Judge Scalia – Who Benefits?

It seems that troubles are coming to the door of those who might be able to answer this question.

For that reason, we are going to look into it too. Not because we want to draw attention to ourselves but by asking the same questions, we hopefully afford a level of protection for those who are treading on some important toes.

It also helps that we are so far out of the jurisdiction of the Alphabet boys.

Judge Scalia was found in a bed at a hunting lodge. Stone cold dead.

Why are people concerned? People die everyday. It was first alleged that Scalia died of a heart attack:

Official: Scalia died of heart attack

The death certificate for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will list myocardial infarction — a heart attack — as the official cause of death, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara told WFAA on Sunday.

Guevara was shopping Saturday in the neighboring town of Alpine when county Sheriff Danny Dominguez called her on her cellphone after lunch.

USA Today

There is so much more to this story.

‘Guevara said she pronounced Scalia dead over the phone at 1:52 p.m. on Saturday. She planned to drive to the ranch — about 30 minutes south of Marfa — but returned when a U.S. Marshal told her by phone: “It’s not necessary for you to come, judge. If you’re asking for an autopsy, that’s what we need to clarify.”’

See what  I mean? How can Guevara say the cause of death was a heart attack, if she never actually saw the body? Can you call a doctor in your area and have him send you a death certificate just because you said some-one was dead? No, of course not.

The above article came out 3 days ago. Judge Scalia died sometime between the 12th and 13th. So the article came out the same day he died or rather he was found dead? Gun jumping anyone? Let’s have a closer look. On the very same day, this article was published by The Washington Post:

The death of Antonin Scalia: Chaos, confusion and conflicting reports

“He was having health issues,’’ Guevara said, adding that she is awaiting a statement from Scalia’s doctor that will be added to his death certificate when it is issued later this week.

“It wasn’t a heart attack,” Guevara said. “He died of natural causes.”

In a statement Sunday, the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides security for Supreme Court justices, said that Scalia had declined a security detail while at the ranch, so marshals were not present when he died. “Deputy U.S. Marshals from the Western District of Texas responded immediately upon notification of Justice Scalia’s passing,” the statement said.’

The Washington Post

So let me get this straight. Even though Guevara was at the time of writing waiting for somebody to pootle along and look at the body, she was confident enough to announce a heart attack because the 79-year-old had pre-existing problems and let’s face it, at 79, he was on borrowed time anyway, but then realized she wasn’t really psychic so began back-peddling furiously, announcing that in fact, he died of natural causes.

Question: Isn’t a heart attack in an elderly man who has health issues already, a natural cause? Not natural to your humble writer is a bullet in the head, or a pillow over the face. A heart attack is natural. The heart just gives out, like a battery that has finally run out of juice.

Okay, well let’s move along. Why is this story gaining momentum? Well, that can probably be answered by asking who is Judge Antonin Scalia?:

‘Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey. In the early 1970s, he served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, eventually as an Assistant Attorney General. He spent most of the Carter years teaching at the University of Chicago, where he became one of the first faculty advisers of the fledgling Federalist Society. In 1982, Ronald Reagan appointed him as judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 1986, Reagan appointed him to the Supreme Court. Scalia was asked few difficult questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate, becoming the first Italian-American justice. Scalia served on the Court for nearly thirty years, during which time he established a consistently conservative voting record and ideology, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation. He was a strong defender of the powers of the executive branch, believing presidential power should be paramount in many areas. He opposed affirmative action and other policies that treated minorities as special groups. He filed separate opinions in many cases and often castigated the Court’s majority in his minority opinions using scathing language.

It was Scalia’s view that clear lines of separation among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches follow directly from the Constitution, with no branch allowed to exercise powers granted to another branch.

Scalia’s sudden death left eight justices remaining on the Supreme Court, split 4–4 between being fairly conservative and fairly liberal, during a presidential election year. President Barack Obama said that he will nominate his successor in “due time”. The happening marks only the second time in sixty years a justice has died in office.’


It sounds like Scalia was a very determined and focused man. Nice to hear that Obama isn’t even waiting for the body to cool, isn’t it? Is there any particular reason that Obozo is pushing this?:

Scalia’s relationships with opponents should serve as a model in US politics

‘In a luncheon speech to the school, for instance, he was firm and opinionated, stressing the need for good lawyers who believed in strict statutory interpretation and who understood the Bill of Rights the way he did: an outline of that with which the government strictly could not interfere, drafted with explicit care and concern for what the founders believed to be our most precious rights. He also did not tolerate fools – as the students who tried to stump him, lock him into a position on a particular issue, question how he would rule on an upcoming case or simply tried to best him at “his own game” quickly found out.’

The Guardian

Let me be clear. I personally disagree with many things that Scalia stood for. His opposition on the Abortion Rights issue for one, however, Scalia was adamant that the ‘Government could not interfere’ with ‘our most precious rights’. He was against the Government meddling with the Bill of Rights.

In laymens terms, though Scalia was wrong for many things, on keeping The Constitution intact, he was a champion.

So I can certainly see why certain a person or persons might want him to ‘go away’.

Of course, just getting rid of the problem, doesn’t really resolve the problem. So here are the questions that we need to look at:

  1. Who does Obama want to replace Scalia?
  2. Why is he acting so quickly on this?
  3. How is Hillary implicated?
  4. What is the end game here?

Well the answer to question 1 is that he has several people in mind:

Sri Srinivasan. Paul Watford. Merrick Garland. Loretta Lynch. Patricia Ann Millett and Eric Holder to name just a few.

One person stands out head and shoulders above the rest. Loretta Lynch. The very same person who is being pressured to indict Hillary Clinton.

Why is Obama wanting to push this through before the Elections? Well, the innocent answer is that currently The Supreme Court is evenly divided, which means that the ruling made by The Appeals Court (the last ruling before being presented to The Supreme Court) is the ruling that stands.  Now, whilst this might be a good thing for example, without having Scalia’s vote on opposing The Abortion Rights Bill one can only hope that Bill can passed in a way that benefits many people. I am not getting into the issues raised by Marco Rubio, but I imagine that 12 yr old that was raped by her father, would benefit greatly from being allowed to abort that baby. Of course, there is also a downside to a split vote. Scalia’s opposition to the Governments’ desire to amend The Bill of Rights for one.

It has been suggested that Obama may want to run for Secretary-General of The United Nations. The United States is a charter member of the UN and one of only 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. What does that mean?:

‘The United States is host to the headquarters of the United Nations, which includes the usual meeting place of the General Assembly, the seat of the Security Council and several bodies of the United Nations. The United States is the largest provider of financial contributions to the United Nations, providing 22 percent of the UN budget in 2015, and 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget.’ – Wikipedia

Of course. That sounds just about right. Can a country just purchase the Secretary-Generals seat? I guess we will see, won’t we?

What does the Secretary General do exactly?:

‘Equal parts diplomat and advocate, civil servant and CEO, the Secretary-General is a symbol of United Nations ideals and a spokesman for the interests of the world’s people’s, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them.

The Charter also empowers the Secretary-General to “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”.

The Secretary-General is also Chairman of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), which brings together the Executive Heads of all UN funds, programmes and specialized agencies twice a year in order to further coordination and cooperation in the entire range of substantive and management issues facing the United Nations System.

One of the most vital roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of his “good offices” — steps taken publicly and in private, drawing upon his independence, impartiality and integrity, to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading.

Each Secretary-General also defines his role within the context of his particular time in office.’

The UN Website

Even though there is absolutely no guarantee that Obozo will be elected, the fact that we call him Obozo in the first instance suggests that he might not be capable of maintaining the requirement of being the General-Secretary of The UN.

At a later point in time, we will look more closely at his reasons for wanting this job. For right now, we need to get back to the subject in hand. Question 3 asks how is Hillary implicated in this sad situation?:

CBS Exposes Hillary’s Hypocrisy on Scalia Replacement

‘Secretary Clinton may be upset that the Republicans are saying that they’re going to block President Obama’s nominee, but when she was senator, she voted with the Democrats to block President Bush’s nomination of Justice Alito. It’s really what goes around, comes around.
With Republicans vowing to block any nominee, the President could make a more unconventional pick, like Attorney General Loretta Lynch. But she is tied controversy, as the Justice Department looks at Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server. One thing’s for sure, the President is likely to move fast.

MRC News Busters.

So Hillary is all for Obama electing a new Supreme Court Judge even though Obama would not support her over the email scandal. Is it possible that Loretta Lynch is Hillary’s favorite? Can’t imagine why, can you?

What is the end game?

If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway

‘What a moment for Scalia to depart: The court faces a wild array of closely divided decisions. It is an election year. And President Barack Obama has stacked the lower circuit courts with Democrats. Obama has been chewing on his legacy for months. Fate has handed him the opportunity of any presidency — to swing the balance of the Supreme Court from conservative to liberal.
In this term’s contentious, controversial docket, split decisions are inevitable. The court can re-argue the pending cases and hear the upcoming ones, but they will be too divided to decide anything truly sweeping. Unresolved cases will stack up.
That means only Congress and the White House can resolve the deadlock. And Obama has the power there, even though Republicans control the Senate.
The situation is not always good for liberals. Abortion, in a case that has not yet been argued, was subjected to the most onerous restrictions by the normally conservative Fifth Circuit. If the court deadlocks, most of the abortion clinics in Texas would close. On immigration, the court had announced it would take up another case from the conservative Fifth Circuit over whether Obama has the power to stop breaking up families by ordering the government not to deport millions of undocumented immigrants; the lower court ruling blocked Obama’s executive order, so a tie wouldn’t change that.’
The Chicago Tribune

It seems that, whichever way you look at it, Obama wins. It is fair to say that Scalia’s death has played into his hands. If he elects a supreme court judge, then he is able to carry on his manipulations from the UN Secretary-General seat if he is elected for it, and lets face it, why wouldn’t he?

Hillary also gets a ‘Get out of jail free’ pass, if Obama elects Loretta Lynch, but why would Obama do that? Because Hillary is blackmailing him with information obtained from those ‘deleted’ emails?

Media Matters Video link

Pressure on Lynch to step aside in Clinton email probe

‘During a Democratic presidential debate last week, Clinton insisted that she was “100 percent confident” that the FBI’s review will not evolve into a criminal matter.
Instead, she and other Democrats have decried the criticism about the emails as simple political gamesmanship designed to drag down her presidential campaign.
“I think the American people will know it’s an absurdity, and I have absolutely no concerns about it whatsoever,” said Clinton.
Lynch’s critics are unconvinced that the attorney general can be a neutral arbiter.
“I think they probably won’t indict her, because the attorney general is from New York, who I believe is a friend of Hillary Clinton,” Donald Trump, a leading Republican presidential candidate, said on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends” in October.

Skeptics of Lynch have also pointed to an October interview in which President Obama appeared to dismiss concerns about Clinton’s private server.

“I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered,” Obama said on CBS’s “60 Minutes.”

The Hill

Supreme Court Expert Thinks Obama Will Pick Pro-Abortion Loretta Lynch to Replace Scalia

‘Lynch has a strongly pro-abortion background. She defended partial-birth abortions, and, during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lynch admitted to pro-life Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina that she once signed onto a brief the Planned Parenthood abortion business submitted in its legal battle to overturn the Congressional ban on partial-birth abortions. The Supreme Court eventually sided against Planned Parenthood and upheld the ban on the gruesome abortion procedure.

Lynch signed on to an amicus brief in the Partial Birth Abortion case before the Supreme Court where she served as an amici in favor of Planned Parenthood.  She argued that the ban against the killing of partially born children was “unconstitutionally vague and threatens the integrity of the criminal justice system.”

As Attorney General she failed to watch the Planned Parenthood expose videos that show the abortion company potentially breaking federal law to sell the body parts of aborted babies. And she refused to say if the Obama administration was enforcing a law to stop allowing babies to die who survive failed abortions.’

Life News

Before any of this, it would have been nice to be able to pay our respects for this Supreme Court Judge, but sadly this train has already left the station. So from the admin of Political Beast, we would like to say RIP Antonin. We can’t say you were always a good man, but where it mattered, you were a diamond.

What do you think?

Drop us a line at:


Or leave us a message in the comments below.

Post Categories: Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: