face.  Hence I said, "whether it is murder or not..." we still have a big problem.

[Just_A_Guy]

It gets worse.

On or about Feb 12, the Senate apparently declared itself in recess from the 12th through the 20th.  (There are some procedural technicalities a play here, but there is a strong argument that they are indeed in recess.  See http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226701/)

Presidential recess appointments are valid through the end of the next session, probably early 2018.

Scalia dies in his sleep **the very night** that a lame-duck President with a hostile Congress gets unilateral power to make a two-year SCOTUS pick without Senate approval.

Are you SURE this is all coincidence?  If you wrote it in a novel, would anyone believe it?

Edited February 14, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It gets worse.

On or about Feb 12, the Senate apparently declared itself in recess from the 12th through the 20th.  (There are some procedural technicalities a play here, but there is a strong argument that they are indeed in recess.  See http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226701/)

Presidential recess appointments are valid through the end of the next session, probably early 2018.

Scalia dies in his sleep **the very night** that a lame-duck President with a hostile Congress gets unilateral power to make a two-year SCOTUS pick without Senate approval.

Are you SURE this is all coincidence?  If you wrote it in a novel, would anyone believe it?

Some interesting stuff... Scalia died at a hunting resort without any Marshals - he refused security detail.  He wasn't discovered until morning.  Justice of the Peace was called hours later of the discovery to declare him dead and the judge did so over the phone without having seen the body and without ordering an autopsy.  So, no autopsy was ordered and he got immediately embalmed at the funeral parlor.  Judge who hasn't seen the body declared him dead of heart-attack, then changed his story to say he died of natural causes.

Makes you go hmmm....

[Vort]

When an almost-80-year-old man with a smoking habit and a history of health problems drops dead, that can hardly be considered surprising. As for the literally phoned-in death declaration and lack of autopsy, blame Texas law, not conspiracy.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On or about Feb 12, the Senate apparently declared itself in recess from the 12th through the 20th.  (There are some procedural technicalities a play here, but there is a strong argument that they are indeed in recess.  See http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226701/)

Presidential recess appointments are valid through the end of the next session, probably early 2018.

Scalia dies in his sleep **the very night** that a lame-duck President with a hostile Congress gets unilateral power to make a two-year SCOTUS pick without Senate approval.

I'm confused.  Since Senate approval is part of the process, wouldn't the process be delayed until the Senate is back in session?  Do they normal take a recess this time of year?  

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

When an almost-80-year-old man with a smoking habit and a history of health problems drops dead, that can hardly be considered surprising. As for the literally phoned-in death declaration and lack of autopsy, blame Texas law, not conspiracy.

Texas law doesn't say you HAVE TO phone it in and not order an autopsy.  A Supreme Court Justice just died... it would be to the JIP's benefit to wash his hands off the incident by at least providing the option of an autopsy.  If only to avoid this embarrassment of having called the cause of death inaccurately.

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm confused.  Since Senate approval is part of the process, wouldn't the process be delayed until the Senate is back in session?  Do they normal take a recess this time of year?

The President has to be able to do his job.  So, if the Senate is in recess and an Executive action has to be done, then the President can appoint somebody to fill the SCOTUS temporarily.  The Senate can do hearings and what-not after they get back in session but the temporary justice stays in his seat until the end of the current Senate session (new Session starts every January before the State of the Union Address).

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks Anatess.

[Just_A_Guy]

The interesting thing to all this is, Majority Leader McConnell had to have known this when he made his public statement about holding off on any confirmation this year.  On top of it just not being a very McConnell-esque thing to say, his statement gives the President exactly the justification he needs to go forward with a recess appointment.

This is beyond incompetent.  One is sorely tempted to think McConnell wants that recess appointment to happen; and that explains why so many conservatives no longer trust the Republican party "establishment".

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The interesting thing to all this is, Majority Leader McConnell had to have known this when he made his public statement about holding off on any confirmation this year.  On top of it just not being a very McConnell-esque thing to say, his statement gives the President exactly the justification he needs to go forward with a recess appointment.

This is beyond incompetent.  One is sorely tempted to think McConnell wants that recess appointment to happen; and that explains why so many conservatives no longer trust the Republican party "establishment".

 

Yeah, let's see what he does.  He, of course, has the power to call the Senate back into session today if need be.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think he can do that without the minority leader's consent.

[Guest]

Just heard on the radio this morning:

A liberal guest on a conservative talk show said, "While I didn't agree with him politically, I had a tremendous respect for him.  Even more than the liberal justices on the court, he really believed in the Constitution.  If it were a political question, he'd side with the conservatives.  If if were a legal question he'd side with the Constitution every time.  Sometimes that meant liberal.  Sometimes that meant conservative." 

He then proceeded to give several examples of Scalia's decisions which exemplified it.

I kind of bristled at his mention of "even more than the liberal justices".  This seemed to say that liberals were the defenders of the Constitution more than Conservatives.  Well that's another discussion altogether.

We just won't find another justice like Scalia.

[NeuroTypical]

My new favorite website from the other side of my political fence, sets the record clear:

Did Leonard Nimoy Have Antonin Scalia Killed to Give Obama Enough Supreme Court Votes to Cancel the 2016 Election?

(For those needing a little help translating Internet into English, this is a satire story made up by lefties, but populated with legitimate links to legitimate left news/thought/spin.  No, nobody really believes Nimoy faked his own death, but yes, plenty of people believe the stuff linked by this story.)

[Jojo Bags]

Now, our fearless so-called "president" is not attending Justice Scalia's funeral.  Barry is going golfing instead.

[Vort]

There are priorities to be attended to, Jojo.

[Jojo Bags]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

There are priorities to be attended to, Jojo.

Yeah, I know.  So many executive orders designed to destroy our country and so little time.  It's tough when you are trying to squeeze that all in in between golf games and vacations..

[Guest]

On 2/14/2016 at 6:50 PM, MormonGator said:

There is no conspiracy. He was old, smoked heavily and in bad shape. Ockham's Razor everyone. Think hard. People of his age who smoke, eat bad food, are in poor physical condition often die. This isn't complicated. It's deeply tragic and I'm crushed by it, but there is no conspiracy. 

No, they don't.  They usually signs of declining health first.  He had very little wrong with him according to his doctor.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

No, they don't.  They usually signs of declining health first.  He had very little wrong with him according to his doctor.

They actually do. "Usually" doesn't mean "always" 

We both know of people of that age who went to bed fine and never woke up. It's just life and death.  Those physical aliments don't lead to perfect health and can effect you very quietly. Like the Greek play says, "It takes very little to send an old man to his grave" 

I know conspiracies are fun, but they are also useless and highly insulting to his family. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

You were invoking occam's razor.  "Usually" does cancel that argument.

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You were invoking occam's razor.  "Usually" does cancel that argument.

You are the one who said "usually". Was quoting you. Conspiracy theories aren't arguments, either. You can't debate with someone who really believes in conspiracies.  

And Ockham's Razor and "usually" work quite well. Given all the information we have, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Until you have more solid, ironclad proof, it's best not to believe in conspiracies. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

"Simplest" (to me) means "the most common".  It is not common for a man with no severe health issues (per his doctor) to suddenly die.  It is more common for a man with no severe health issues to die suddenly of unnatural causes.

If you don't accept this as enough "evidence" that's fine.  It isn't evidence.  It wasn't meant to be.  But when you apply occam's razor, understand that it would point to conspiracy more than it would point to natural causes.

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

\If you don't accept this as enough "evidence" that's fine.  It isn't evidence.  It wasn't meant to be.  But when you apply occam's razor, understand that it would point to conspiracy more than it would point to natural causes.

See that is what is wrong with conspiracies. People who believe that we never landed on the moon take "evidence" vastly out of context and go off in left field, thus violating Ockhams Razor. If I wanted to, I could create a very good theory that says we were all created one hour ago with memories, food, and our lives by a race of giant space aliens. I could make that theory sound really good too. But we didn't. Same with landing on the moon. We landed on the moon. 

There are people who still believe in the "Mona Lisa is really Leonardo in drag" conspiracy. It's now pretty much conclusive that the model was Lisa Giocondo, the wife of a prominent citizen of the country. But I could make a very compelling case that it's Da Vinci in drag. Does that mean I'm right? No, it's very clear that Giocondo was the model. 

You can also make the case for LDS conspiracies. I can make a very good sounding one that Cowdrey plagiarized the Book of Mormon. No, I don't believe he did. But conspiracy buffs do.  

 So be careful what you believe. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by MormonGator