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 Death Suspicious "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head."

page: 82
120
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: texasgirl

Right, but weigh in all the other factors and why would he even go? Not to hunt. Not his group of friends, if I understand correctly. No medical care nearby. No Marshalls accompanying him.

He went just to walk the grounds. It just doesn't make sense to me, I guess.




posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

One other thought occurred to me though. Do you think it at all possible that he thought he was going to be initiated into the Order of St. Hubertus as a member?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
So along with diggng around google maps, I took a look at past threads.

This one caught my eye and specifically the excerpt from the OP:


Justice Antonin Scalia said he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage but about "this court's threat to American democracy." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented. hosted.ap.org...
emphasis mine

And this post:


originally posted by: warpig69
Here is a quot from Scalia in his dissent that I found interesting. Basically he is saying the body of Judges is not a representation of the Union as a whole. Although true, the Judges are not elected to represent the nation, they are there to interpret law. But, what it sounds like to me is he thinks the Supreme Court wields too much power. Or am I just reading to much into what he said?




Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
from Scalia's dissent


Seems to me if Scalia thought the SC had too much power and others wanted it to have more he would stand in the way if that.

Also make note of who else dissented.
edit on 26-2-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: fixed tag

edit on 26-2-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: rearranged tex to inckude



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

I have done a lot of research on certain court cases and I do believe there is a lot of litigation out there on many issues being argued by controlled opposition.

By that, I mean some cases are purposely set up to fail with bad legal arguments. There could be something else even, already in the works...by controlled opposition.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C.O. is the name of the game when it comes to anything Obama related.




posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Well, that would be a good reason to go.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yep. You can rig case law if you are actually arguing both sides.

Obama clearly understands how to rig the system to get the outcome he wants.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

There was another interesting post from that thread on page 4....

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: xuenchen

Yep. You can rig case law if you are actually arguing both sides.

Obama clearly understands how to rig the system to get the outcome he wants.


So ... reading along here I'm getting confused ... Scalia was part of Mr. Obama's "controlled opposition" then?

Sorry to squib in ....



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I am speculating about a case that might suddenly come up in the near future and makes it's way to SCOTUS. A case we don't know about but perhaps one that is in the works because both sides are already planning its path.

Just speculation. Nothing more.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: texasgirl

Right, but weigh in all the other factors and why would he even go? Not to hunt. Not his group of friends, if I understand correctly. No medical care nearby. No Marshalls accompanying him.

He went just to walk the grounds. It just doesn't make sense to me, I guess.


No, I'm with you there. It makes no sense. Maybe he thought was going to be paid to speak. I like the hypothesis of him being selected to become a St Hubertus member.

Did he tell his doctor he was going to the ranch? Did Scalia know it was going to be secluded and without medical staff?

I'm suspicious oh his friend's intentions. Sounds to me like he was intentionally lured, like xuenchen said.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical




Also make note of who else dissented.


With light being shone on Scalia's death, if one of these other dissenting judges were to "die of natural causes" or a "sudden heart attack" or a weird "vehicle accident", or a private "plane crash", or a "suicide", I would think there would be a full out investigation!



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Of course this is a past case. From February 9, 2016.

Supreme Court puts the brakes on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: nikkib0421
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Of course this is a past case. From February 9, 2016.

Supreme Court puts the brakes on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
www.washingtonpost.com...


That is huge, imo.

Scalia's last case was a death penalty case:


The death of Scalia, whose final order was to deny a stay of execution to a Texas man sentenced to death, leaves the court split evenly on capital punishment, which Scalia consistently found constitutional.
www.ibtimes.com...

hmmm....In Texas, no less! The Pope is calling for a global ban on the death penalty.
edit on 26-2-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
www.nytimes.com...

The Death of Justice Scalia: Reactions and Analysis
Scalia's Death Fuels Uncertainty on Immigration Case

So, here we have in just the last couple of posts his troublesome (for Obama, Pope, UN) stance on climate change, death penalty, and immigration policies.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: jadedANDcynical




Also make note of who else dissented.


With light being shone on Scalia's death, if one of these other dissenting judges were to "die of natural causes" or a "sudden heart attack" or a weird "vehicle accident", or a private "plane crash", or a "suicide", I would think there would be a full out investigation!


Which is why I don't think it will happen for a while. Gotta lay low.

I am glad to see there's so much uproar over his death. I bet they didn't expect that. If he was murdered, that is.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
FYI: 'Guests at Cibolo Ranch' was just listed as "POPULAR NOW" on Bing. Never saw that before.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I am speculating about a case that might suddenly come up in the near future and makes it's way to SCOTUS. A case we don't know about but perhaps one that is in the works because both sides are already planning its path.

Just speculation. Nothing more.


I see ... so when Xuenchen says that:

"C.O. is the name of the game when it comes to anything Obama related" and you in turn say:

"Yep. You can rig case law if you are actually arguing both sides. Obama clearly understands how to rig the system to get the outcome he wants."

That's not making at least a loose claim that somehow Mr. Obama was/is in control of "both sides"? (CO)?
edit on 26-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Is anyone here willing to come out and say that Papal Operatives working within the cover of the Order of St. Hubertus murdered Justice Scalia?

Are Mr. Obama and Francis I in league then? I am actually trying to keep up with the snarl of the arguments here ... .


edit on 26-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

FYI: 'Guests at Cibolo Ranch' was just listed as "POPULAR NOW" on Bing. Never saw that before.


Many people reading this thread.




posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Does anyone know which of Scalia's sons was originally supposed to go with him...and why he had to cancel at the last minute?




top topics



 
120
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join