October 12, 2016

"It's a paler place without" Scalia, said Justice Ginsburg.

"Paler. Because he was a wonderful storyteller. He had an uncanny ability to make even the most somber judge smile."

Also:
When asked about Hillary Clinton potentially stacking the court with liberal justices, Ginsburg said she resisted "the notion that, if you are a Democrat, then you are 'liberal.'"

"Just think of John Paul Stevens appointed by President Ford, then Souter appointed by the first President Bush," she said. "They were not 'conservative.'"
I'd like to see the whole quote, but 2 examples of Republicans who turned out not to be conservative does not make me think it's at all likely that Democrats will turn out not to be liberal. When's the last time that happened? Felix Frankfurter?

82 comments:

Sebastian said...

"When asked about Hillary Clinton potentially stacking the court with liberal justices, Ginsburg said she resisted "the notion that, if you are a Democrat, then you are 'liberal.'"" True, many are now hard left.

"Just think of John Paul Stevens appointed by President Ford, then Souter appointed by the first President Bush," she said. "They were not 'conservative.'" True, they weren't. But wandering off the reservation is just a GOP appointee thing. Rarely happens on the left. Of course, as an "argument," her point is a non sequitur: from the ideological unreliability of GOP appointees it doesn't follow that a Dem wouldn't stack the court with reliably liberal justices.

Original Mike said...

"When asked about Hillary Clinton potentially stacking the court with liberal justices, Ginsburg said she resisted "the notion that, if you are a Democrat, then you are 'liberal.'"

Sure. You could be a fascist.

Adamsunderground said...

Is that some kinda crack about swarthy italians?!

Beach Brutus said...

Byron White?

holdfast said...

"When asked about Hillary Clinton potentially stacking the court with liberal justices, Ginsburg said she resisted "the notion that, if you are a Democrat, then you are 'liberal.'"

You could be a Progressive, Socialist, Trotskyite, Marxist, Communist . . . the possibilities are really endless.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think it would've been more interesting if she had listed some conservative opinions from justices normally considered liberal. It's well known that conservative appointed justices are much less likely to fall into a political niche, and I'm sure the liberal justices have a few cases where they differ from the orthodoxy as well.

buwaya puti said...

The poor old lady is addled.
Sentimentality has broken through the will to power.
Shes ready to retire.

Its all about power now. Anyone they get in will be solid, and backed up with promises of indirect benefits, family benefits or blackmail.

Josephbleau said...

I think a good example of her thesis is the Dred Scott vs Sanford decision when Justice Taney, a Democrat, found that Slaves were Slaves throughout the United States though on free soil.

buwaya puti said...

Oh come on, out of that team you can expect reliability.
Any other position is pure fantasy.

Michael K said...

The votes tell the tale. What Democrat appointee votes other than hard left ?

buwaya puti said...

Even the nomenklatura lose their steel with age.
Thats why she needs to be replaced.
Stalin would have scratched her off his list.
Here and now, I think someone already has. They just told her to hang on just a bit.

coupe said...

Elizabeth Warren said in 2013: "The five conservative justices currently sitting on the United States Supreme Court are in the top 10 most pro-corporate justices in half a century. You follow this pro-corporate trend to its logical conclusion, and sooner or later you’ll end up with a Supreme Court that functions as a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business."

Scalia wrote in response: "In order for capitalism to work, in order for it to produce a good and stable society, traditional Christian virtues are essential….Governmentalization of charity affects not just the donor but the recipient. What was once asked as a favor is demanded as entitlement.”

But consider this, what if we got rid of Capitalism?

We could become Socialists and kill the Church with one stone.

Who needs a church when the State makes God redundant?

Achilles said...

Is it going to be a paler place without the rule of law?

Leftists on the court have no intellectual honesty.

buwaya puti said...

Intellectual honesty? Why qualify it as "intellectual"?

YoungHegelian said...

I don't understand why people are surprised that RBG & Scalia were good friends. They really were very similar in background. She was a NYC native, Jewish & a driven lawyer and he was a NYC native, Italian Catholic & a driven lawyer. There's a lot of overlap between being in a Jewish family & being in an Italian family, especially in NYC where these folks live side by side, or at least neighborhood by neighborhood, with each other.

Like, what? Jews don't eat cannolis & Italians turn down good pastrami on rye? I don't think so. Even the corrosive acid of modern politics can't dissolve those sort of bonds.

Rob said...

The poor old lady is addled.
Sentimentality has broken through the will to power.
Shes ready to retire.


Give Ann a break. Anybody could forget Whizzer White.

coupe said...

YoungHegelian said...I don't understand why people are surprised that RBG & Scalia were good friends. They really were very similar in background.

Scalia also respected and was friends with her husband, who was among other things, a great cook.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Without balance the Court will quickly slide into irrelevance. A Court with a heavy ideological bias can be dismissed as partisan hacks and it will just be a matter of time before some governor tells them to take their ruling and shove it. Who will gainsay him?

Every Heller requires an Obergefell, or the party will be over soon enough.

buwaya puti said...

The party is over.
It just needs a court decision or three to prove it to all the doubters.

Original Mike said...

"...2 examples of Republican who turned out not to be conservative does not make me think it's at all likely that Democrats will turn out not to be liberal. When's the last time that happened?"

Don't ask Ginsburg. She obviously couldn't think of an example.

mockturtle said...

Pallor is the least concern with the untimely absence of Scalia.

mccullough said...

Kagan and Breyer voted to strike down the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion
portion of Obamacare. Breyer is not liberal on fourth or sixth amendment issues, though Scalia was.

White wasn't liberal on abortion or gay rights. This is all I can think of as far as Dem
appointed justices in the last 30 years.



SteveR said...

I don't think they'll ever make that mistake. Souter, Stevens, (ahem) Kennedy were attempts at compromise, the dems won't go there.

Achilles said...

Blogger buwaya puti said...
"The party is over.
It just needs a court decision or three to prove it to all the doubters."

One party ends, another party begins.

readering said...

Sherman Minton

William said...

Frankfurter wasn't FDR's lawyer before the Supreme Court, he was FDR's lawyer on the Supreme Court. He was able to hide in FDR's penumbra and perhaps is more deserving of opprobrium than oblivion.....I vaguely remember about him excoriating Oliver Wendell Holmes for refusing to sign a stay of the execution in the Sacco/Vanzetti case. If you fall afoul of a favorite leftist cause, it's Katie bar the door.

Zach said...

Whistling past the graveyard here, but I wonder if you get more apostate judges when you're nominally in the majority? It's one thing to bloc vote for a predetermined outcome when you're trying to restrain the other guys, but quite another when you're going to have to live with the results.

Of the current justices, who would be the best prospect for a liberal Souter? Kagan, maybe? She was friendly with Scalia and was a protege of Larry Summers. Breyer and Ginsberg are out of the running, and Sotomayor doesn't seem like the type who's willing to take the criticism.

Martin said...

Democratic appointees have all been solid liberals since Whizzer White (the last who maybe wasn't). GOP appointees are about half conservative to moderate and half are liberals after they've been on the Court a few years.

Sammy Finkelman said...

As Beach Brutus noted already Byron White. But at that time, in 1961, it didn't matter so much, and Jfk was actually not particularly interested in appointing judicial liberals.

Qwinn said...

It's called The Long March Through The Institutions. This doesn't happen to Democrat appointees because their first and only qualification is party loyalty. It's how they've taken over everything. The problem is that, once that tactic is successful, there's no way to reverse it short of a full ideological purge going the other way. Which can never happen because that would be McCarthyism!!!!111!!... but only when we do it, of course.

Mick said...

The Senile Old Bitch is engaging in the typical relativist thought process of the brain damaged Liberal. Bush was not a "Conservative" just because he was a "Republican". "Conservative" would be "Constitutionalist", but there hasn't been one of those in generations.
The TRUTH is that the Usurper and his minions had Scalia killed. Seriously, a Supreme Court Justice "dies" in his sleep, then is called "dead" over the phone, with no autopsy, and wisked away to the crematorium?

EsoxLucius said...

Interesting question. How about Merrick Garland? Does the brain pool think the 114th congress will give him a hearing, fearing President Clinton will nominate a younger and more vociferous liberal?

rehajm said...

"...vowed to "hold this office as long as I can do the job full steam."

Wow. Just wow.

Rick said...

Ginsburg said she resisted "the notion that, if you are a Democrat, then you are 'liberal.'"

Completely agree. Nowadays if you're a prominent enough Democrat to be considered you're almost certainly a progressive. As Althouse's experience shows us legal academics are so far left they believe liberals are conservatives. While politicians nominate they rely on the this academy for recommendations.

Brando said...

I think Byron White was the last time the Dems nominated someone who often veered right. They've been better at getting reliable justices than the GOP has.

Not sure exactly why that is--the GOP has just as many tools for vetting as the Dems do. But they miss the mark sometimes.

Of course, one reason could be that since Nixon, the GOP has nominated far more justices period, and are therefore more likely to miss. The Dems have only nominated four since 1969.

JAORE said...

El Predicto sez:

That liberal wail against using litmus tests for selection judges will slip way quietly into the night.

Roe v. Wade - - d'uh
Second amendments limits - fer 'em
Corporate money in politics - Lip service

machine said...

"As many legal scholars have commented, and Justice Breyer suggested in his dissent, the court had the power to extend that deadline to December 18. So why not? Obviously, the only reason for the early deadline was that it effectively handed the election to Bush. But they couldn't say that, and thus threw in specious and unsustainable arguments in their opinion."


get over yourselves...

AprilApple said...

The new notion is that if you are a democrat, you are corrupt.

Bay Area Guy said...

It all changed when the Dems "Borked" Robert Bork and Reagan dithered instead of defending him. Classic case of bringing a knife to a gunfight.

The Dems saw clearly that Bork was the 5th Vote to overturn Roe v Wade (White, Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor) and went for Bork's jugular, even though Bork was a distinguished Yale Law Professor, former Solicitor General and well-recognized scholar. He was the best of the best, but was demonized because the Left didn't like his opinions.

Reagan then erred in replacing the Bork nomination with the more malleable Kennedy, who helped institutionalize abortion, sodomy, and gay marriage. Not saying those are definitively bad things, only that they should have been voted on by a democratic society, not imposed on us by 5 elitist lawyers in robes.



Freder Frederson said...

The TRUTH is that the Usurper and his minions had Scalia killed.

That is a very serious accusation, even for your warped brain.

Do you have a shred of evidence to support this. If you can't provide any, Althouse should delete your comment. This is as, bad if not worse, than threatening to assassinate the president.

Mick said...

"The TRUTH is that the Usurper and his minions had Scalia killed.

That is a very serious accusation, even for your warped brain.

Do you have a shred of evidence to support this. If you can't provide any, Althouse should delete your comment. This is as, bad if not worse, than threatening to assassinate the president".


Suuuurrrre they didn't kill him. SCOTUS judges die all the time (with pillows over their faces) at Democratic Party donors estates and are declared dead over the phone then wisked away to be cremated without an autopsy (and the media ignores).
The Usurper has killed thousands all over the world with his drones and regime change schemes meant to install Islamists into power in secular Muslim Countries, and has fomented the "migrant crisis" seen today. One more judge that was resistant to his Usurpation of power is no big deal for the Nobel Peace winner.

AprilApple said...

DNC staffer who leaked to Wiki was found dead - it would not surprise me if the Clinton Crime Machine offed with Scalia.

No - I have no proof. There will be no proof.

Chuck said...

As we think about the damage wrought by Trump, let's consider "Mick." An unhinged detraction from the general quality of commenting on this blog. Who has been predicting a Trump "landslide," and who is now declaring Justice Scalia to have been a murder victim.

Professor Althouse; all it took, to get to this place, was for you to be coy with some extended and overwrought tolerance for Trump. You opened the floodgate on this one. And your blog, previously filled with thoughtful debaters of Scott Walker, the Budget Repair Bill and the Wisconsin Supreme Court's internal politics, is now awash in conspiracy theorists detached from reality.

AprilApple said...

The corrupt in-bed-with-the-corruptocrats hack press reported that DNC staffer was robbed. He was not.

DNC staffer found shot to death for "no apparent reason." This was the guy who helped expose the fraud Debbie Wasserman Big Bucks(D), who was actively trying to help Hillary and hurt Bernie.

Brando said...

If Obama wanted a Justice dead, he would have gone with Clarence Thomas who is younger than Scalia. Or, he would have done it right after being re-elected so that the GOP would be a lot less likely to stall his next nominee.

If Clinton was behind it, she would have waited at least until she was elected.

Sometimes men in their 80s die naturally.

Brando said...

"As we think about the damage wrought by Trump, let's consider "Mick." An unhinged detraction from the general quality of commenting on this blog. Who has been predicting a Trump "landslide," and who is now declaring Justice Scalia to have been a murder victim."

I think Mick is a Moby--a leftist pretending to be an unhinged conspiracy theorist right winger to mock us.

Or it might really be Mick Jagger, commenting on blogs between sets.

GRW3 said...

I wonder if the liberal justices have been dauntingly liberal because they were balanced and could afford it. Perhaps a change in membership will force them to be more circumspect in order to preserve the legitimacy of the court. In their corporate memory is "switch in time saves nine".

AprilApple said...

Clinton Body Count or Left-Wing Conspiracy? Three With Ties to DNC Mysteriously Die

It is odd that so many coincidences and deaths favor the Clintons.

tim in vermont said...

is now awash in conspiracy theorists detached from reality. - Chuck

Here is a great chance for you to inject some lawyerly reality into this blog. There are two independent sources for the story that Hillary publicly berated and belittled Vince Foster a week before his suicide, and that friends say in the week between that meeting and his suicide, he was a changed man. The evidence came from a Boston Globe interview with Jim McDougal, and also from interviews with FBI agents who investigated the suicide for Starr, whose tesimony was left out of the report.

You have said that there are mountains of proof that this story is not true. Maybe you said "copious" or "ample" but still you claimed there was a lot of proof that this story was false.

Perhaps you could share with us the proof? I haven't seen it. I don't like getting caught repeating nonsense, so straighten me out Chuck!

John Taylor said...

wet works, now

readering said...

Clinton passed on chance to give shout out to Garland Sunday. Whether he makes it probably turns on whether Dems take Senate this election.

EMD said...

Poor Merrick.

He never had a chance on either side.

Rick said...

Chuck said...
Professor Althouse; all it took, to get to this place, was for you to be coy with some extended and overwrought tolerance for Trump. You opened the floodgate on this one.


Mick has been here far longer than Trump has been relevant as a candidate. This is the third election he's been pushing his nonsense. Apparently long-time reader Chuck has become so focused on Trump reality no longer exists. Who could have guessed?

Mick said...

Brando said...
"If Obama wanted a Justice dead, he would have gone with Clarence Thomas who is younger than Scalia. Or, he would have done it right after being re-elected so that the GOP would be a lot less likely to stall his next nominee.

If Clinton was behind it, she would have waited at least until she was elected.

Sometimes men in their 80s die naturally".


There is no logic in your post whatsoever, and besides Thomas had already gotten the message and was falling in line, as his assent in Zivitovsky proves, which (in dicta) said that those born of one US citizen parent abroad were "natural born Citizens" so that the State Dept. could rewrite the Foreign affairs manual, even though that dicta is against all previous precedent (Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167: and Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649, 680).

Mick said...

"Sometimes men in their 80s die naturally".

How does one know he "died naturally"? No autopsy was done, and he was wisked away to be cremated w/in hours, after a declaration of death made by phone. A SCOTUS Justice doesn't just die of mysterious circumstance and no autopsy done. It was a hit.

Mick said...

"I think Mick is a Moby--a leftist pretending to be an unhinged conspiracy theorist right winger to mock us.

Or it might really be Mick Jagger, commenting on blogs between sets."

Yeah OK, that is why I went to court in Fla. to keep Obama, Cruz and Rubio off the ballot.

Freder Frederson said...

A SCOTUS Justice doesn't just die of mysterious circumstance and no autopsy done.

If that justice is overweight, has high blood pressure, probably doesn't have the healthiest diet and doesn't get much exercise, then he is a ticking timebomb. 80 year old men in his condition drop dead all the time.

Mick said...

Freder Frederson said...
A SCOTUS Justice doesn't just die of mysterious circumstance and no autopsy done.

"If that justice is overweight, has high blood pressure, probably doesn't have the healthiest diet and doesn't get much exercise, then he is a ticking timebomb. 80 year old men in his condition drop dead all the time".

You don't know the cause of death--- no one does, because no autopsy was done. Again no logic. He was not examined by the coroner, who pronounced him dead on the phone. How do you know how he died? In reality would a SCOTUS Justice, who just died of causes which are unknown, be wisked away to the crematorium? It just does not happen, except when a murder is being protected.

Brando said...

"There is no logic in your post whatsoever, and besides Thomas had already gotten the message and was falling in line, as his assent in Zivitovsky proves, which (in dicta) said that those born of one US citizen parent abroad were "natural born Citizens" so that the State Dept. could rewrite the Foreign affairs manual, even though that dicta is against all previous precedent (Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167: and Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649, 680)."

Sure, "Mick"--so they spared Thomas because he was "coming around" to the liberals. You're not serious so there's little point in arguing this.

"Yeah OK, that is why I went to court in Fla. to keep Obama, Cruz and Rubio off the ballot."

Well, if you say so, then I guess I'm wrong about you! No Moby could make up a story like that.

But I have a serious question for you. Why haven't you guys been able to do any good albums after Tattoo You? I mean it was like a stark dropoff post-1980.

Brando said...

Also, in case anyone doesn't know this, coroners don't just automatically do autopsies for every death. The fact that they didn't do one for Scalia isn't so unusual.

Mick said...

Brando said...
"Also, in case anyone doesn't know this, coroners don't just automatically do autopsies for every death. The fact that they didn't do one for Scalia isn't so unusual."

Really. So a SCOTUS Justice dies, and no one knows why, yet no autopsy and immediate Cremation is done? That is against the Standard for performance of an autopsy as set forth by the Assoc. of Medical Examiners (B3.12):
"The forensic pathologist deems a forensic autopsy is necessary to determine cause or manner of death or collect evidence."

As of now, no one knows the cause of death and never will, because the body was conveniently immediately creamted.

Original Mike said...

Really, Freder, you're engaging Mick? Have fun.

walter said...

Felix Frankfurter? Had to look that up..sounded more like Weiner's next pseudonym.

walter said...

Felix: "It is a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals."
Oh noes.....

Achilles said...

Blogger Brando said...
"Also, in case anyone doesn't know this, coroners don't just automatically do autopsies for every death. The fact that they didn't do one for Scalia isn't so unusual."

If there was reason to give those people benefit of the doubt I would agree with you. The problem is that so many people die around the Clintons and now Obamas that there is no reason to give them the benefit of doubt.

And now the Clintons have Obama emailing her private server. This is why Obama consented to turning the FBI investigation into a sham. If Hillary goes down Obama is on the hook to and in a just country would be in jail.

They are dirty. They have done evil. The circumstances of Scalia's death are fishy. It may have been an accident but it may not. There is no reason to trust Clintons.

Mick said...

Original Mike said...
"Really, Freder, you're engaging Mick? Have fun".

Yeah FACTS are fun, especially when no one here has any. Why wasn't Scalia autopsied, and why was he taken directly to the Crematorium? Is it normal for the Coroner to call the death of a Supreme Court Justice, who died in mysterious circumstances, over the phone, with no examination?
How does that comport with Regulation B 3.12 of the Medical Examiners Association?

Achilles said...

Blogger Original Mike said...
"Really, Freder, you're engaging Mick? Have fun."

Sorry Mike, we as a country have fallen very far. Mick is right to extend doubts. The way Scalias death was handled was fishy as shit.

Francisco D said...

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with Freder on Scalia's death.

Conspiracy theories are often ridiculous because they require specific actions, worthy of "mission Impossible" to have a chance of succeeding.

I like some of the things that Mick has to say, but he almost always goes over the top. I also wonder if he is a Moby.

Mick said...

Francisco D said...
"As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with Freder on Scalia's death.

Conspiracy theories are often ridiculous because they require specific actions, worthy of "mission Impossible" to have a chance of succeeding.

I like some of the things that Mick has to say, but he almost always goes over the top. I also wonder if he is a Moby."


So why wasn't an autopsy done? Why was he cremated immediately? You don't want to know the cause of death of a SCOTUS Justice that died of mysterious circumstances?

Brando said...

"If there was reason to give those people benefit of the doubt I would agree with you. The problem is that so many people die around the Clintons and now Obamas that there is no reason to give them the benefit of doubt."

I don't trust the Clintons as far as I can throw them, and don't trust Obama much more than that. But what serious evidence is there of either of them having any involvement in Scalia's death? Were some of their operatives around, or something odd found in Scalia's system? I recall a story about a pillow found on his head, though in a body's death throes things can get moved around.

I'm not eager to go down one of Moby Mick's rabbit holes. If there's some big news scoop I missed I'll check it out.

Freder Frederson said...

Why wasn't Scalia autopsied, and why was he taken directly to the Crematorium?

I know I shouldn't bother, but you do realize that to cover up a murder as you have described, Scalia's family, especially his wife, would have to be complicit? The family (in the absence of suspicious circumstances), not the FBI or Obama's hit squad, decide whether there is an autopsy and how the body is handled.

Mick said...

"Conspiracy theories are often ridiculous because they require specific actions, worthy of "mission Impossible" to have a chance of succeeding".


"Conspiracy Theory" is a word invented by the CIA to brand all of those who do not believe the state sponsored story as "crazy". I believe what I see, not what I hear, and there was an obligation to do an autopsy on Scalia, especially when his death occured at the home of a major dem party donor.

Brando said...

And about the lack of an autopsy--did someone request one? What was it about Scalia's death that required them to do one?

My wife's dad died a few years ago, and was younger than Scalia when he died--no autopsy and the cremation was done only a few days after he died--I suspect it could have been done even earlier if we had not been coming from out of town. Who was it who had Scalia cremated? Was it not his next of kin?

walter said...

"I also wonder if he is a Moby."
Or "TROLL!"
Different viewpoint..therefore can't possibly be sincere.

Brando said...

"Different viewpoint..therefore can't possibly be sincere."

A Moby is someone who pretends to have the opposite viewpoint, and exaggerates it to comic and ridiculous effect, in order to make others think that represents his opponent's side. So, a conservative going on a comment board and pretending to be a lefty loony socialist nut, to make everyone (including other leftists) think "wow some really nutso leftists out there".

A Troll may or may not have any actual beliefs, but just posts to get the most outraged reaction.

Stephen said...

Whizzer White

The Cracker Emcee said...

The problem with conspiracy theories about Scalia's death is that the conspiracy isn't worth the candle. These guys just aren't that important anymore.

walter said...

Right Brando..what I said. But thanks anyway.

Mick said...

https://www.mtf.org/pdf/name_standards_2006.pdf


FOR THE CATEGORIES LISTED BELOW, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS SO COMPELLING THAT ONE MUST ALWAYS ASSUME THAT QUESTIONS WILL ARISE THAT WILL REQUIRE INFORMATION OBTAINABLE ONLY BY FORENSIC AUTOPSY


The forensic pathologist SHALL PERFORM A FORENSIC AUTOPSY when:

B3.12 THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST DEEMS THAT A FORENSIC AUTOPSY IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE CAUSE OR MANNER OF DEATH AND TO COLLECT EVIDENCE.

NO ONE knows Scalia's cause of death. They can guess, but no one knows if he may have been poisoned. There are agents that when administered will cause death very much in the manner in which Scalia was found (Such as Carbon Monoxide)
Interestingly Texas allows a Justice of the Peace to issue certificates of death, but the 2 JPs in that are of TX. were conveniently out of town, so another COUNTY judge was allowed to call the death over the phone. There was no investigation as to poisons or needle marks. It could not be a better place to kill a SCOTUS judge.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2016/02/23/official-cause-of-death-for-antonin-scalia-released

"Antonin Scalia suffered from coronary artery disease, obesity and diabetes, among other ailments that probably contributed to the justice’s sudden death, according to a letter from the Supreme Court’s doctor.

Presidio County District Attorney Rod Ponton cited the letter Tuesday when he told The Associated Press there was nothing suspicious about the Feb. 13 death of the 79-year-old jurist. He said the long list of health problems made an autopsy unnecessary.

Ponton had a copy of a letter from Rear Adm. Brian P. Monahan, the attending physician for members of Congress and the Supreme Court. The letter was to county Judge Cinderela Guevara, who conducted a death inquiry by phone and certified Scalia’s death.

The letter dated Feb. 16 said Scalia’s many “significant medical conditions led to his death,” Ponton said.

In the letter, Monahan listed more than a half-dozen ailments, including sleep apnea, degenerative joint disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and high blood pressure. Scalia also was a smoker, the letter said.

Ponton declined to provide a copy of the letter, saying an open-records request must be made to Guevara, who did not respond to a phone message Tuesday."


It is disgraceful that such a high profile public figure died and cause was only "probably"
determined. No matter what the family said, there was a responsibility to determine cause.
I did mistakenly say he was cremated immediately, it was after the funeral. Nevertheless, cause of death, under suspicious circumstances will never be known.

TEXAS STATUTES:


"Art. 49.04. DEATHS REQUIRING AN INQUEST.
(2) THE PERSON DIES AN UNNATURAL DEATH FROM A CAUSE OTHER THAN A LEGAL EXECUTION;
(6) THE PERSON DIES WITHOUT HAVING BEEN ATTENDED BY A PHYSICIAN;
(7) THE PERSON DIES WHILE BEING ATTENDED BY A PHYSICIAN WHO IS UNABLE TO CERTIFY THE CAUSE OF DEATH AND WHO REQUESTS THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE TO CONDUCT AN INQUEST; or
(8) the person is a child younger than six years of age and an inquest is required by Chapter 264, Family Code.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section, a physician who attends the death of a person and who is unable to certify the cause of death shall report the death to the justice of the peace of the precinct where the death occurred and request that the justice conduct an inquest".


How do they know the death was not "UNNATURAL"?
Scalia was not being attended by a physician, and in fact had been out of the country, and was an avid tennis player. So why no Autopsy?
Even if one could say he was "attended" by the Supreme Court physician, that physician ADMITTED that he did not know the cause of death, yet never requested an inquest.

Francisco D said...

Mick,

Have a drink or two.

Chill!

Douglas said...

The odds that any Democratic justice ever breaks ranks in a case of importance to the Party are nil.

Mick said...

The Podesta emails reveal an assassination plot ("Wet Works") 3 days before Scalia was found dead.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-uncover-murder-plot-podesta-documents-suggest-scalia-assassination/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetwork
meaning of "wet works"