Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia found dead

[Prime Time]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us...iate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch
By Gary Martin and Guillermo Contreras

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.

According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.

Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, of the Western Judicial District of Texas, was notified about the death from the U.S. Marshals Service.

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery said he was among those notified about Scalia's death.

"I was told it was this morning," Biery said of Scalia's death. "It happened on a ranch out near Marfa. As far as the details, I think it's pretty vague right now as to how," he said. "My reaction is it's very unfortunate. It's unfortunate with any death, and politically in the presidential cycle we're in, my educated guess is nothing will happen before the next president is elected."

The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation.

Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.

A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.

A gray Cadillac hearse pulled into the ranch Saturday afternoon and left about 5 p.m. The hearse came from Alpine Memorial Funeral Home.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released a statement Saturday afternoon, calling Scalia a man of God, a patriot and an "unwavering defender of the written Constitution."

"He was the solid rock who turned away so many attempts to depart from and distort the Constitution," Abbott said. "We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law. Cecilia and I extend our deepest condolences to his family, and we will keep them in our thoughts and prayers."

Scalia was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.

Staff writers Vianna Davila, Tyler White, Richard A. Marini and John MacCormack contributed to this report.

 

[RamFan503]

found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday

:huh:

 

[Prime Time]

:huh:

Yeah, my wife thought the same thing but I pointed out he was 79.

 

[Ramhusker]

Hmmm, the world we live in now, anything is possible.

RIP Judge.

 

[Mackeyser]

I dunno that we need to go there for an octogenarian jurist. Would we be automatically suspicious if Ruth Bader Ginsburg was found dead of "natural causes"?

Frankly, I'm pretty sure once you approach 80 (I know he was 79), every day isn't just a gift, it's an extra special gift...

As if the election wasn't already a circus, this will only add another sordid element to it.

I'm starting to think the robots taking over might not be such a bad thing...

 

[Dieter the Brock]

Scalia and Ginsberg were best friends by the way

R.I.P judge - thanks for keep things even and dying in Texas is how to go if you have to go

 

[Ramhusker]

I dunno that we need to go there for an octogenarian jurist. Would we be automatically suspicious if Ruth Bader Ginsburg was found dead of "natural causes"?

Frankly, I'm pretty sure once you approach 80 (I know he was 79), every day isn't just a gift, it's an extra special gift...

As if the election wasn't already a circus, this will only add another sordid element to it.

I'm starting to think the robots taking over might not be such a bad thing...

Isn't that the truth. The next President will have to nominate a member to the Supreme Court right out of the gate.

 

[Akrasian]

Isn't that the truth. The next President will have to nominate a member to the Supreme Court right out of the gate.

Only if the current Senate does not do their constitutional duty and hold hearings on any nominations in a timely fashion.

Regardless of politics, I'm pretty tired of partisan politics coming in front of doing the job they have actually sworn to do.

 

[Memento]

Although I didn't agree with a lot of his opinions, I read his decision-making from a friend's notes, and he was very articulate, savvy, and intelligent. I feel a pang of sadness that he's gone because there will never be another justice like him.

 

[Ramhusker]

Only if the current Senate does not do their constitutional duty and hold hearings on any nominations in a timely fashion.

Regardless of politics, I'm pretty tired of partisan politics coming in front of doing the job they have actually sworn to do.

Like I said, the next Prez will have it on his plate. Of course, the Supreme Court will continue to function. Not too many decisions come down to a 5-4 vote anyways unless somebody tries to pass a law that is unconstitutional in the meantime.

 

[Akrasian]

Like I said, the next Prez will have it on his plate. Of course, the Supreme Court will continue to function. Not too many decisions come down to a 5-4 vote anyways unless somebody tries to pass a law that is unconstitutional in the meantime.

So you're advocating that the Senate not do its constitutional duty for partisan duties?

 

[Ramhusker]

So you're advocating that the Senate not do its constitutional duty for partisan duties?

Nope, just predicting that no new justice will be confirmed before we have a new President. I don't think Obama can nominate a candidate that will make it through the gauntlet in time.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Nope, just predicting that no new justice will be confirmed before we have a new President. I don't think Obama can nominate a candidate that will make it through the gauntlet in time.

Traditionally it would be fine, but if they refuse they refuse.. It's a bit ironic, because Scalia would probably not approve of delaying it.

 

[RamFan503]

So you're advocating that the Senate not do its constitutional duty for partisan duties?

Their Constitutional duty is to consider nominees and if they merit hearings. Then it is to hold those hearings if the nominee holds sufficient merit. Like it or not, this gridlock so many want to get their ire up about is well planned and part of the overall fabric of the government. It was always intentionally designed to make it so that only those laws that had vast support would make it through - thus preventing an overbearing, control happy government.

As to Obama nominating a justice in the final months of his presidency, do you know of other Presidents that have nominated a justice in the final year of a 2 term presidency and had them pass through the process? I believe the last time that a second term president attempted it was Johnson and his nomination never got voted on.

 

[RamFan503]

Yeah, my wife thought the same thing but I pointed out he was 79.

Pillow over his head and no autopsy is not helping things much in that regard.

 

[Akrasian]

Their Constitutional duty is to consider nominees and if they merit hearings. Then it is to hold those hearings if the nominee holds sufficient merit.

Since they're already posturing that they won't do that, my point is made.

In terms of a president nominating a supreme court justice late in his second term - it hasn't happened since Justice Kennedy was nominated by Reagan in November 1987 - he was confirmed in February of 1988. So a couple of months earlier than this time, but not much. There hasn't been an opportunity since then of course.

I'm hoping that this blatant obstructionism after years of the same will help get a few of the worst obstructionists swept out of office. At its best Washington doesn't work great - but it works better if politicians are at least attempting to work together to solve problems, instead of just to score political points.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Traditionally it used to take about a month from nomination to approval, taking longer is a somewhat recent thing, I think from about LBJ's presidency. Its not supposed to take a long time, and they're not supposed to just refuse to do it for political reasons. I believe Justice Roberts has already complained about the Senate playing politics with federal judges that Obama has put up, and its not about the quality he's putting up, its just them playing politics. Its held up our court process in the lower courts already.

What happens if we have another Florida 2000 situation and we have 8 justices? That was a huge 5-4 decision. The idea that a president shouldn't do their duty because they have 11 months left is silly in my opinion. Its his job, and its the Senate's job to approve them if they qualify, not play politics and try to stack the court. That was a bad precedent set. Frankly they're probably better off with an Obama nomination than a Hillary/Bernie one, and chances are that's probably what they get, going off of satistical predictions.

 

[RamFan503]

Since they're already posturing that they won't do that, my point is made.

The farther we get from the ratification of The Constitution, the more this posturing has taken place. If you go back in history, some of the more boisterous posturing came about as far back as J Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. There was a pretty small pool to choose from even then and much smaller before that - yet justices would get held up in the process due to how representatives viewed how they would rule on The Constitution. Your point is not made. It is something that gets harped upon during virtually every SC nomination.

it hasn't happened since Justice Kennedy was nominated by Reagan in November 1987 - he was confirmed in February of 1988.

Kennedy was nominated by Reagan after a huge amount of posturing to replace a justice that retired in June of '87. It took 5 months to get the nomination through and another 3 to get him approved. Reagan actually began the process of vetting justices over a year and a half before he would leave office.

but it works better if politicians are at least attempting to work together to solve problems,

Only if there is vast popular support within the politicians home territories. Otherwise it is their responsibility NOT to work together to pass laws their constituents don't agree with. The last thing I want my Senator to do is work with Bernie on one of his various damaging bills for example. If a bill or issue has vast public support, there is less posturing and gridlock. It is the nature of the design. And as bad as people think the process is, it has worked longer than any current form of government in existence.

Traditionally it used to take about a month from nomination to approval, taking longer is a somewhat recent thing, I think from about LBJ's presidency.

Early on it only took a few days. There were like five people in the pool of potential applicants. The process got more lengthy both as we gained in population but also in getting farther away from the ratification of The Constitution. It just becomes more clouded the longer it goes. Maybe if some of our representatives actually had to take a US History class in public school or get tested on actual US History. But I digress.

Still - you can go back over a hundred years to find nominations that took longer than the two placed by Obama. Reagan had 3 justices that took as long or longer in the process and one was actually rejected. Many claimed politics. Was it? Or was the process working? Probably some of both.

The idea that a president shouldn't do their duty because they have 11 months left is silly in my opinion. Its his job, and its the Senate's job to approve them if they qualify, not play politics and try to stack the court.

It is the President's job to nominate a justice that will interpret The Constitution as it is written. Period. The fear of legislating from the bench is real and any nominee must be vetted to prevent that. If Obama nominates a justice to sit on the bench, the process will go forward no matter the posturing of the blowhards in DC.

That was a bad precedent set. Frankly they're probably better off with an Obama nomination than a Hillary/Bernie one, and chances are that's probably what they get, going off of satistical predictions.

I have a hard time disagreeing with this bolded part. But then why is that? Could it be that there are political bents in place that will determine the nominees? Of course there are. And thus the process is working as intended. If Obama nominates someone that has not demonstrated to be anti-2nd Amendment - for example - or is a strict Constitutionalist, he is likely to get that justice seated quickly. However, if he nominates someone that has demonstrated a propensity to legislate from the bench or is woefully unqualified or a political maneuver, that person may not see the light of day.

So while some may bristle at the idea, I instead appreciate the fact that if a potential justice raises the specter of crossing the lines between justice and legislator, I'm all for having my representatives block him/her/