It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Another thing to note here is that about 45% of SCOTUS justices die during their appointment (source).




posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Will Obama come up with a nomination to replace Scalia? I think not, and that, is a good enough reason to say no. On the republican side, Scalia can only be replaced with another originalist. We have people in the middle and people on the left but only two originalists and one of them just died.

He can only be replaced with another like him - for the true conservative which is who the republican party is supposed to stand for, even if they have not been for years.

They need to start representing us, and they will have a mess on their hands of angry voters who are fed up to here if they give us another lefty or moderate. It will remove the balance from the SCOTUS, and for that, I think this time they will all loose their jobs, and they don't actually want that.

And its a safe bet, Obama wont give the republican representatives one whom is representative of their constituency.
edit on 14-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
If It was about the 2nd then they should have gotten a pasty to shoot him, but if he was murdered it was a very slow one to say the least, a good 79 years slow...lol



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Hmmm.

Clinton/Obama Machines at work?

With the Democrat Party in shambles, I don't doubt anything.

Desperate politics involved.


A CIA secret weapon used for assassination shoots a small poison dart to cause a heart attack, as explained in Congressional testimony in the short video below. By educating ourselves and others on vitally important matters like this, we can build a brighter future for us all.


The dart from this secret CIA weapon can penetrate clothing and leave nothing but a tiny red dot on the skin. On penetration of the deadly dart, the individual targeted for assassination may feel as if bitten by a mosquito, or they may not feel anything at all. The poisonous dart completely disintegrates upon entering the target.


The lethal poison then rapidly enters the bloodstream causing a heart attack. Once the damage is done, the poison denatures quickly, so that an autopsy is very unlikely to detect that the heart attack resulted from anything other than natural causes. Sounds like the perfect James Bond weapon, doesn't it? Yet this is all verifiable in Congressional testimony.


Heart Attack Gun - the Secret CIA Assassination Weapon




posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Here you go! Hillary says Barry would be a great Supreme!




www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's skunk works you don't need proof to discuss possibilities.


... and I don't need permission to ask for proof.

I may not get it, but I can ask for it.





posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

4 of the remaining 8 were Republican nominees. Sotomayer replaced Souter who was a Republican nominee. Ginsberg is going to be resigning in the next president's term I can almost guarantee. There's no balance that must be maintained. You want a conservatively stacked SCOTUS and that's your right to want but that's all it is — your desire as a conservative — and having nothing to do with what is right.

Were you similarly concerned about the "voice of the people" when the Republican nominees outnumbered Democrat nominees 2-to-1?
edit on 2016-2-14 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

No, that's not "all Mitch McConnell said."



“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” the Kentucky Republican said in a statement.


Source

Supreme Court Justices have always been nominated and appointed in an Election Year for goodness sakes! To pretend otherwise is to support untruth. This is an unprecedented usurpation of power on the part of the Senate!

You just said you can't predict who will win, but you can predict by how much they will win by. That's absurd.

It is not up to the next President! We elected Barack Obama! You don't get to pick and choose how the Constitution works. If the Senate stands in the way of every Obama appointee, the Republicans will pay for it in November. It'd almost be worth it to watch.

If it weren't so absolutely disgusting. Americans HAVE spoken, and we selected a President that the Republicans have worked against for 7 years for no other reason than base partisan politics. As usual, the Right wants to rewrite the rules as they go along, and spit on the Constitution even while they're holding it up as if it belongs only to them.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
What a stupid post- it must be Obama's fault, so let's dream up some motives!

He was old and fat and probably didn't exercise as that wouldn't be "dignified" in his worldview.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
What a stupid post- it must be Obama's fault, so let's dream up some motives!

He was old and fat and probably didn't exercise as that wouldn't be "dignified" in his worldview.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?


It probably went right out the window with the right to breathe without being taxed for the air.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Well the poor guy has been having health issues for the last few months, and I'm pretty sure it was brought up before if he should step down due to this health issue.


That fact being said (and yes for anyone who follows SCOTUS
his failing health is a fact) if someone wanted to make this a conspiracy, then one would need to point out who will gain the most from this. I say if there was a conspiracy a foot, then look no further then a certain Presidential candidate that not only could use this death as a way to boost votes, but also has a well known body count of convenient mystery deaths that seem to follow.


Like I said though, the poor guy wasn't doing very good as of late so his death isn't a surprise. It's just sad how people immediately jumped on this to politicize it (not people here, but certain public figures).



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Frankly, I'd prefer to be "taxed for air" rather than be taxed to sustain Corporate greed and million-dollar bonuses for CEOs.

But, since no one is being taxed for air, but we are seeing tax dollars go to unending corporate welfare, I guess I can't really make that comparison.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
For God's sake, the guy was 79 years old. Ever hear of natural causes? Old people die. If some shadowy left-wing group wanted to take him out, they would've done it years and years ago after some unpopular-to-the-liberals decisions. C'mon guys, pick and choose your conspiracies. Not very thing that happens is a conspiracy, especially people dying of old age. The SC justices are appointed for life. This guy had an almost thirty year run. His life came to an end, thus his tenure in the SCOTUS. Deal with it.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
But, since no one is being taxed for air




Actually, everyone is. If you're breathing, you're probably paying some kind of tax somewhere. And since their basic rationale for taxing you is because you exist in the space they have assumed control over, I call it taxing your air. I just like to simplify things.
edit on 14-2-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana
He can only be replaced with another like him - ....
And its a safe bet, Obama wont give the republican representatives one whom is representative of their constituency.


Come on! If a Republican wins in the fall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicks the bucket do you think he would nominate another liberal because "she can only be replaced with another like her"?

Give me a break. Whoever wins the presidency gets to nominate the justices. The Senate can refuse to confirm but don't try to rationalize it with contrived ethical nonsense. It's politics. The Republicans would be screaming about the constitution requiring an immediate nomination if the situation were reversed.

At least Trump is honest enough to tell it like it is and say it's a game of "delay, delay, delay."



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Gryphon66
But, since no one is being taxed for air




Actually, everyone is. If you're breathing, you're probably paying some kind of tax somewhere. And since their basic rationale for taxing you is because you exist in the space they have assumed control over, I call it taxing your air. I just like to simplify things.


Simplification is great when it's meaningful and leads to greater clarity.

I'm not sure "taxing the air" does that.

The basic rationale for taxation in this country is the Constitution and the Constitutions of the several States.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Gryphon66
But, since no one is being taxed for air




Actually, everyone is. If you're breathing, you're probably paying some kind of tax somewhere. And since their basic rationale for taxing you is because you exist in the space they have assumed control over, I call it taxing your air. I just like to simplify things.


Simplification is great when it's meaningful and leads to greater clarity.

I'm not sure "taxing the air" does that.

The basic rationale for taxation in this country is the Constitution and the Constitutions of the several States.



You can call it taxing your existence too, if you prefer. That works too.

Anyway, the Constitution does not give the government the authority to try to force you to buy something or fine you if you refuse and call the fine a tax.

But if you would prefer to call progressive taxes fines for success, we can go that route. That is also a great simplification that works for me.

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



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I dont' have to use any metaphors to refer to taxes ... income taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes ... strangely suffice for my needs.

The Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the Constitution vis-a-vis Obamacare.

You can use whatever words you wish, of course, but every success occurs within and supported by the exact infrastructures that taxes sustain ... so we could also call taxes "participation fees" ... but what difference would that make.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

It's simple.

We don't change the rules of the constitution because one party decides "big things" are happening. Period.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I dont' have to use any metaphors to refer to taxes


You absolutely do not. But I choose to. And unlike taxes, I can still choose to call it what it is.



... income taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes ... strangely suffice for my needs.


Well, again, if you would prefer to sugar coat the truth, I can't stop you.


The Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the Constitution vis-a-vis Obamacare.


Well, not all of them. Just the ones who are in cahoots with Obama. That kind of figures, don't it?


You can use whatever words you wish, of course, but every success occurs within and supported by the exact infrastructures that taxes sustain ... so we could also call taxes "participation fees" ... but what difference would that make.


But the fact remains that the system punishes people who succeed within it for their success. So what I said is fundamentally correct. Progressive taxes are penalties on the wealthy. Obamacare's penalty/tax precedent simply formalizes the fact that taxes are actually penalties. You can either acknowledge that or admit that the individual mandate is not constitutional on the grounds that it was upheld on. Either taxes are meant to be punishment or they are not. Which is it?


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

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




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join