Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Scalia Death Conflicting Reports Coming In

Page 2 of 29 [ 452 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 29  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

14 Feb 2016, 7:37 pm

pcuser wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
pcuser wrote:
Are you really suggesting it was a murder? He was old and he was an evil bastard. Good riddance and rot in hell...


Nice feedback from the Left, as usual. Next?

He was an evil bastard. He and his fellow conservatives stole the Presidency from Al Gore. They should have simply counted the votes. Then, they claimed it wasn't a precedent. That never happens with the Supreme Court. That gave us 9/11 and Iraq. That gives us ISIS. So, yeah, he was an evil bastard. I never wish someone dead. But, I won't shed a tear over his death. Now, back to the point. Are you claiming it was murder...


Evil is a bit of a stretch...


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

14 Feb 2016, 7:41 pm

nurseangela wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
JOPs can authorize autopsies, so could Scalia's next of kin. Out of two different JOPs and the entire lineup of Scalia's NOK, only one of the JOPs felt an autopsy was warranted.


If that is indeed the law, there's something f****d up about that. And if anyone of credibility thinks an autopsy should have been performed then it should have - unless someone wants to cover things up.


I'd like to see the actual law on that too, before I believe it.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

14 Feb 2016, 7:46 pm

Before you believe that the Justice of the Peace can authorize an autopsy?


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

14 Feb 2016, 7:52 pm

Maybe it is not a good idea to have presidential nomination/senate appointment of Justices. Different system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_ ... Commission



nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

14 Feb 2016, 9:06 pm

MDD123 wrote:
Before you believe that the Justice of the Peace can authorize an autopsy?


And didn't you say next of kin? I'm sure mine would probably want me dead. :roll:


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

14 Feb 2016, 9:14 pm

nurseangela wrote:
And didn't you say next of kin? I'm sure mine would probably want me dead. :roll:

They would? That isn't very nice.


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


Mongoose1
Raven
Raven

Joined: 14 Feb 2016
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 105
Location: In an airbase in Shangri-La

14 Feb 2016, 11:19 pm

I agree. There should have been an autopsy. Of the commanders-in-chief I've served, Oh-blah-blah was the slimiest. Problem is, that age factor is an excuse for laziness. The guy was 79. Not good. The same should have been done for J. Edgar Hoover - who was the first director of the FBI, as well as a blackmailer, manipulator, and closet homosexual who had numerous people scared to death and thus had a lot of enemies. Instead, the news reporters announced that the guy died in his sleep. If there was foul play on Scalia, it will be up to God to get even - which I have complete faith that He will.


_________________
Currahee! We stand alone together!


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

14 Feb 2016, 11:46 pm

nurseangela wrote:
Fnord wrote:
He's not in the ground yet, and already the conspiracists are putting forth their favorite theories. What next ...

... "Natural Causes" or homicide?

... Intent or negligence?

... Space aliens or Illuminati?

:roll:


If the Left wouldn't keep doing corrupt crap, the words "conspiracy theory" wouldn't even have to exist. :roll:

Oh bull corn.Like the right hasn't done corrupt things.Most politicians are corrupt,doesn't matter what party they are in.The right starts it's fair share of conspiracy theories.
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/12/10_righ ... s_partner/

So here's how it went down,Obama is really an inncubus and he slipped in Scalia's bedroom that night and sucked the life force out of Scalia just so he could appoint a new justice.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

15 Feb 2016, 9:13 am

nurseangela wrote:
Fnord wrote:
He's not in the ground yet, and already the conspiracists are putting forth their favorite theories. What next ...

... "Natural Causes" or homicide?

... Intent or negligence?

... Space aliens or Illuminati?

:roll:
If the Left wouldn't keep doing corrupt crap, the words "conspiracy theory" wouldn't even have to exist. :roll:
If the extreme right wouldn't create "Conspiracy Theories", the whole concept would disappear like Judge Crater into the New York night.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

15 Feb 2016, 9:24 am

The Republicans are probably going to try to block Obamas nomination of a new justice.

I don't feel that Scalia's death has any foul play as a component.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

15 Feb 2016, 10:08 am

It's not a matter of blocking, Obama can't get anyone approved. There are checks and balances to our system and Obama is a lame duck president, why should he make a lifetime appointment to the court? None of the same people were saying the same when Bush was president, it's all a joke. You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate, there are 54 Republicans, this is democracy in action. Obama doesn't get to rule by decree no matter how much both he and you guys want him to, he is not king, he is not dictator.

The election is in November, are you getting nervous or something? I thought Hillary was a slamdunk...



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

15 Feb 2016, 10:57 am

Jacoby wrote:
It's not a matter of blocking, Obama can't get anyone approved. There are checks and balances to our system and Obama is a lame duck president, why should he make a lifetime appointment to the court? None of the same people were saying the same when Bush was president, it's all a joke. You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate, there are 54 Republicans, this is democracy in action. Obama doesn't get to rule by decree no matter how much both he and you guys want him to, he is not king, he is not dictator.

The election is in November, are you getting nervous or something? I thought Hillary was a slamdunk...


When Bush was president, he appointed SC justices, nobody stopped him from doing that. Your subjective opinion of Obama being a lame duck doesn't disqualify him from nominating a new SC justice. Just because Obama wants to do what is outlined in his job doesn't mean he's a king or a dictator either.


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

15 Feb 2016, 11:01 am

MDD123 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
It's not a matter of blocking, Obama can't get anyone approved. There are checks and balances to our system and Obama is a lame duck president, why should he make a lifetime appointment to the court? None of the same people were saying the same when Bush was president, it's all a joke. You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate, there are 54 Republicans, this is democracy in action. Obama doesn't get to rule by decree no matter how much both he and you guys want him to, he is not king, he is not dictator.

The election is in November, are you getting nervous or something? I thought Hillary was a slamdunk...


When Bush was president, he appointed SC justices, nobody stopped him from doing that. Your subjective opinion of Obama being a lame duck doesn't disqualify him from nominating a new SC justice. Just because Obama wants to do what is outlined in his job doesn't mean he's a king or a dictator either.

Exactly what I was about to write...



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

15 Feb 2016, 11:07 am

He can try to nominate whoever he wants, he's not owed approval or even a vote. There is nothing in the constitution that Obama can do about it except cry, most Americans will agree that we should vote on it.



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

15 Feb 2016, 11:16 am

Jacoby wrote:
He can try to nominate whoever he wants, he's not owed approval or even a vote. There is nothing in the constitution that Obama can do about it except cry, most Americans will agree that we should vote on it.


That's how you know your side won, making someone else cry...

Obama could make a recess appointment like Eisenhower did BTW, so delaying the vote isn't a very good strategy.


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

15 Feb 2016, 11:31 am

MDD123 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
He can try to nominate whoever he wants, he's not owed approval or even a vote. There is nothing in the constitution that Obama can do about it except cry, most Americans will agree that we should vote on it.


That's how you know your side won, making someone else cry...

Obama could make a recess appointment like Eisenhower did BTW, so delaying the vote isn't a very good strategy.


There are more than enough parliamentary procedures to avoid a recess appointment, it's not something Obama is going to do regardless. He'll try to nominate someone, fail, then the media will try to browbeat us over it but everybody knows the significance of this appointment so it will just fall along partisan lines. Believe it or not, there are a lot of Americans that would like a say on this even partisan Democrats. They'll try to make it an election issue, like the government shutdown but it's not a winning issue for them. Obama has no leverage, that's why he's a lame duck. There is historical precedent, this happened more than once in our history.

Perhaps Obama's nominee can be considered if Hilary or Bernie Sanders win in November during the lame duck session but I think Hillary and Bernie would have something to say about that. Republicans could play the two off each other and get a nominee more to their liking, just as likely there is a Republican victory in November and they will then decide the next SCOTUS nominee.

We have checks and balances, Obama can name nominees to the court but he can't get them considered or approved. Elections matter and the GOP controls both the House and Senate as well as the majority state legislatures as well as governor offices, Obama and his supporters might not like it but you are the minority.