Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at the age of 79

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at the age of 79

Quote :

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died at the age of 79, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said in a statement on Saturday.

The statement did not indicate the cause of death, but several news outlets reported that he died of natural causes while in Texas this weekend.

Scalia was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court in 1986.

Now I know how people felt when they found out Hitler was dead.

Justice Scalia Died of Heart Attack, No Autopsy Planned.....Breitbart Freaking Out Hilarious meltdowns going on all over the right wing alternate universe

Quote :

WFAA TV in Dallas reports that Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was due to a heart attack; there are still conflicting reports about whether an autopsy will be performed, but the Washington Post says Scalia’s family declined an autopsy.

  Guevara said she asked the Marshals if there were “’any signs of foul play.’ And they said, ‘Absolutely not,’’’ she told the station. After talking with Scalia’s personal physician, she said, she pronounced him dead and declined to order an inquest.

    Lujan said that Scalia’s family did not request an autopsy and that the body is being prepared for the funeral and will be transported back to Washington on Monday. It is under guard by six law enforcement officials, including U.S. Marshals and Texas state troopers, Lujan said.

  “An autopsy was declined at about 3:30 a.m.,” Lujan said. “The Justice of the Peace said there was no indication of foul play and that he died in his sleep from natural causes.”

Meanwhile, at Breitbart “News,” epicenter of far right insanity, Ben “Snidely Whiplash” Shapiro is very upset. He thinks Antonin Scalia’s Death Could Mark the End of the Constitution. That’s it, folks. It’s over. Game over. No more constitution now. What are we gonna do?

But Breitbart’s amazing commenters aren’t falling for this “no foul play/heart attack” line. Oh, no. They know how Obama works, and they’re calling for investigations and FOIA lawsuits, because there must be images from the “Covarubius class imaging arrays” on board those DOD satellites that will show what really happened to this obese 79-year old cigar smoker.

Yep,because nothing is more suspicious then an obese 79-year old cigar smoker dying in his sleep

Alex Jones: Obama Murdered Justice Scalia And Donald Trump Is Next

Quote :

In an “emergency transmission” to his Facebook fans today, conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones floated his suspicions that the late Justice Antonin Scalia was “murdered,” just like conservative activist Andrew Breitbart.

While accusing Obama of a litany crimes, including secretly funding ISIS and blackmailing Supreme Court justices, Jones said that “this is the season of treason, this is the time of betrayal and we would be fools not to ask the question” if Scalia was assassinated, suggesting that bad actors may have slipped something into the justice’s drink to trigger a heart attack.



“You just get used to this, ‘Scalia found, it’s natural, nothing going on here, he just died naturally,’” Jones said. “And you’re like, ‘Whoa. Red flag.’ Then you realize, Obama is one vote away from being able to ban guns, open the borders and actually have the court engage in its agenda and now Scalia dies. I mean, this is hard core.”

“I wonder if Clarence Thomas will die of a heart attack next week,” he continued, adding: “If this is an assassination, it signifies that they’re dropping the hammer, that’s the canary in the coal mine.”

He once again posited that his fan Donald Trump may be next: “Are they going to kill Clarence Thomas? Maybe they’ll kill Ron Paul. Maybe they’ll kill Donald Trump next. They all had heart attacks. How many more of these are we going to sit here and put up with? Or maybe their airplane blows up.”

“My gut tells me they killed him and all the intellectual evidence lays it out,” he said, insisting that his gut feeling “is already right.”

Jones then said a civil war is coming if the Senate confirms Obama’s choice to replace Scalia. “The Republicans better block this nomination,” he said, “because if they get one more Supreme Court person in there, they’re going to trump every piece of Bill of Rights and Constitution and they’re going to get that physical civil war they want.”

He even suggested that Scalia told Matt Drudge last year that nefarious government officials are “coming after everybody and they’re going to come after us and it’s really dangerous.”

So goodbye Constitution and Hasta Lavista to the 2nd amendment.

Ahh Ha!
Donald Trump Raises Suspicions About Justice Scalia's Death

Quote :

Earlier today, Donald Trump chatted with far-right radio host Michael Savage, who has been voicing doubts that Justice Antonin Scalia died of natural causes, suggesting that foul play was involved in the conservative jurist's death.

Savage, after wondering if Scalia was "murdered," asked Trump if he would support a Warren Commission-style investigation into the justice's death.

Trump responded that while he doesn't have enough information to comment on whether Scalia was murdered, he found it "pretty unusual" that the justice was discovered with "a pillow on his face."

The conspiracy theory starts at 1:50


I suppose the more these wingnut wackos jerk off over these theories the more evident it will become to them that Obama brought in a hitman from Kenya

Trump's not flirting with 9/11 Twooferism...

But anyway, Scalia passing is big news, and I'm glad there's been a slew of articles from legal scholars talking about his frightening legacy. I'll post a few of them later this week.

Heretic wrote:

Trump's not flirting with 9/11 Twooferism...

I never said he was. What he does have is a way of answering a question while leaving a premise open like where the pillow was on Scalia's deathbed.

Quote :

But anyway, Scalia passing is big news, and I'm glad there's been a slew of articles from legal scholars talking about his frightening legacy.  I'll post a few of them later this week.

He was indeed horrible. You can start with his atrocious record on the death penalty.

I feel sorry for Clarence Thomas. Who's gonna tell him which way to vote now?

Sorry, typo... Trump's now flirting with 9/11 Twooferism... He said some stuff last year about Bush having prior knowledge, and then I saw some headlines about some recent ones, but I haven't dug in too deep on those yet. Either way, it's no surprise to find that Alex Jones loves him.

I think my favorite quote so far about the GOP going completely nutters about Obama nominating a replacement is this:

Quote :

As a friend put it: "Apparently, the GOP thinks that Black Presidents only get 3/5ths a term."

Quite accurate, I think.

Heretic wrote:

Sorry, typo...   Trump's now flirting with 9/11 Twooferism...   He said some stuff last year about Bush having prior knowledge, and then I saw some headlines about some recent ones, but I haven't dug in too deep on those yet.  Either way, it's no surprise to find that Alex Jones loves him.

Yeah. Well I looked around and it appears that this is a rumor started by the National Review folks. All Trump said is that Bush was briefed by the CIA about the probability of an impending attack on the US. That is undeniably true. Bush did have "prior knowledge," that stated that Bin Laden was determined to attack us, and that's what Trump was talking about. If you do happen to find out anything else that Trump said, please post it. Thanks!

He speaks
Justice Clarence Thomas breaks 10-year streak, asks question in court

Quote :

(CNN)For the first time in a decade, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke during oral arguments.

Just last week, CNN wrote about the ten-years since Thomas's last question at oral arguments. That anniversary, February 22, came on the same day the Supreme Court first heard oral arguments after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who was Thomas's ideological soul mate and who had defended his lack of questions over the years.

"No one was more ideologically aligned with Justice Scalia than Justice Thomas, who has historically been reluctant to ask questions at oral argument because he believes his colleagues already do more than enough talking," said CNN contributor Stephen I. Vladeck. "That he's now asking questions--for the first time in over a decade--is as powerful evidence of the impact of Justice Scalia's absence as anything we've seen from the Justices thus far," he said.

Like I said earlier "Who's gonna tell him how to vote"?. He must have figured out he's on his own now.

Sen. Kirk calls for GOP to ‘man up,’ vote on Merrick Garland

Quote :

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said Friday he wants to meet with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and that his Republican colleagues should just “man up and cast a vote,” furthering distancing himself from his GOP leadership.
“We should go through the process the Constitution has already laid out. The president has already laid out a nominee who is from Chicagoland and for me, I’m open to see him, to talk to him, and ask him his views on the Constitution,” Kirk during an interview on WLS-AM’s Big John Howell Show.

Reasonable  Repub? Nope..just afraid of losing his seat.

happy jack wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/07/obama-dismisses-scotus-diversity-criticism-didnt-search-black-lesbian-skokie/

Obama on Criticism of Lack of Diversity in SCOTUS Pick: I Didn’t Say I Needed a ‘Black Lesbian from Skokie’

How about more qualified?
[/b]

President Obama has appointed Sonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan and has currently nominated
Merrick Garland.
Which of those are not "qualified" and please explain.

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

President Obama has appointed Sonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan and has currently nominated
Merrick Garland.
Which of those are not "qualified" and please explain.

[b]My intention was not to imply that the aforementioned individuals were not qualified.
But yet that's exactly what you did.

breitbart tool wrote:

My intention was to point out that choosing people for any position based upon their skin color, ethnicity, what hole they like to stick it in, or whether they are guys who like to wear brassieres or women who like to wear motorcycle boots is possibly the stupidest method one can use to assure that the position is being filled with a qualified candidate.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I guess the concept of diversity went right over your head. No surprise since you get your news from a racist site like breitbart.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

President Obama has appointed Sonia Sotomayor,Elena Kagan and has currently nominated
Merrick Garland.
Which of those are not "qualified" and please explain.

My intention was not to imply that the aforementioned individuals were not qualified.
But yet that's exactly what you did.

breitbart tool wrote:

My intention was to point out that choosing people for any position based upon their skin color, ethnicity, what hole they like to stick it in, or whether they are guys who like to wear brassieres or women who like to wear motorcycle boots is possibly the stupidest method one can use to assure that the position is being filled with a qualified candidate.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I guess the concept of diversity went right over your head. No surprise since you get your news from a racist site like breitbart.

[b]Just for a moment, let's pretend that you have a brain, and that you have found out that you need critical brain surgery. Would you select a surgeon based upon his surgical skills, or would you select a surgeon based upon the color of his skin?

Straw man argument

happy jack wrote:

Straw man argument, my ass. We were discussing using ethnicity, race, and homoness as criteria for selecting a candidate to fill a particular position.

No. Only you were discussing that. It was a straw man argument from the very beginning... based on the link that you posted.

Obama specifically said that he was not aiming to fill any slot with a particular demographic.

Quote :

Obama said, “The way I thought about diversity is not to think about any single seat as, oh, I’ve got to fill this slot with this demographic but, rather, if I’ve got a broad set of nominees to make — and this is true across the board — how do I make sure that I’m intentional throughout that process? So that the talent of every American, and every potential candidate, gets a fair look. And I have confidence that if I stick to that, if I do that, if I make sure that I’m broadening the search, broadening the pool, looking at a bunch of folks, even if they’re not going through the conventional paths, that I’ll end up — the process will result in diversity. And that in fact is what’s happened. I am, you know, not to brag, but I have transformed the federal courts from a diversity standpoint with a record that’s been unmatched.”

happy jack wrote:

homoness

New slur learned via breitbart?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Straw man argument, my ass. We were discussing using ethnicity, race, and homoness as criteria for selecting a candidate to fill a particular position.

No. Only you were discussing that. It was a straw man argument from the very beginning... based on the link that you posted.

Obama specifically said that he was not aiming to fill any slot with a particular demographic.

Quote :

Obama said, “The way I thought about diversity is not to think about any single seat as, oh, I’ve got to fill this slot with this demographic but, rather, if I’ve got a broad set of nominees to make — and this is true across the board — how do I make sure that I’m intentional throughout that process? So that the talent of every American, and every potential candidate, gets a fair look. And I have confidence that if I stick to that, if I do that, if I make sure that I’m broadening the search, broadening the pool, looking at a bunch of folks, even if they’re not going through the conventional paths, that I’ll end up — the process will result in diversity. And that in fact is what’s happened. I am, you know, not to brag, but I have transformed the federal courts from a diversity standpoint with a record that’s been unmatched.”

Yes, he says, “not to brag”, then goes right ahead and brags about the diversity of his courts.
Diversity is meaningless. It is the height of superficiality to brag that the candidates you have chosen are in any way ‘special’, or better than any other candidate, based upon their skin color, or whatever other surface traits they might possess. Patting yourself on the back for merely having the ability to distinguish one color from another is more than laughable. Most people learn to do that before they enter kindergarten.

So let me get this straight... you post a link that talks about the President defending himself from criticism about the lack of diversity in his appointments.  Then when he defends himself, you accuse him of choosing people because of skin color, or another non relevant trait?  That's a really disingenuous argument... in fact it's "more than laughable."

Let's once again return to the link that you posted...

Quote :

It turns out that if the process is fair and you are saying that it’s important that our courts are reflective of a changing society, you’ll end up with a really good cross-section of people who are excellent, and that’s who we’ve been able to appoint.

And so when I look at Merrick Garland, that was the person that, you know, the difference between the Supreme Court is just a handful of seats come up at any given time. I appointed a Latino woman, another woman right before that. So, you know, yeah, he’s a white guy, but he’s a really outstanding jurist. Sorry.”

So basically, Obama is saying that he chose Garland solely because he feels that Garland is an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court.  What the hell is your issue?

happy jack wrote:

Diversity is meaningless.

That's amazing, I have two neighbors down the street who have confederate flags hanging on the walls in their garages.
They have similar views on the President & "diversity."
Maybe some people can't deal with the notion that it's important that the courts reflect a changing society.