Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Mysterious Death



From the Washington Post (HT LRC):

Two days after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in remote West Texas, a former D.C. homicide commander is raising questions about how the death was handled by local and federal authorities.

“As a former homicide commander, I am stunned that no autopsy was ordered for Justice Scalia,” William O. Ritchie, former head of criminal investigations for D.C. police, wrote in a post on Facebook on Sunday.

“You have a Supreme Court Justice who died, not in attendance of a physician,” he wrote. “You have a non-homicide trained US Marshal tell the justice of peace that no foul play was observed. You have a justice of the peace pronounce death while not being on the scene and without any medical training opining that the justice died of a heart attack. What medical proof exists of a myocardial Infarction? Why not a cerebral hemorrhage?”

I am not an expert in the voting records of the various justices.  I take as reported that Scalia is one of the more conservative justices.  I also take it as reported that the court is pretty evenly divided 5-4 on ideological lines.  Although I am not sure any of this matters (when was the last time the court struck down anything meaningful?), the circumstances are still curious.


Evenwel v. Abbott (One Person, One Vote)

In this case, the Court will decide if eligible voting population numbers can be substituted for total population numbers when voting districts are determined.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Affirmative Action)

In December the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a landmark challenge to affirmative action at Texas’ flagship public university. The University of Texas is required to admit all high school seniors who rank in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. Candidates for any remaining spots undergo a “holistic” evaluation process in which race is among the considered factors.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Public Union Dues)

Friedrichs is a challenge to the practices of public unions. The Court will determine whether requiring public school teachers to pay mandatory dues for union activities violates the First Amendment.

Whole Women’s Health v. Cole (Abortion)

The petitioners in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole claim a Texas law enacted in 2013 would force about 75 percent of the state’s abortion services to close. Two provisions in the law require that doctors at clinics have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinics, and that clinics have facilities equal to those of an outpatient surgical center. Texas officials believe the laws protect the health of the women seeking abortions by guaranteeing better care.

Zubik vs. Burwell (Obamacare)

The United States Supreme Court in November consolidated seven cases challenging Obamacare’s birth-control mandate into one: Zubik v. Burwell. The current legal challenge, the fourth to be accepted by the Court since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, involves religious-sponsored non-profit corporations.

And this:


The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will decide the fate of President Barack Obama's immigration actions this term.

The actions are aimed at allowing millions of undocumented immigrants to apply for programs that could make them eligible for work authorization and associated benefits.

And this from Rolling Stone:

Upcoming Supreme Court Cases That Could Change History: Many liberals are nervous about the upcoming Supreme Court term – and they should be

The article references several of the aforementioned cases.

Conclusion

Someone with more knowledge than I have on Scalia, his leanings, etc., will probably write about the impact of his death on these cases.

Maybe his death is irrelevant to these.  Maybe it is just a coincidence.

11 comments:

  1. and maybe that Zionist filmcrew on the Jersey side of the Hudson, all set up and ready to shoot before Am11 hit the North Tower, was "just a coincidence". Probably not though

    ReplyDelete
  2. ".....Dismiss the comfortable notion that “this couldn’t happen.” JFK couldn’t have been murdered, but he was. High political figures don’t carry special immunity.

    Dismiss assurances from incompetents in Texas that Scalia died of natural causes, and dismiss the press repeating these assurances—which add up to: nothing.

    Dismiss calls for “propriety in a time of grief.”

    Dismiss whatever opinions, pro and con, circulate now about Scalia, his points of view, his decisions, his character, his life. They’re irrelevant to the facts of his death. Those facts are as clear as mud.

    Dismiss the typical accusations of “conspiracy theory.” It’s no theory when key facts are unknown and incompetents supplied the current “information.”

    "..Consider, as potentially relevant, the report that Scalia was found with a pillow over his head.

    Consider, as relevant, that Judge Guevara, deciding without seeing the body that Scalia died from natural causes, ruled against doing an autopsy....."

    "Was Scalia murdered? Forget “Conspiracy Theory.” This is Real.":
    http://www.activistpost.com/2016/02/was-scalia-murdered-forget-conspiracy-theory-this-is-real.html

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
  3. What's really unsettling isn't the possibility of foul play in Scalia's death, it's the fact that five people in black robes have the power to make social and economic policy at gunpoint for 330 million people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. absolutely correct...

      Delete
    2. The only power the Supremes actually have is the doctrine of stare decisis. This doctrine, established as a rule in our legal system requires a trial court to be bound by an earlier decision of an appellate court.

      This doctrine is inconsistently applied by the Supremes who sometimes pretend to be bound by an earlier Supreme Court decision, while sometimes simply ignoring earlier decisions.

      I think the doctrine is absurd, because it allows the Supreme Court, as well as inferior appellate courts, to legislate from the bench.

      IMO, any court ruling should be binding only on parties to the case being ruled upon. Maybe the use of stare decisis is intended to shortcut frivolous suits, or to make the jobs of attorneys and judges easier. If so, the result of defacto legislation by judges is an unintended consequence.

      Maybe this result isn't unintended at all.

      Delete
  4. From Mr Pearl Harbor himself:


    In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt


    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello Bionic,

    This is off topic, but:

    I have been perusing the Rising Sun by John Toland - a history of the decline of Japan from 1936-1945. I know you are keen on updating your timeline to war and was wondering if you had read this one. My main takeaway so far is that it portrays a failure to communicate and diplomatic bumbling as a large cause in forcing the Japanese hand. After reading some reviews, the main criticism seems to be that Toland held that America knew of Pearl Harbor; also, Toland's portrayal is definitely in the TE Lawrence camp of romanticizing of a foreign peoples. Still, a very interesting perspective of east asian imperialism.

    Hope all has been well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alaska,

      All is well, thank you.

      I will look into this book. Thank you for letting me know.

      BM

      Delete
  6. Irrelevant, coincidence, foul play, natural cause .. the only thing we know for sure is, in the words of the immortal Left ..

    We don't need no stinking autopsy!

    ReplyDelete