Supreme Court Justice Scalia Dies

a reply to: muse7

At this point I say yes, give them what they want. If we cannot recover the constitution in part with this election, then we have lost the country and it will take people getting exactly what they are asking for, for them to see what they have done.

We will just have to fix it later in war when we have to remove the regime from power, in some later generation.

a reply to: Kitana

This hyperbole of losing the constitution and therefor the country is getting really old.

No one is losing it, change doesn't mean lost.

Maybe I missed it, but did you ever answer where the balance was before the loss of Scalia?
You were going on and on about losing the balance we had, just wondering about that.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Simple question:

Do you believe republicans in office have a responsibility to represent the desires of their constituency when accepting a nomination for the Supreme Court - Yes or No?

a reply to: Kitana
LOVE when people ask a question while avoiding one that is being asked to them.
Strange how you expect me to answer yours while you willingly ignore mine.

Yes they do have that duty, but I don't see how saying no to say no is part of that. The people didn't elected them to stall a crucial part of our gov for over a year. They didn't elect them so that after the death of Scalia, that they would just refuse to do their jobs of deliberating on an appointee.

Think you can answer mine now?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yes? Or No?

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Sremmos80

Simple question:

Do you believe republicans in office have a responsibility to represent the desires of their constituency when accepting a nomination for the Supreme Court - Yes or No?

Do you believe the President in office has a responsibility to fulfill his Constitutional duty and to represent the desires of the constituency that elected him for two consecutive terms?

Yes or no?

a reply to: Indigo5

So what.

Politics is a con job. Everything about politics is a minority (compared to the total population) imposing coercive force on the entire country. What fun.

Politics is criminal.

Odd that no autopsy will be performed.

It then took hours for authorities in remote West Texas to find a justice of the peace, officials said Sunday. When they did, she pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and decided not to order an autopsy. A second justice of the peace, who was called but couldn’t get to Scalia’s body in time, said she would have ordered an autopsy.

www.washingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Sremmos80

Yes? Or No?

I answered, if you can't see the answer that isn't my fault.
But I'll explain again. Yes they have the duty to to do so, but acting like the populace knew that this was coming and voted to stop any and all actions is ridiculous.

Will you please answer my question now?
Maybe I missed it, but did you ever answer where the balance was before the loss of Scalia?
You were going on and on about losing the balance we had, just wondering about that.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh come on this happened in Texas, we going to act like that is the state they would plan some grand conspiracy to off a very conservative figure??

Guevara said she asked the Marshals whether 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.

Also from the source.

a reply to: IAMTAT

No it's not odd at all

Now we are going to find out if the Republicans have a backbone or not. Will they allow the impotent RINOs to force a deal that will seal our fate by putting another liberal loon on the bench?

Their decision will say a lot on whether I vote for them come November. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Sremmos80

Simple question:

Do you believe republicans in office have a responsibility to represent the desires of their constituency when accepting a nomination for the Supreme Court - Yes or No?

Why don't you ask them:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.”

Tom Coburn (R-OK): “If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years.”

John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.

Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Until this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”

Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional”

Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): “[T]he Constitution envisions a 51-vote majority for judgeships…. [Filibustering judges] amend[s] the Constitution without going through the proper processes…. We have a majority rule that is the tradition of the Senate with judges. It is the constitutional requirement.”

Jon Kyl (R-AZ): “The President was elected fair and square. He has the right to submit judicial nominees and it is the Senate’s obligation under the Constitution to act on those nominees.”

Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”

Jeff Sessions (R- AL): “[The Constitution] says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply ‘shall advise and consent’ on nominations…. I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean … confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote.”

Richard Shelby (R-AL): “Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it.”

John Thune (SD): Filibustering judicial nominees “is contrary to our Constitution …. It was the Founders’ intention that the Senate dispose of them with a simple majority vote.”

Hmm?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Hmmm.

As late as Sunday afternoon, there were conflicting reports about whether an autopsy would be performed, though officials later said Scalia’s body was being embalmed and there would be no autopsy. One report, by WFAA-TV in Dallas, said the death certificate would show the cause of the death was a heart attack.

Moving fast I see.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Odd that no autopsy will be performed.

Yes indeed, it is very suspect. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Odd that no autopsy will be performed.

It then took hours for authorities in remote West Texas to find a justice of the peace, officials said Sunday. When they did, she pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and decided not to order an autopsy. A second justice of the peace, who was called but couldn’t get to Scalia’s body in time, said she would have ordered an autopsy.

Isn't it up to the family if there is no obvious foul play?

Just curious.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Hmmm.

And it's odd that Marfa has a very high percentage of registered Democrats !!!

Politics split for Marfa

a reply to: IAMTAT

i had heard that his personal physician allready did an autopsy before embalming and found no signs of foul play www.ijreview.com...

Later that evening, Justice Scalia’s remains were examined by his personal physician, where it was determined that there were no signs of foul play involved in the Supreme Court justice’s death.

so not medical smart so not sure if an actual autopsy was done but at least his own personal physician looked at the body and declared no foul play/natural causes
www.cbsnews.com... seems a full autopsy is being debated so not sure exactly whats going on


only places i see running with no autopsy story is before its news and alex jones (info wars)

abcnews.go.com...

www.wfaa.com... seems its a requirement of texas law that autopsy be performed?

a reply to: Kitana

Oh don't worry about it, these people think we live under a totalitarian regime and have no need for consent. There is no discussion with people like that.

Progressives confuse wishing for thinking.

Progressives have negated the real and natural progress of two centuries and counting.

I try to forget about it. All will be well by 5000AD or so.

originally posted by: muse7
a reply to: IAMTAT

No it's not odd at all

Considering the importance of the deceased man in question...and the fact that the body wasn't even personally examined when the initial determination of cause of death was made (over the phone)...yes; it's odd.
A full autopsy should be done.