It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Scalia's Death Conspiracy Theory: Was the motive to shut him up?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+3 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 05:11 AM
...and also to send a message to anyone that would dare to be too brash in their criticisms of the system?

As everyone here would expect, there are already conspiracy theories concerning Scalia's death:

The leading conspiracy theory about Antonin Scalia’s death: Obama did it.

Look, it's no surprise for an overweight 79-year-old man to die. I'm just here (at ATS Skunk Works) to add something...a possible motive that could make sense. The main motive being propagated currently makes no sense to me. If Scalia was murdered so that the Democrats could stack the Supreme Court, why wait until Obama has less than a year in office? The Republican Party is claiming that they're going to block any nominations until there is a new president. It doesn't add up IMHO.

I'm offering a different possible motive for this conspiracy theory...

Scalia just may have gone too far in his King v. Burwell dissent:

Scalia Gets Quite Sassy in Zinger-Laden King v. Burwell Dissent

That dissent was the kind of thing that is dangerous for the system. It's the kind of thing that could wake people out of their slumber. I thought it was so powerful, I quoted from the dissent to make a rant thread:

Obamacare should be called "SCOTUScare"

I felt the dissent was pure, unadulterated truth. Essentially, IMHO, it called out massive fraud by the system and a massive conspiracy as well. Scalia did it in a way that one would have to be blind not to understand.

The dissent reminds me of the kind of thing JFK may have said. I'm sure the potential parallels are obvious.

That's the kind of thing that the system simply cannot tolerate. It's a motive that I would believe for a murder like this. The dissent made big news and a murder like this would send an obvious message to those who would need to get it...

I realize the evidence is flimsy but that's my two cents.
edit on 14-2-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 06:00 AM
Well, look. The idea that it would be advantageous for the radical left to stack the court right now while they have the chance shouldn't be dismissed.

I think it's quite plausible to assume the left might just be in a panic with Obama's last term coming to an end and the best they have to offer for next time is an old communist and Hillary Clinton. They just might be reasonably afraid they won't get another chance anytime soon to pick a SC justice.

When you consider justices are in for life, there is more at stake than the next year in politics as usual.

Also, I would not dismiss the possibility that Obama and the MSM can fabricate a crisis at will (as they have done in the past). I do not believe the Republicans CAN simply refuse to cooperate (And I have my doubts that they even want to). Obama is not to be underestimated.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 06:09 AM
Nevertheless, whatever is going on, I think there's more than enough motive to warrant suspicion. I'm not surprised that an old man would just die suddenly. That's really not the suspicious part. My suspicion arises from the fact that there could be multiple motives from several angles. And motives that might not necessarily be so obvious.

Nevertheless, if there was any funny business, I would think that whomever was involved would not have done it if they didn't think they could get away with it. IF it was murder, I seriously doubt it will come out. But I guess we will soon see. If there was any funny business and the FBI (or similar) does not immediately pick up on it, then forget about it.

The plain fact is that we are likely going to see yet another liberal on the court before it's over with. Watch and see. It will happen.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 06:24 AM
Note to self: Do not go quail hunting in Texas during the middle of February ...

Dick Cheney shoots hunting buddy
This Day In History Feb. 11, 2006: Dick Cheney shoots his hunting buddy

edit on 14-2-2016 by ShadowChatter because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 06:59 AM
a reply to: ShadowChatter

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead

I have no clue what the motive would be for quieting the conservative voice of Scalia unless..

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 07:21 AM
With the pivotal cases coming up this spring? Oh no, there was no reason at all to want to bump off a conservative justice.

Were there any indications at all that Scalia's health was failing? Usually when someone dies of natural causes, they enter a period of decline.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 07:38 AM

originally posted by: ketsuko
Usually when someone dies of natural causes, they enter a period of decline.

To put it bluntly fat old men drop dead all the time starting a lot earlier in life than 79 years old.

And if they killed him because he criticized Obamacare they've got about fifty million more Republicans to go.
edit on 14-2-2016 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 07:51 AM
a reply to: DelMarvel

Not necessarily because of his criticism, but because of the cases coming up - immigration, abortion, etc. - there are lots of landmark cases this spring. This means the best that can be hoped for is a tie on immigration especially.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 09:42 AM
a reply to: Profusion

This thought crossed my mind as well. I'd dearly love the autopsy report to be published.

They 'could' have delayed this act due to a growing awareness that they could and may probably lose the White House. That delayed awareness could explain why so late in Obama's Presidency.

On the other hand, it also could be coincidence. Any death at this level opens the door for further machination....on both sides. There is little that doesn't afford opportunity when unexpected events change the 'game'.

I don't discount the possibility of conspiracy, and that crowd will be one this like stink on a pile, yet the jury is still out, IMO.....

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 09:44 AM
Does anyone have any actual evidence that Justice Scalia was ... what are we saying here ... politically assassinated?

Supposition is fine; where's the evidence?

Circumstances that don't favor your personal political positions are not evidence, by the way.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 09:58 AM
a reply to: Slichter

Two words: 2nd Amendment.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:03 AM
I'd be lying if I said I didn't question his death also. Just waiting on the coroners report......though, in my mind, I couldn't think of a good reason why they would bump him off.....

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:04 AM
Sudden deaths do happen, and this could be just that. But, otoh, the world of high-stakes politics and corrupt politicians with big agendas, almost demand that we look at these kinds of deaths and discuss the possibilities.

This is ATS, and denying ignorance means we are unafraid to expose the ugly possibilities, turn them over and look at the dark underbelly of those possibilities. It doesn't mean we are nutters.

It means we are awake to the nastiness in the world, the people in powerful positions that will do anything to hold on and advance certain agendas....the people that have the radical philosophy that "the ends justify the means" and "there is only the fight".

2016 is a year when our country is about to make Big Changes....changes that can fundamentally transform America. Already the middle of February, time is of the essence. Knocking out a crucial piece that can affect that transformation is not beyond TPTB, imo. Scalia could have been an obstacle to completing that fundamental transformation.

He was a huge supporter of our Constitution as it is written, and he did not suffer fools that wanted to use it like so much toilet paper. He was a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, as well.

edit on 14-2-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:04 AM
a reply to: NewzNose

That was one thing that popped into my head....

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:14 AM
a reply to: queenofswords

Sooo ... aside from Scalia's politics, which you obviously agree with ... what is there about his death that provides evidence of foul play?

We we deny ignorance ... we don't just make stuff up however.

Facts, logic, reason, cold hard evidence is our bread and butter ... so, do you have anything like that?

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:17 AM
a reply to: Profusion

Can you imagine how ridiculous the left would appear if it had been Ruth Bader Ginsburg (just three years older than Scalia) who had died and they made up a conspiracy theory that Mitch McConnell was behind it?

LOL! Yeah. Pretty freaking ridiculous!

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:22 AM
a reply to: Profusion

No I don't think its a conspiracy. I think he died of natural causes. Truth is stranger than fiction, and the timing of this is beyond fiction, therefore must be true.

Honestly, I think this happened for a reason, but that would be very much off the topic of this thread. So, suffice it to say, there is not a conspiracy behind this. It just is.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:27 AM

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Profusion

Can you imagine how ridiculous the left would appear if it had been Ruth Bader Ginsburg (just three years older than Scalia) who had died and they made up a conspiracy theory that Mitch McConnell was behind it?

LOL! Yeah. Pretty freaking ridiculous!

There's two sets of rules in the minds [sic] of the extremists of the American Right.

One for them; one for the rest of us.

The President of the United States is the ONLY national office elected by all the people (well, the Vice President too). Mitch McConnell was elected by a difference of a few thousand voters in Kentucky. If we're going to let "the People" speak, then let's let their duly-elected President do his Constitutionally-mandated job.

Unless, of course, there are two sets of rules- one for them, one for us.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:27 AM
Double post
edit on 14-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:34 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Did it make you an "extremist" who wanted to follow two sets of rules when you hated Bush?

Did it make me an extremist when I protested the Iraq war instead of agreeing to it?

If NOT, if that was simply asking for our voices to be heard legally and constitutionally in this country, then the same must be true when we disagree with Obama's policies.

WE the people are very much allowed in this country free speech, we are NOT under the totalitarian regime of anyone's choice, this is a representative republic and all have the ability to have their voice heard.

It is not extremist thank you very much. It is a belief in our constitutional right. Anyone who thinks otherwise because it is the president they happen to agree with at the time, is the extremist.

new topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in