Breaking News: Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead of Natural Causes

13 Feb 2016 15:03 #1 by Mountain-News-Events
Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch
By Gary Martin
Updated Saturday, February 13, 2016

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.

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


BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dies during hunting trip in Marfa
Author: Darren Hunt, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published On: Feb 13 2016 03:40:36 PM CST

My Mountain Town Community Calendar - filter events by Category, date, or keyword to easily find events of interest. Add your community, church, or non-profit event to the calendar yourself! Click here to access the submission form. Businesses: please contact us for more information on adding your events! Questions? Email

Community News, Events, and Calendar Forum - Check here for the latest happenings in our community and add your own!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Feb 2016 15:54 #2 by Something the Dog Said
He was an individual of great intellect and faith.

"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Feb 2016 16:31 - 13 Feb 2016 16:39 #3 by ScienceChic
I didn't agree with his views, but I appreciate the service he did for our country. What disappoints me is that I'm sure the appointment of his successor will turn into a 3-ring circus political instead of a sincere, thoughtful process that should be focused on doing what's best for our country. I hope I am proven wrong.

Anyone have any clue who might be chosen as a nominee?

From my favorite blogger, Erika Napoletano :

A couple of things about this:

1) A man died. While I disagreed with nearly the whole of his perspective (and was open about saying so and mincing no words), death deserves a respect that seems to be lacking on the internet in these first few moments of breaking news.
2) As our year is already a political clown car, it's imperative that you contact your Senators and ensure that they will not turn confirmation of a successor into the fourth ring in the circus. There are a myriad of amazing men and women who would be honored successors to Justice Scalia.
3) Public service comes with a whole lotta shit attached to it. As anyone who has served even a small amount of time in the service of our nation would be able to say -- it is deserving of respect. Have some. Borrow some from a neighbor. Get some on sale at Target. Seriously.
4) Rest in peace. Thank you for your service. You had your principles and stuck by them. Few of us could say as much. And may your successor have the courage to do the same.

www.facebook.com/ErikaEffinNapoletano/po...tif_t=notify_me_page


"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Feb 2016 23:16 #4 by FredHayek
Maybe Mitch McConnell and President Obama could choose a moderate with the right credentials who would please both sides. Might set a good precedent for the coming years.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

14 Feb 2016 13:40 #5 by Something the Dog Said
Best bet is Sri Srinivasen. He was confirmed to the DC Court of Appeals in 2013 by a 97 - 0 vote. He is considered moderate, having represented the Bush administration before the Supreme Court as well as the Obama administration. He has considerable backing from Republican notables, including Kenneth Starr and Paul Clements, former Republican AGs. It would be difficult to claim that he is unqualified after being confirmed unanimously to the next highest court in the country. However, McConnell and crowd have already made it clear they intend to shirk their constitutional duties and let Hillary choose Scalia's successor.

"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

14 Feb 2016 14:40 #6 by ScienceChic
I saw that name mentioned in Jim Wright's Minions group, he sounds like a great candidate.

A successor has to go through Congressional approval, that's our system of checks and balances. For Republicans to just throw out the "We're going to block it no matter what" flag (and it would piss me off just as much if it were Democrats doing this) makes me angry that they are willing to shirk the duties for which they were elected. It's past time to clean house and get these partisan politicians out who can't seem to understand they are elected to represent their constituents and do a job.

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

14 Feb 2016 18:48 #7 by FredHayek
Big difference between words and deeds. I suspect McConnell will let a moderate be nominated. The GOP has not been shutting down the government lately over budget issues despite the words of radical Republicans.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

15 Feb 2016 09:37 #8 by ScienceChic
I hope so FH, they are being ridiculous with their partisan rhetoric (not that Dems aren't either when the winds blow the other way). Did anyone see that John Oliver clip about McConnell?

From my conservative neighbor, who pretty much nailed perfectly what I've been thinking (shared with permission):

Living a life of character and integrity can be very easy. Treat others as you want to be treated. That is it, end of story. That is what is missing in both political parties.

Just once I want someone in politics to stand up and say "I hate that he/she has this right, but they do, and I will support it because I would expect support for my rights if I was in that position". But they don't because their party and the extremists that rule them won't stand for it.

Both parties would equally expect (as the constitution provides) that the sitting president would appoint a supreme court justice. There is no place it says, 'unless you don't like who they might put in there'. This is not support for any party or potential choice, just what is desperately missing in this country. A sense of what is right first. If a Republican president was sitting now and Democrats said he shouldn't appoint the justice in his last year, the Republican faithful would lose their minds. Both parties would act the same way on each side if positions were reversed and that is wrong!

I really try to stay out of political arguments and consider all views, but both parties and their extremists agendas are what are 'ruining' the country. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are supported best by realism, the ability to empathize and an understanding that our freedoms and rights as individuals and a nation sometimes require us to accept realities and decisions with which we may not agree. Politics have too long been ruled by an inability to recognize the hypocrisy of certain extreme positions, support one freedom/right, but not another because you do not agree with it personally. That goes for both sides.

The power of this nation comes from the support of everyone's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and most importantly the freedom of speech to affect change socially, not just through laws. If you are correct and have good points use the intelligence and logic you claim to have as a tool to affect change, not try to force your personal views through threats, intimidation, anger or passage of laws. If you can convince a large enough amount of people that you are correct, then you may be able to change laws, but it should never be at the expense of the basic rights and freedoms for all that built our nation and make it great.

Just some balance and realism would be a welcome breath of fresh air, even if I don't agree with everything that person believes. If I felt they would make good decisions based on not their personal beliefs, but on consideration of all peoples freedoms and rights and most importantly maintaining the integrity and character of this country and the principles on which it was founded I would support them 100%.


"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

15 Feb 2016 11:35 #9 by Something the Dog Said
Of course McConnell had this to say in 2005:

“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.”

the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.’… Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen.

www.mediaite.com/online/remember ... es-judges/


I would say that the hypocrisy is unbelievable, but instead it is what we have come to expect from the Republican leaders.

"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.165 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+