Antonin Scalia dead

Here's a good source:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

He was found by John Poindexter.

"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter.

"He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap," he said.

Scalia,79, did not have a pulse and his body was cold, and after consulting with a doctor at a hospital in Alpine, Poindexter concluded resuscitation would have been futile, He then contacted federal authorities, at first encountering a series of answering services because he was calling on a weekend.

The tone of that description was not of suspicious activity.

The line "pillow over his head" sounds bad standing alone out of context.

But reading the whole thing, it doesn't sound bad.

The portrayal of the situation was "It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap".

Not it looked like he was smothered.

Maybe the pillow over his head meant he was lying below the pillow and not at the top of the bed.

The family did not want an autopsy.

L L wrote:

The tone of that description was not of suspicious activity.

The line "pillow over his head" sounds bad standing alone out of context.

But reading the whole thing, it doesn't sound bad.

The portrayal of the situation was "It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap".

Not it looked like he was smothered.

Maybe the pillow over his head meant he was lying below the pillow and not at the top of the bed.

Yes, it didn't say pillow over face. There's no reason to assume he sleeps on his back. He could have been on his side.

Question by posters here with legal knowledge:

If members of the Senate refuse to fulfill their oath of office by not making a good faith effort to consider an Obama supreme court nomination could they be sued? And would that case end up being decided by the current supreme court?

Conundrum wrote:

Question by posters here with legal knowledge:

If members of the Senate refuse to fulfill their oath of office by not making a good faith effort to consider an Obama supreme court nomination could they be sued? And would that case end up being decided by the current supreme court?

It has been a while since my Con Law course but I would imagine that privilege would protect a Senator from being sued in civil court since it is within their duties and the House/Senate can impeach and convict.

Regardless, the Court would probably not want to hear such a case based on political question doctrine or something similar.

In reality it would probably never happen.

No.

Back in 2006, the Senate was considering W's nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. One democratic Senator voted against this nominee and stated for the record on the floor of the Senate regarding this nominee:

"There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record."

Btw, that Senator was Barack Obama.

Funny how these things play out.

I fail to see how that compares to a policy of denying any nominee a confirmation without even looking at their credentials or asking them a single question.

There is no consent or advice here. Just delaying regardless of the nominee. I don't think that is in the best interest of the people when either side does it.

Hopefully the loudmouths on TV will be ignored by the civil servants on both sides and consider the nominees based on their merits.

But Senator Obama at least had a person to make a vote on.

He did not preemptively say that he would not vote for any Bush nominee.

That's what these senators are saying right now.

Not to mention the black helicopter whose door gunner was plainly seen wearing a tin foil hat....it will come out!

dxc wrote:

Not to mention the black helicopter whose door gunner was plainly seen wearing a tin foil hat....it will come out!

Why does the helicopter have to be black?

Geez

snsnsksknskns wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

Question by posters here with legal knowledge:

If members of the Senate refuse to fulfill their oath of office by not making a good faith effort to consider an Obama supreme court nomination could they be sued? And would that case end up being decided by the current supreme court?

It has been a while since my Con Law course but I would imagine that privilege would protect a Senator from being sued in civil court since it is within their duties and the House/Senate can impeach and convict.

Regardless, the Court would probably not want to hear such a case based on political question doctrine or something similar.

In reality it would probably never happen.

If we take the politics out of this, what if a group of senators refused to fulfill their oath of office and stopped working all together. Refused to do anything.

Now that is an extreme example but the principle is the same. Refusing to even attempt to fulfill some of the responsibilities you gave an oath to fulfill. Would there be legal recourse?

(I didn't see this as a civil suit)

This thread is still being outpaced by the Goucher thread so I will tie the two together by pointing out that both Antonin Scalia and Alberto Salazar have the EXACT SAME initials AS.

And yours are the same as Barbara Walters.

Neither me, Barbara Walter nor even Bill Walton are in the news right now, but Alberto Salazar and Antonin Scalia made news on the same day at nearly the exact same time, and got long threads about them on this forum.

If that's not suspicious, tell me what is.

In each case, one is alive and one is dead.

Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee

"Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.

Schumer cited ideological reasons for the delay.

"They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not," Schumer said at the time."

Legislative immunity is absolute in the capacity of acting as members of congress (speech and debate). So, a lawsuit against a Senator acting in his official capacity seems to be a non-starter. Of course, here they are refusing to act. Those members of Congress that have been removed from office were virtually all southern Democrats on the side of the Confederacy in the Civil War; the others were guilty of corruption, bribery, racketeering, that sort of thing. Trials in the Senate for conviction following impeachment require a 2/3 majority. I heard some guy on the radio saying something about the D.C. Court of Appeals, maybe, claiming that would try Senators for non-fulfilment of duties, but first that sounds wrong and second I see nothing about it in the federal manual above. Now, Senators do take an oath to pay due diligence and do their duty when they act as a body in trials following impeachment and they do have an oath of office, but that's all I can think of.

Did I call anyone a "stupid idiot"? No. You may be that but I did not say it. Go ahead and offer reasons and evidence instead.

Conundrum wrote:

snsnsksknskns wrote:

It has been a while since my Con Law course but I would imagine that privilege would protect a Senator from being sued in civil court since it is within their duties and the House/Senate can impeach and convict.

Regardless, the Court would probably not want to hear such a case based on political question doctrine or something similar.

In reality it would probably never happen.

If we take the politics out of this, what if a group of senators refused to fulfill their oath of office and stopped working all together. Refused to do anything.

Now that is an extreme example but the principle is the same. Refusing to even attempt to fulfill some of the responsibilities you gave an oath to fulfill. Would there be legal recourse?

(I didn't see this as a civil suit)

the use of the word "sue" brings civil suits to mind.

but yeah immunity covers acts done the scope of duty. house and Senate impeach and convict

the natural recourse here is just to lose the following election

and SCOTUS likely stays away because of political question doctrine.