T1B

Dinsdale wrote:LTS is definitely the guy to listen to about Scalia and his career on the SCOTUS.

Except he doesn't know the guy's name.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Good riddance. The moron had no clue as to the 1st Amendment (and it's original intention by author Thomas Jefferson), and tried to make this country a theocracy.

And this talk of Obama deferring to the next POTUS is just nonsense. I could understand it if it was November after the election, but in February? Obama has every right to nominate a new candidate for SCOTUS.

One less justice who thinks corporations are people & takes their marching orders from sky fairies is a good thing.

smackaholic wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Good riddance. The moron had no clue as to the 1st Amendment (and it's original intention by author Thomas Jefferson), and tried to make this country a theocracy.

And this talk of Obama deferring to the next POTUS is just nonsense. I could understand it if it was November after the election, but in February? Obama has every right to nominate a new candidate for SCOTUS.

One less justice who thinks corporations are people & takes their marching orders from sky fairies is a good thing.

Corporations are groups of people. These people do have first amendment rights. What is so fukking difficult to understand.

And letting religious people have rights too is not a theocracy, dumbass.

Diego in Seattle wrote:They have rights to their own religion. But they don't have the right to impose their religion on others.

smackaholic wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:They have rights to their own religion. But they don't have the right to impose their religion on others.

Might I have an example of this? And if you are going to get into basic human rights and call them religious, don't bother.

Diego in Seattle wrote:They do have 1st Amendment rights as individual citizens. Corporations are not citizens. And I'll believe otherwise when Texas executes one of them.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Good riddance. The moron had no clue as to the 1st Amendment (and it's original intention by author Thomas Jefferson), and tried to make this country a theocracy.

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Good riddance. The moron had no clue as to the 1st Amendment (and it's original intention by author Thomas Jefferson), and tried to make this country a theocracy.

A. Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written.

B. The "original intent" of the establishment clause was to prevent the federal gov't from interfering with the officially established religions in 9 of the 13 states.

C. You remain a brainless, kiddy-diddling fucktard.

Diego in Seattle wrote: Are you saying that Jefferson was not the author of the 1st Amendment?

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: Are you saying that Jefferson was not the author of the 1st Amendment?

So you can read. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. James Madison wrote the bill of rights, dumbfuck.

In an 1822 letter to Edward Livingston James Madison wrote:Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

KC Scott wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Sonething I heard this morning bugs me a bit.

Scalia will not get an autopsy.

I realize that there is nothing out of the ordinary about 79 year olds dropping dead, but, considering who this guy was, seems to me that it should be SOP. There are a whole lotta folks out there happy to see him die early enough for barry to get a shot at replacing him and shifting the balance of the court for for years to come.

What sort of security do the supremes have? This guy may have been 79, but, apparently he was feeling well enough to go on a hunting trip in the midde of nowhere. You would guess that a dude with heart issues might have wanted to stay close to a real medical facility.

Just seems like an autopsy would be a good idea and make tin-foil hat wearing fukks like me sleep a little better.

You're reading too many FB conspiracy posts, brah

smackaholic wrote:Sonething I heard this morning bugs me a bit.

Scalia will not get an autopsy.

What sort of security do the supremes have?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The utterly unqualified

smackaholic wrote: What sort of security do the supremes have? This guy may have been 79, but, apparently he was feeling well enough to go on a hunting trip in the midde of nowhere. You would guess that a dude with heart issues might have wanted to stay close to a real medical facility.

smackaholic wrote:This guy may have been 79, but, apparently he was feeling well enough to go on a hunting trip in the midde of nowhere.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The utterly unqualified

Moron

smackaholic wrote:Sonething I heard this morning bugs me a bit.

Scalia will not get an autopsy.

I realize that there is nothing out of the ordinary about 79 year olds dropping dead, but, considering who this guy was, seems to me that it should be SOP. There are a whole lotta folks out there happy to see him die early enough for barry to get a shot at replacing him and shifting the balance of the court for for years to come.

What sort of security do the supremes have? This guy may have been 79, but, apparently he was feeling well enough to go on a hunting trip in the midde of nowhere. You would guess that a dude with heart issues might have wanted to stay close to a real medical facility.

Just seems like an autopsy would be a good idea and make tin-foil hat wearing fukks like me sleep a little better.

Even though the relatives and doctors of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly knew about his health conditions, the fact that the concerns were kept from the public is in keeping with the practices of the court, experts said.

Unlike the White House, which regularly releases updates on the president's health, the Supreme Court does not have set guidelines regarding what they do and don't disclose publicly.

Scalia's Health History

When the 79-year-old justice was found dead on Saturday in a hotel room at a luxury ranch in Texas, the county's presiding judge, Cinderella Guevara, was called and pronounced him dead.

Guevara said she spoke to Scalia's doctor in Washington who told her that Scalia had been sick and had visited his office twice during the week leading up to the trip.

The Associated Press reported that Guevara said the doctor told her that Scalia had a history of high blood pressure, heart trouble and was considered too weak to undergo shoulder surgery following a recent injury.

Guevara told ABC News that the death certificate will say that he died of natural causes with myocardial infarction, better known as a heart attack, being a contributing factor.

Health Factors Weighing In

Dr. Sahil Parikh, an interventional cardiologist at University Hospitals Case Medical Center, never treated Scalia but said that even without knowing his specific family history, there are certain clear factors that may have contributed.

Parikh said that two significant risk factors for heart disease are an individual’s age and gender, with men over 55 years old being the most at-risk group.

“He clearly has some risk factors for heart disease and as those increase in number, so does your risk for having a coronary event,” Parikh told ABC News.

The Tradition With Justices

Even though it appears that nothing had been released recently by the Supreme Court about Justice Scalia's health, there have been other disclosures made about different members of the bench.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is now 82, has had cancer twice and made disclosures in both cases.

Kate Shaw, an ABC News contributor and an assistant professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, said that Ginsburg has been "very forthcoming" with regards to her health.

Ginsburg released a statement in November 2014 saying that she was going to have a heart stent implanted.

"The procedure went smoothly, and she did not miss a single day of oral arguments," Shaw said.

Shaw also pointed out that the court released a statement after Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure in 2007.

The disclosures, when they come, typically are made after an official prognosis by a doctor.

"When Chief Justice Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in October 2004, the Supreme Court's public information office announced the diagnosis, and further announced that he would be undergoing radiation and chemotherapy," Shaw said.

"He returned to the bench in March of 2005, and when he declined to announcement his retirement at the end of that term -- Justice O’Connor instead announced her retirement -- the assumption was that Chief Justice Rehnquist was in good health and would continue serving," Shaw said. "But his health rapidly declined in July and August, and he died on Sept. 3, 2005, creating a second vacancy for President Bush to fill."

According to a report compiled by the Congressional Research Service, 41% of the Supreme Court vacancies that occurred in the first half of the 20th century were a result of a justice dying while in office.

Since then, however, Rehnquist's death was the only one for a sitting Justice since 1954, the report states.

smackaholic wrote:There are a lot of people that wanted him dead, just as I have been praying to the cancer ferry to take ginsberg for a while now.

smackaholic wrote:Mikey,

He probably did just croak, but it would make sense to just do an autopsy to make the tin-foil hatters happy.

BSmack wrote:

smackaholic wrote:There are a lot of people that wanted him dead, just as I have been praying to the cancer ferry to take ginsberg for a while now.

I suppose praying to boats made out of tumors make as much sense as praying to an invisible sky friend.

the county's presiding judge, Cinderella Guevara