OT – scalia

[paramount]

Starnes is right about one thing: Thanks to religious nut conservatives who would not vote for Romney because he is Mormon, we’ll likely end up with a radical socialist/marxist on the bench.

Let the filibuster begin!!

[mixxalot]

He was murdered!

[pencilneck]

Saw this posted elsewhere:

Antonin Scalia requested cremation in his will, but millions of women will meet tomorrow to discuss if that’s really best for his body.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=paramount]Starnes is right about one thing: Thanks to religious nut conservatives who would not vote for Romney because he is Mormon, we’ll likely end up with a radical socialist/marxist on the bench.

Let the filibuster begin!![/quote]

I think we will end up with the first Hindu on the Supreme Court.

[spdrun]

Personally, I think it’s a shame that we can’t have another Ginsburg. A 4th amendment privacy rights hawk who’s not terribly sympathetic to law enforcement. Exactly the kind of antidote that the US needs post-9/11.

[FlyerInHi]

According to Scalia, any liberty not specifically defined in the constitution is not protected.

His attitude is: so what? If you don’t like it, amend the constitution, but don’t ask the court to broaden the constitution. Original intent and textualism.

The founding fathers clearly didn’t know anything about computers. So it follows that digital privacy is not protected. Businesses and government can do whatever they want.

[scaredyclassic]

He was an artist.

The textualism is just a gimmick, a prop. If it works use it, but it can be dropped or warped to whatever you are trying to get a result for.

Like fortune telling, tea leaf reading, textualism is performance art. He was about as good at keeping up the facade as o9ne could be…

[FlyerInHi]

I agree, scaredy. A legal artist.
Scalia was not exactly morally consistent. If it works use it.

In his opinion on the line item veto, Scalia basically said that the president already has wide discretion to decline to spend money appropriated by Congress. That gives the president a lot of power in conducting the business of government.

[spdrun]

IDK — he ruled against infra-red searches of premises, even though IR cameras did not exist when the Founders were around.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]IDK — he ruled against infra-red searches of premises, even though IR cameras did not exist when the Founders were around.[/quote]

That’s a very interesting 5/4 case. I’m surprised that Scalia and Thomas were in the majority with some liberals. Apparently, when infrared technology is widely available in the general public, then there will no longer be expectation of privacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

There was an article about somewhere in Europe where they fly helicopters over people’s houses in the winter to see if roofs are clear of snow to detect growing marijuana.

[paramount]

Death Investigator: Scalia’s Death Probe ‘Very Troubling to Me’

“Cases like this show you need a solid system. He was found dead; it was not a witnessed death. That is very troubling to me,” he told LawNewz.com.

At a minimum, a thorough external examination should have been done, together with collection of bodily fluids for testing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=paramount]Death Investigator: Scalia’s Death Probe ‘Very Troubling to Me’

“Cases like this show you need a solid system. He was found dead; it was not a witnessed death. That is very troubling to me,” he told LawNewz.com.

At a minimum, a thorough external examination should have been done, together with collection of bodily fluids for testing.[/quote]My understanding was that Scalia’s family didn’t want an autopsy. They’re the only ones who have standing to sue. In addition, I believe Judge Guevara (who pronounced him dead in absentia) spoke to at least one of his two (DC-based) doctors who had seen him a few days earlier. That doctor told her that he had warned the Justice that he was in “poor health.” No details were given as to what “poor health” meant. In any case, if he had 1-2 doctors who had just seen the Justice prior to going on that trip who stated to him (and later, others) that he was in “poor health,” then that alone would prevent the family from taking any legal action against the resort or TX government as medical doctors are considered “experts” in their field and are not easily impeached.

In short, there are very likely a lot of things the TX government (and the MSM) didn’t and don’t know about the state of the Justice’s health at the time of his death.

[paramount]

BG: The Death guy never mentions autopsy – just some basic tests/exam.

And a pillow was over his head…??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=paramount]BG: The Death guy never mentions autopsy – just some basic tests/exam.[/quote]You didn’t have a link and I did see that in your post. I don’t know the protocol for medical examiners in TX. Maybe they’re now saying this because they feel they didn’t properly cover their a$$es in this case. But it really doesn’t matter, anyway … see my post above.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=paramount] . . . And a pillow was over his head…??[/quote]That’s not what the innkeeper said in an impromptu interview on the day the Justice’s body was found. He said he was lying down on the bed on top of the covers. He had apparently collapsed shortly after entering his room the night before … and never woke up.

The innkeeper (ranch owner) is the only one who knows how the body looked and seemed very credible to me. He seemed very professional and had nothing to hide. He didn’t immediately let himself in the Justice’s room until after he missed both breakfast lunch the next day. Even then, he stated that he knocked several times and got no answer before he finally used his master key to enter the room.

It’s extremely likely that the ranch owner didn’t touch the body except to try to rouse him or see if he was dead. So it would have been in the same position he found it in when the authorities got there.

[Author]

Posts