23
   

Justice Anton Scalia Reportedly Found Dead At Texas Resort

 
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2016 10:19 am
I am now more interested in the original founding and it's beliefs. However, it's connection to Scalia I have found more easily explained in the following article.


Quote:
The weekend he died, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was spending time with members of the Order of St. Hubertus — a society of hunters founded in the 1600s whose members are knighted on behalf of the king of Spain.

Scalia himself was not part of the all-male hunting club, as far as anyone knows. But his ties to a member of the group led to Scalia's invitation to the remote hunting resort near the Mexican border, where he would eventually die.




A cabal of the wealthy and powerful, founded in the US by diplomats and members of the military — the Illuminati, but for hunting — could be fertile ground for conspiracy theorists.

But the actual activities of the Order of St. Hubertus appear to be confined mostly to shooting birds and eating fancy dinners.

Here's what we know about the group's 300-year history, its relationship to Scalia, and its membership roster stacked with Army generals, Republican donors, lawyers, and Texan captains of industry.

St. Hubertus has existed in the US since the 1960s

The Order of St. Hubertus, named after the patron saint of hunters, says it was founded in 1695 by Count Franz Anton von Sporck. During World War II, Adolf Hitler disbanded the Austrian society because it would not accept Nazis as members, according to its website; after the war, it was refounded and expanded internationally.

Several of the order's first members in the US were high-ranking diplomats and members of the military who served in Austria during or after World War II. Its most active branch is in the southwest US, including Texas.




The Order, led by a grandson of the last emperor of Austria, isn't exactly a secret society. But it is fairly secretive. The "News" section of its website, which used to include many members' names, was removed at some point in the past year.

It's also a boys' club in every sense of the term. Members must be men, and the members of the largest American branch, which includes Texas, appear to be mostly middle-aged, white, and wealthy, many of them prominent lawyers, consultants, and CEOs in Houston.

Among them are John Poindexter, an eccentric multimillionaire who leads the order in the southwest US and who owns the ranch where Scalia died; and C. Allen Foster, a Washington, DC, lawyer and Scalia's friend, who invited the Supreme Court justice to the ranch in the first place.

How Scalia ended up mingling with members of the hunting fraternity

Poindexter told the Los Angeles Times he'd met Scalia once before, through Foster, when he was in Washington with a "sports group." (He didn't say if the group was the Order of St. Hubertus, although it held an induction ceremony in Washington, DC, in 2011.)

Foster, who is a Knight Grand Officer and chancellor of the Order of St. Hubertus, suggested Poindexter invite Scalia to the ranch for the weekend, and Scalia and Foster flew in together. Foster had once argued before the Supreme Court, on a voting rights case in 1993.

It's not clear how many other guests were also members of the group. Poindexter described it to the LA Times as a gathering of businessmen and "a group of friends sympathetic to the justice's views." And he told the Washington Post, "I am aware of no connection between that organization and Justice Scalia."


Was this article helpful?


source

The following url is a link to the voting rights case Foster argued before the supreme court in 1993. According to the above article he is the one who flew Scalia in to the event.

Johnson v. De Grandy
512 U.S. 997 (1994)


revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2016 11:01 am
I have wasted too much time in this to no purpose really, but anyway..

The secret International Order in steeped in the heritage of European nobility the "royal hunt" and war

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2016 01:31 pm
@revelette2,
The statute/charter of this order is online - which can't be said of all of the other knight orders.
And because it is a knight order, it certainly has a touch of 'nobility'.
I'm not defending anything ... but there's no need to speculate about this order: you can look through their archive in Kremsmünster Abbey (in Austria,) or at the museum in Heerse castle.

I just want to note that this order only has the same name as the Belgian/French one. And has been known since ages (see for instance Pierer's universal encyclopaedia (Pierer's Universal-Lexikon), Band volume 8, page 570, Altenburg 1859 >link<)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2016 01:45 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
Here's what we know about the group's 300-year history, its relationship to Scalia, and its membership roster stacked with Army generals, Republican donors, lawyers, and Texan captains of industry.

It's also a boys' club in every sense of the term. Members must be men, and the members of the largest American branch, which includes Texas, appear to be mostly middle-aged, white, and wealthy, many of them prominent lawyers, consultants, and CEOs in Houston.


old (look at the pix) white male Republicans

guess their guests have to match as well
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2016 04:49 pm
These fraternal orders flow from the time of hunter/gatherer tribes in which the task of hunting game fell, largely if not entirely to the males. Success in hunting really was a matter of life and death and so, obviously, it was taken very seriously. It probably consumed most of the time and thought of the tribe's makes. One of the advantages the humans had was cooperating numbers, and this demanded bonds of trust and common communication among the males.

When you consider that an apex predator like the lion (who also hunts in cooperative numbers) has a successful kill rate of about 20%, you realize how difficult it was for early man to bring home the bacon on a regular basis. Lions obviously don't gather supplemental foodstuffs, but even an omnivore like the Grizzly Bear is an obligate carnivore in that it must have meat to survive over the long term. I have no idea whether or not early man was an obligate carnivore but even "modern" people's who subsist on low meat diets find ways to add flesh protein to their meals, even if the source is insects.

Even if early man could, from a nutritional basis, survive solely on a diet supplied by gathering, he would not have had all the crucial by-products of animal prey: Hides, fur, sinew, bone. Once he left the African plains and migrated North, these by-products became essential.

So, given how important a successful hunt was to early man, it's not surprising that he developed social structures to increase his odds.

In addition to developing bonds of trust, cooperation, and communication, these "hunting fraternities" were, it seems certain, focused on the metaphysics early man imbued in hunting. Whatever rituals and rites early man thought we're important to a successful hunt almost certainly were a part of these groups.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I doubt I am alone in feeling a deep resonance when considering these early hunting orders.

So it's not all surprising that fraternal orders have continued to this day although they have largely been rendered into an odd, and archaic status.

That they have morphed into a means for the powerful, in a modern sense, to improve their success through cooperative bonding is not surprising.

I think it's important to note that these sort of fraternal orders are not limited to the rich and powerful. People of any class can form them, and initially Unions were to a large extent a worker's version.

Whatever Scalia's order was all about, it was harmless.

It's not at all surprising that leftists would argue these orders are in some way evil or harmful, because most of them are anything but left-wing. It's ridiculous to think that the "ruling class" is going to give up whatever advantages it has because someone like Bernie Sanders or blatham insists that they do.

Revolution, coercion and violence is required, and even when it was used to address truly horrible inequities (nothing at all like we have in the US) it has resulted in a society as bad or worse.





Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2016 11:22 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The history of the "Sankt-Hubertus-Orden" founded by the Graf Spork can be read online, even on various Google books and old encyclopaedias.
The Austrian grandmaster was surprised about the attraction this "Christian hunting convent" suddenly got. But at least, he gave some figures about the members: 135 in Austria, 350 worldiwide. (Scalia never attended the annual meeting, he said.) Source
0 Replies
 
Lilkanyon
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2016 01:00 am
Many very important decisions need to be made by the supreme court this year. Its nothing but obstruction of our government if a nominee is not considered. Regardless of dem or gop, the govt must continue to run. I know dems have pulled this threat in the past, but in the end, they answered to their ppl. Im not sure the constituents f the GOP understand how bad this looks. Hell! They are voting for Donald Trump! Nuff said!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2016 04:41 am
This is into Wow! territory...
Quote:
Exit polls reported by ABC News showed that Clinton’s advantage with black voters was, indeed, decisive: Black voters accounted for about 6 in 10 of Saturday’s Democratic electorate, and an overwhelming 8 in 10 of those black voters supported Clinton.

That would set a record. The previous record was 55 percent, set in 2008 as then-Sen. Barack Obama campaigned — against Clinton herself — to become his party’s first African American nominee.
http://wapo.st/1S9H9ij
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2016 05:38 pm
@blatham,
That's "Wow!" Why?

It's not unexpected.

blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Feb, 2016 03:40 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
You or someone expected the proportion of black voters to increase from the 2008 figures?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2016 03:12 am
Quote:
"As the fight begins, there is no question that Republicans have a more robust political machine in place for a sustained fight. More than three decades ago, wealthy conservatives established the Federalist Society, aimed at bringing the nation’s legal system more in line with their values."
http://wapo.st/1OKV5IR

Know the enemy. If you haven't yet read up on the Federalist Society, wikipedia has a good page on them.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 07:41 am
Right after Scalia died, I noted here that I'd written to Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent that someone (I mean you, Greg, if no one else) ought to try and get Roberts to weigh in on the GOP strategy of denying Obama's choice of a SC replacement to gain any hearing or attention whatsoever from the Senate.

Today, TPM takes up this question and its related complexities http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/roberts-scotus-nom-fight
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2016 08:08 pm
Tragedy - US bungles along, then teeters. In background the Greek chorus saying "Don't do that". No one hears. Scalia is now in that chorus
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2016 08:59 pm
Whenever I see this thread it reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live recurring joke... "This just in, Justice Scalia still dead". (they used to use a different name back in the 80's of course, but...).
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2016 06:55 pm

Conspiracy Theorists Can't Deal With the Reality That Antonin Scalia Was Old, Unwell and Frail

What is not credible about a 79-year-old, overweight man with heart disease and other medical issues dying in his sleep?
By William Boardman / Reader Supported News
March 1, 2016

Print
82 COMMENTS

Photo Credit: Shawn Calhoun/Flickr

The official version of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s death at a remote Texas luxury resort during the night of February 12-13 is that he died of natural causes, in bed alone and without any witness, time of death unknown. While there’s little forensic evidence to support this or any other conclusion, there’s even less evidence to challenge it. What, after all, is not credible about a 79-year-old, overweight man with heart disease and other medical issues dying in his sleep after overindulging at a dinner party for 40 people?

Scalia, unlike Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has long been secretive about his health, one of those anti-democratic traditions at the Supreme Court more honored in the breach then the observance. Even now there is no publicly available, authoritative assessment of Scalia’s health as he approached death, but various medical sources have said the longtime smoker was suffering from heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, sleep apnea, a damaged shoulder in need of surgery, and a general weakness that made that surgery inadvisable. One might reasonably infer that Scalia was taking medication for his conditions, including a pain killer, but confirmation of this is not easily available. The man had the look of corpulent corruption reflecting the bloated self-satisfaction of a Medici courtier. Whatever the medical reality of Scalia’s health, the existential reality is that he outlived his biblically allocated three-score and 10 by nine years.

Let us stipulate from the start that, as a person, Antonin Scalia may actually have been even as wonderful as so many of his friends and associates now claim. This hardly matters to public policy, good-natured people die every day without much notice. But who among those anonymities has done as much harm to constitutional law and humane principle as this democracidal jurist in a lifetime of narcissistic bench-clowning? Scalia’s raw contradictions cause cognitive dissonance for many, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg weaves them together almost surgically in her understated official comment:

Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: “We are different, we are one,” different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots – the “applesauce” and “argle-bargle” – and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his “energetic fervor,” “astringent intellect,” “peppery prose,” “acumen,” and “affability,” all apt descriptions…. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer.

With artfully subtle grace, Justice Ginsburg grants Justice Scalia his “reverence” for the Constitution, she praises him for editorial precision and strews performance encomiums in his wake. And in the midst of all that, she ultimately leaves him outside the majority, where he was simply wrong. “Now and then,” as she notes, he was wrong. Magnificent as his performance art may have been, Ginsburg makes clear, he was too often wrong on the merits.

Why handle the death of a controversial political partisan so casually?

Not every hotelier expects a controversial political celebrity suddenly to drop dead in the presidential suite, but the “historic 4-star” Cibolo Creek Ranch, “established 1857,” which has a celebrity-rich clientele, seems never to have planned for this remote but obvious possibility during more than 20 years of resort operation. In our current political zeitgeist, it takes no deep thought to imagine that the sudden, unexpected death of a polarizing Supreme Court justice might invite radical speculation as to what actually happened and why. So what planet do those who “investigated” Scalia’s death live on? None of them have yet offered a credible explanation for treating Scalia’s death as something less than a run-of-the-mill event best handled with a casual, detail-free approach with no conscientious record-keeping for an event that was an obvious, open invitation to conspiracy theorizing (made all the easier the more details are unknown or uncertain).

Why did resort-owner John Poindexter, Texas law enforcement, Texas judicial authorities, the U.S. Marshals Service, and everyone else involved in post mortem events perform in such a lackadaisical manner so indifferent to professional protocol? Yes, they all apparently acted within the law, but the law didn’t the require attention to detail that should have been a no-brainer in such a high-profile death: treat it as a crime scene until it’s clear there’s no crime. Here is the apparent timeline of Scalia’s death as handled by all these unprofessionals:

Friday, Feb. 12: Scalia and an unidentified lawyer [C. Allen Foster, 74, prominent Washington lawyer, according to Washington Post Feb. 24] travelling with him fly gratis in an unidentified private plane from Houston. The plane lands on the private, mile-long airstrip at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, where the justice and the lawyer are guests of the owner, 71-year-old billionaire John Poindexter (who had a 2015 age discrimination case against him before the Supreme Court, which decided not to hear the case).

Friday evening: Scalia attends a dinner party with some 40 other guests of Poindexter (all still unnamed). Poindexter later says Scalia enjoyed himself and went up to his room about 9 p.m.

Friday evening/Saturday morning: Scalia dies, time unknown.

Saturday, Feb. 13, around 8:30 a.m.: According to Poindexter, other guests were up and he went to wake Scalia; the door was locked and Scalia did not respond, so he was left undisturbed. (It is not clear whether anyone accompanied Poindexter.)

Saturday, around 11:30 a.m.: According to Poindexter, he returned to Scalia’s room with the unnamed lawyer travelling with Scalia. They found Scalia lying on his back in bed, his hands folded on top of the sheets, his body cold, without a pulse (who took his pulse is unknown). Poindexter later told the San Antonio Express-News: “We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. Everything was in perfect order. He was in his pajamas, peacefully, in bed. His bed clothes were unwrinkled. He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap.” (Poindexter would later say that the pillow was not “over” Scalia’s face, but “above” his head; there are no known photographs of the deathbed until after the body was removed; the room was not treated as a crime scene.)

Saturday, mid-day: Poindexter, a Viet-Nam vet with unknown medical expertise, says he next consulted by phone with a nearby doctor, concluding that attempts at resuscitating Scalia would have been futile, so no attempt was made. Poindexter has not said who else, if anyone, had access to Scalia’s room.

Saturday, mid-day: After deciding against resuscitation, Poindexter calls the U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for security for Supreme Court justices (Scalia had declined having security on this trip). After some difficulty, Poindexter reaches the Marshals Service and is told to let none of the guests leave.

Saturday, mid-day: Poindexter also calls County Sheriff Danny Dominguez, who is the first responder on the scene. He determines that Scalia’s death did not involve foul play. It is not known how he determined that.

Saturday, around 2:30 p.m.: The first of several U.S. Marshals arrives at the ranch by helicopter and the compound is “secured.”

Saturday, mid-afternoon: Poindexter calls local judicial officials for inquest and death certificate. After two others refuse, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara heads for the ranch. The sheriff and the marshals there tell her there was no foul play and her presence is unneeded. She turns back and issues a death certificate by phone. All this is arguably legal under Texas law.

Saturday afternoon/evening: Marshals eventually move Scalia’s body to a funeral home, but only after a decoy hearse is dispatched to mislead reporters on the scene. (According to The New York Times of Feb. 21, the Marshals Service released a timeline detailing their activities handling Scalia’s death, but a search of the U.S. Marshals website and multiple phone calls elicited no such document or even confirmation of its existence. Sidestepping the way Scalia’s death was handled, a marshals spokesman told the Times: “Our folks never indicated that anything seemed amiss or unusual, but that wasn’t our role…. We weren’t there to make any determination like that, so I’m not going to be drawn into that.”

Saturday, around 8 p.m.: County Judge Guevara, having spoken with Scalia’s doctor directly by phone and with his family indirectly (by phone through the lawyer travelling with the justice), satisfies herself that Scalia’s health was marginal and that his family does not want an autopsy. She rules that his heart stopped from natural causes and does not order an autopsy. (So far as is known, no one asked the judge to order an autopsy. One of the justices of the peace contacted earlier said later that if it had been up to her, she would have ordered an autopsy.)

Clearly the handling of Scalia’s death, from the discovery to the removal of his body from Cibolo Creek Ranch, was sloppy and tone deaf, riddled, as it were, with argle-bargle and applesauce, leaving lots of questions unanswered. That’s unarguable, but is it material?

Nut circle fringe accuses President Obama of Justice-cide in Texas

For some, unanswered questions were direct evidence that Scalia was assassinated. “This is the season of treason…. This is the takedown of America, this is the globalist takeover,” broadcast Alex Jones on Infowars.com, where he wondered if Justice Clarence Thomas would be next. Jones said he’s stayed frequently at Cibolo Creek Ranch. Not surprisingly, there are assorted observers (i.e., Breitbart, The Blaze, Savage Nation, Liberty News Now, Jon Pappoport, Drudge Report, and others) questioning the official story and/or offering accounts of Scalia being murdered: by smothering (the “pillow over his head”); by a heart-attack bullet (no one looked for a wound); by poison (someone meddled with his medication or something); or by satanic ritual (the International Order of St. Hubertus, a secret society of hunters, was at the ranch). Usually the killing is blamed on President Obama, but one version pins it on Hillary Clinton, whose motive is to appoint Obama to the Supreme Court. Another argues that the Bush family killed Scalia because he was about to reveal the truth about 9/11.

None of this is very surprising, I suppose, after all these years, not at the internet level. But the mindset reaches deeper into our culture than one might suspect, to Vermont’s oldest weekly, the Vermont Standard in Woodstock, a largely unedited broadsheet that serves as an amplified shopper and bills itself as “voted best small newspaper in New England.” Citing John Grisham’s The Pelican Brief (an oil-driven conspiracy killing of two Supreme Court justices) for context, one of the Vermont Standard’s weekly columnists wrote:

Now Scalia is gone. His body was barely cold when it was announced that he had died of “natural causes.” There had been no time for an autopsy, and there may never be one. There are suggestions that he was found with a pillow over his face and his hands neatly folded. (Echoes of the Vince Foster alleged suicide?) Some think this may have been done as a message to others who dared to oppose the march towards an all-powerful central government…. One writer has speculated that Scalia may have been “eliminated” because “he stood between Obama’s goals for an America without a Constitution, without Second Amendment Rights, without rights for the unborn?”… an important jurist has died seemingly before his time…. There is a decided “Pelican Brief” element to this story, which is difficult to ignore.

Actually it’s not so difficult to ignore. So far the evidence includes no smoking gun, never mind any bullet holes. The case for murdering Scalia is no stronger than the case that he committed suicide: Scalia had sleep apnea, he had a machine that helped him live and breathe through the night, he had not used it, he had ignored it – on purpose…?

“The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones.” [Julius Caesar III/ii]

What should actually be difficult for most Americans to ignore is the quality of Justice Scalia’s life and thought, and its impact on the country. Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker put it succinctly: Scalia “devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed.” Like Toobin, New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse cites case after case after case where Scalia has taken positions consistent only with his personal bias, sometimes at great cost to the rest of us.

Scalia’s poisonous narrow-mindedness toward what he called “the homosexual agenda” and LGBT people generally may have failed to become law, but coming from a Supreme Court justice has made it seem more legitimate and has reinforced American intolerance, with little direct rebuttal or mitigation from his eight fellow justices, despite their upholding marriage equality.

Scalia’s deeply rooted racism was less overt than his gay bigotry, but it showed in his willingness to override Congress on voting rights, his willingness to speak of the “perpetuation of racial entitlement” when referring to black lives that remain the most popular target of cultural venom, and his willingness attack affirmative action by arguing that some minority students should go to “a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.” Would he say such a thing about dumb white Catholics? Or was a part of him aware that it’s still easier for a stupid white kid to graduate from college than a smart black kid.

These sources of Scalia’s hate speech, the same sources of too many Americans’ hate speech, attack not just our democratic politics, but our human decency and tolerance. Scalia fed the fires of intolerance in practical ways as well, opening the way for the richest bigots to buy the most elections. Most recently he sided with those who would rather do nothing about the global threat of climate change. And in 2000, this hypocrite of an “originalist” joined the Supreme Court majority that chose the next president, just the way the founding fathers never imagined.

Asked about Bush v. Gore years later, Scalia showed no regret for empowering a president who lied us into war, glorified kidnapping and torture, and managed the economy into crisis, among his worst policies. In response, Scalia said only: “Get over it.”

No one killed Antonin Scalia. He was dead on arrival. It remains to be seen how many of the rest of us he will take with him.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theater, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 08:19 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Interesting article, bobsal. Your right the way they conducted the entire event of Scalia's passing was bound to raise conspiracies. I am wondering how they got into the locked door, did they bust it down? Also, I am confused, was the pillow above his head or over his head?
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 08:32 am
I'm not watching the news so I don't know if it happened yet, but Obama is set to announce his picks for Scalia's replacement this morning for all the good that will do him.

President Obama to Announce Supreme Court Pick Wednesday Morning

(I don't have a subscription)

engineer
 
  3  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 08:44 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
Settling for a centrist candidate with decades of judicial experience, President Barack Obama will nominate Merrick Garland, a federal appeals judge in Washington, D.C., to the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, according to The Associated Press and congressional sources.

If confirmed, Garland, 63, wouldn't bring diversity to the court as much a lengthy résumé in public service, including stints in the Department of Justice and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has served since 1997 and is now the chief judge.

An eventual appointment for Garland is also less likely to mark a liberal shift in the Supreme Court. If anything, his contributions -- given his age and his moderate record so far -- are likely to be more pragmatic than path-marking for some of the country's most hotly contested legal issues, such as voting rights, gun control and the scope of presidential powers.
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 08:54 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

The supreme court has, in the past several decades, become less diverse. Not in terms of sex or race, but in terms of judicial backgrounds. All of the current members of the SC went to either Harvard or Yale law school, all but one served on either the DC circuit or 2d Circuit, and five of the eight served, at some point, in the executive branch of government.

Garland Merrick:
-- Went to Harvard? Check.
-- Served on the DC Circuit? Check.
-- Served in the executive branch? Check.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 12:10 pm
@joefromchicago,
He is also Jewish, does that count for him or against him? I don't see what is so bad about having an IVY league education, I wish I so lucky, wouldn't have qualified in a million years, did well to graduate by the skin of my teeth a half of year early to get married and have a baby.

Merrick Garland known as moderate and politically connected judge
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/23/2022 at 12:01:18