SCALIA WAS MURDERED TO PREVENT ANOTHER BUSH v GORE ELECTION

SCALIA WAS MURDERED TO PREVENT ANOTHER BUSH v GORE ELECTION:

"GET OVER IT"??

HOW CAN WE GET OVER THE PREMEDITATED MURDER OF A HIGH COURT JUSTICE??

WE NEED TO PRAY & VOTE.

So do I believe several theories floating around about SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia being MURDERED to prevent another Bush v Gore election?

Yes!

Scalia's death was designed to Intimidate and Terrorize 2016 election voters.

American citizens need to Pray and  Vote!

Sources: ABC News, CBS News, 60 Minutes, CNN, World Net Daily, Youtube

*** Justice Scalia On The Record

This 60 Minutes segment was originally broadcast on April 27, 2008. It was updated on Sept. 12, 2008. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Ruth Streeter, producer.

Not many Supreme Court justices become famous, but Antonin Scalia is one of the few. Known as "Nino" to his friends and colleagues, he is one of the most brilliant and combative justices ever to sit on the court and one of the most prominent legal thinkers of his generation.

He first agreed to talk to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl last spring about a new book he's written on how lawyers should address the court. But over the course of several conversations, our story grew into a full-fledged profile - his first major television interview - including discussions about abortion and Bush v. Gore.

At 72, Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as "orginalism," which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago.

Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution - like a right to abortion - by interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that adapts to changing values. 

---

Asked what's wrong with the living Constitution, Scalia tells Stahl, "What's wrong with it is, it's wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution."

"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.

"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.

"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.

"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.

"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.

"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.

"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.

He's been on a mission as an evangelist for originalism, at home and around the world.

For example, he visited the Oxford Union in England.

"Sometimes people come up to me and inquire, 'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?' As though it's some weird affliction, you know, 'When did you start eating human flesh?'" Scalia told students, who replied with laughter.

They may be laughing, but in the U.S. Scalia is a polarizing figure who invites protestors and picketers. There haven't been many Supreme Court justices who become this much of a lightening rod.

"I'm surprised at how many people really, really hate you. These are some things we've been told: 'He's evil.' 'He's a Neanderthal.' 'He's going to drag us back to 1789.' They're threatened by what you represent and what you believe in," Stahl remarks.

"These are people that don't understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I'm not saying no progress. I'm saying we should progress democratically," Scalia says.

Back at the Oxford Union, Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can...I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use... A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."

But his critics argue that originalism is a cover for what they see as Scalia's realintention: to turn back some pivotal court decisions of the 1960s and 70s.

He's been labeled a "counterrevolutionary."

"A counterrevolutionary!" Scalia reacts. "Sounds exciting."

The critics say his aim is to undo Roe v. Wade and affirmative action, and to allow more religion in public life.

"The public sense of you is that [you] make your decisions based on your social beliefs," Stahl says, with Scalia shaking his head. "That is the perception."

"I'm a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess I'm a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases," Scalia says."

His philosophy has occasionally led him to decisions he deplores, like his upholding the constitutionality of flag burning, as he told a group of students in Missouri.

"If it was up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal-wearing flag burner into jail, but it was not up to me," Scalia told the students.

To Scalia, flag burning was protected by the founding fathers in the First Amendment, which is his only criterion, he says, under originalism.

"But do you respect that there is another way to look at this?" Stahl asks.

"You know the story of the Baptist preacher who was asked if he believed in total-immersion baptism? And he said, 'Believe in it? Why I've seen it done!' I have to say the same thing about your question. There must be other views because I've seen them," Scalia says.

"Yeah, but do you respect them? You don't, do you?" Stahl asks.

"I respect the people who have them, but I think those views are just flat out wrong," Scalia says.

He's talking about some of his fellow justices, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who is - and this never ceases to surprise people - one of Scalia's best friends, both on and off the court.

To Ginsburg, the Constitution evolves and should reflect changes in society; that going back to what was meant originally when they wrote, for instance, "We the People," makes little sense.

"Who were 'We the People' in 1787? You would not be among 'We the People.' African Americans would not be among the people," Ginsburg tells Stahl.

"Justice Ginsburg and you disagree...on lots of things. And yet you're such good friends," Stahl remarks.

"I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas," Scalia says. "And if you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day job. You don't want to be a judge. At least not a judge on a multi-member panel."

He's one of the best writers on the panel, known for a bold and colorful style. He told Stahl he has to work at it - that it doesn't come easy.

He some times quotes Cole Porter, and references Greek tragedies. Scalia says he does it because, "It makes the opinion interesting, which might induce somebody to read it."

But he can also use his pen as a sword to attack the writings of his colleagues. For instance, he once called a Breyer decision "sheer applesauce."

Ginsburg has also been the target of some of Scalia's zingers: he called one of her opinions "absurd," another "implausible speculation," and another "self-righteous."

"How about, 'This opinion is not to be taken seriously.' He wrote that about Justice O'Connor," Ginsburg points out. "He's rather mild I think in the adjectives that he uses for me. But you can take every one of those words, run his opinions and you'll see that he, all of us are implausible when we disagree with him."

Asked if she ever takes it personally, Ginsburg says, "No, I take it as a challenge. How am I going to answer this in a way that's a real put down?"

"I'm trying to figure out if there was ever real anger," Stahl says.

"I would say exasperation is the word," Ginsburg replies.

"As annoyed as you might be about his zinging dissent, he's so utterly charming, so amusing, so sometimes outrageous, you can't help but say 'I'm glad that he's my friend' or he's my colleague,'" she adds.

"What's interesting is the difference between how you appear in person and the image that you have. Because the writings are so often combative, and your friends say that you're charming and fun," Stahl tells Scalia.

"I can be charming and combative at the same time," Scalia replies. "What's contradictory between the two? I love to argue. I've always loved to argue. And I love to point out the weaknesses of the opposing arguments. It may well be that I'm something of a shin kicker. It may well be that I'm something of a contrarian."

Of all the cases that have come before him on the court, Bush v. Gore may have been the most controversial. It has been reported that he played a pivotal role in urging the other justices to end the Florida recount, thereby handing the 2000 election to George Bush. The subject came up at the Oxford Union.

"Supposing yourself as a Supreme Court justice were granted the power to appoint the next president of the United States. Who would you pick and why? And would he or she be better than your last choice?" a student asked Scalia.

"You wanna talk about Bush versus Gore. I perceive that," he replied. "I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So there!"

"People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics," Stahl asks.

"I say nonsense," Scalia says.

Was it political?

"Gee, I really don't wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two," Scalia says.

Moreover, he says it was not the court that made this a judicial question.

"It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question. It was he who brought it into the Florida courts. We didn't go looking for trouble. It was he who said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts.' What are we supposed to say? 'Oh, not important enough,'" Scalia jokes.

"It ended up being a political decision" Stahl points out.

"Well you say that. I don't say that," Scalia replies.

"You don't think it handed the election to George Bush?" Stahl asks.

"Well how does that make it a political decision?" Scalia asks.

"It decided the election," Stahl says.

"If that's all you mean by it, yes," Scalia says.

"That's all I mean by it," Stahl says.

"Oh, ok. I suppose it did. Although you should add to that that it would have come out the same way, no matter what," Scalia says.

DEMOCRATS WANT TO TAKE BLACK VOTES WITHOUT HELPING BLACK VOTERS (MALCOLM X)

DEMOCRATS WANT TO TAKE BLACK VOTES WITHOUT HELPING BLACK VOTERS:

MALCOLM X LABELED BLACK VOTERS WHO BLINDLY SUPPORT DEMOCRATS "CHUMPS".

WHERE ARE THE JOBS FOR BLACK MEN??

BLACK voters are tired of being forced to support the national DEMOCRAT party without receiving anything Constructive in return for our Ballots.

And we don't mean Food Stamps or Welfare!

However it appears that instead of listening to BLACK voters, Key Party leaders want to Force BLACK voters into supporting DEMOCRATS via Strong arm Political tactics, or they want to Steal BLACK votes.

Shortly before he was Assassinated, Malcolm X labeled BLACK voters who blindly support DEMOCRATS as "CHUMPS".

In the land of the FREE, this is not right!

~ When Blacks Voted 80 Percent Dem, Malcolm X Called Them 'Chumps

When blacks gave 80 percent of their vote to the Democratic Party in 1964, black activist Malcolm X called them "political chumps."

White voters, X said, "are so evenly divided that every time they vote, the race is so close they have to go back and count the votes all over again. Which means that any bloc, any minority that has a bloc that sticks together is in a strategic position. Either way you go, that's who gets it."

Yet Democrats, said Malcolm X, failed to deliver on a promised and much anticipated new civil rights bill, knowing the party could still count on their blind support in the next election.

You put them first," said Malcolm X, "and they put you last. 'Cause you're a chump.

A political chump! ... Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you are dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party -- you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race."

What would Malcolm X say about today's 95 percent black vote?

Did the Democratic Party keep its promises to promote family stability, push education and encourage job creation?

The black community, over the last 50 years, has suffered an unparalleled breakdown in family unity. Even during slavery when marriage was illegal, a black child was more likely than today to be raised under a roof with his or her biological mother and father.

According to census data, from 1890 to 1940, said economist Walter Williams, a black child was slightly more likely to grow up with married parents than a white child. What happened?

When President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1965, 24 percent of black babies were born to unmarried mothers.

Today that number is 72 percent.

Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said in 2008: "Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.

They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves."

Not only has family breakdown coincided with increased government spending, but the money has not done much to reduce the rate of poverty. From 1965 until now, the government has spent $15-20 trillion to fight poverty. In 1949, the poverty rate stood at 34 percent.

By 1965, it was cut in half, to 17 percent -- all before the so-called War on Poverty. But after the war began in 1965, poverty began to flat line.

It appears that the generous welfare system allowed women to, in essence, marry the government -- and it allowed men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility, while surrendering the dignity that comes from being a good provider.

Psychologists call dependency "learned helplessness."

About the importance of education, Malcolm X once said, "My alma mater was books, a good library. ... I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity." What would he say about the Democratic opposition to school vouchers -- where the money would follow the student rather than the other way around?

Urban schools, where students are disproportionately black and brown, are simply not producing children who can read, write and compute at grade level.

The dropout rate can approach 50 percent in some urban districts. Nationwide, 10 percent of parents send their kids to private school. But in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, 40 percent or more of teachers send their own kids to private schools.

Democrats don't do blacks any favor by supporting "race-based preferences" in admissions to colleges and universities. Turns out, the more a school lowers standards to achieve "diversity," the greater the chance the "diverse" student drops out.

More than that, Democrats have convinced blacks that but for race-based preferences, black growth would suffer. Nonsense. Respected researchers Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom wrote:

"The growth of the black middle class long predates the adoption of race-conscious social policies. In some ways, indeed, the black middle class was expanding more rapidly before 1970 than after."

Finally, as to the economy, then-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., admitted: "With 14 percent (black) unemployment, if we had a white president we'd be marching around the White House. ...The President knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white."

Democratic policies have contributed to family breakdown, maintained underperforming urban schools -- with no opt out for parents -- and have promoted tax-spend-and-regulate economic policies that have resulted in a level of unemployment described as "unconscionable" by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

So would Malcolm X call today's black voter a political "chump" -- or a political "traitor"?

Sources: Town Hall, YouTube

High Voter Turnout In Mass. U.S. Senate Race; Braving Snow, Ice

Mass. Voters Stream To Polls In Special US Senate Election


Voters flooded the polls to cast ballots in the unexpectedly close election to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy in the US Senate.

Light snow has not discouraged heavy traffic at polling places as more than 55,000 people cast ballots by noon in Boston, an early turnout more than double that of the primary last month. Other cities and towns experienced similar waves of voters. Lines formed at a polling place in Somerville, and traffic backed up at Bates Elementary School in Wellesley, with cars spilling onto Elmwood Road. In two Quincy precincts at the Lodge of Elks, nearly 1,000 people -- or about 25 percent of voters -- cast ballots by 1 p.m.

"I'm trying to save the nation today," said Robert Cappello, 69, a registered Republican and enthusiastic Scott Brown voter from South Boston who reveled in what he described as an "overwhelming sweep" of momentum for his candidate.

"This election is a lot about sending a message," Cappello said in an excited voice outside a polling place on H Street. "It's telling Washington to slow down."

In West Roxbury at St. George Orthodox Church, Phil DiCarlo cast his ballot for Democrat Martha Coakley but noted how quickly the Brown campaign gathered steam.

"It seems like people have short memories," DiCarlo said. "They forgot about the last eight years" under former president George Bush.

Brown, a Republican state senator from Wrentham, has surged more than 30 points in the polls in a special election for the US Senate seat Democrats have held for generations. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st Republican vote blocking President Obama’s health care legislation in the Senate.

Coakley, the state attorney general, was the early front runner after her decisive victory in the Democratic primary last month. She supports the health care overhaul and stood with Obama in Boston this weekend at a rally for her campaign.

An independent candidate, Joseph L. Kennedy of Dedham -- no relation to the late senator -- also appears on today’s ballot.

At the Lodge of Elks in Quincy, Ruth Faherty, a 25-year-old nurse, cast her ballot for Brown. "I think we need him in there to make more of a fight in the senate," said Faherty, who described herself as an unenrolled voter. "I think if there are too many on one side [of the aisle] it becomes lopsided."

In Stoughton at Gibbons Elementary School, a steady stream of voters slogged through the cold and snow. Many said they cast ballots for Brown, citing his common appeal and objections to President Obama's health care overhaul.

"They took everything for granted in this race," said unenrolled voter Richard Whittington, 48, of Democrats. "It's the same arrogance you see in Washington.''

In Natick, the persistent flow of voters included Rex Kidd, 48, the owner of a local masonry and paving company who voted for Brown because of his pro-business, conservative views.

"I respect Martha Coakley and what she's accomplished in her career. But I think she's going to preserve the status quo," Kidd said. "Scott Brown can take us to the next level … [Brown] is going to decrease my taxes and get rid of all the wasteful spending that Deval Patrick has done. Cutting taxes fuels the economy, not charging more taxes and spending it on social programs."





Outside Natick High School, Randy Divinski took a vacation day from his job at a non-profit to clutch a Coakley sign in 30-degree weather.

"I am bothered by stealth Republicans who run as moderate," said Divinski, 46. "Brown has a political record, but that is not what he's running on," said Divinski. "We've just had eight years of screwball economic policies, and he wants to go back to that? One Herbert Hoover is enough."

In Jamaica Plain at Kennedy Elementary school, more than 100 people -- or about 10 percent of voters -- had cast ballots by 11 a.m. That number equaled roughly the entire turnout for the primary last month. Like most of the others interviewed in this left-leaning precinct, Sasha Cantu, 21, said she voted for Martha Coakley.

“I don’t want Brown because he didn’t want to help rape victims,” Cantu said. “She’ll do everything Teddy Kennedy wanted to do.”

In South Boston, Patrick Shaughnessy, 33, cast his vote for Brown because of Coakley's "entitlement attitude."

"She didn't really campaign. She wouldn't debate him one-on-one," said Shaughnessy, an unenrolled voter who supported Republican Senator John McCain in 2008. "She just expected to win."

Another unenrolled voter, Jackie Crowell, 26, also voted for Brown. "I think my views align a lot better with his than Martha Coakley's," Crowell said.

Maureen Downs, 51, came to the opposite conclusion and cast her vote for Coakley.

"I don't agree with Scott Brown's positions on anything," said Downs, citing economic regulations, emergency contraception, and more.

Her husband, Eddie Downs, 50, added: "I just don't think he would be good for the working man and woman of the Commonwealth."

Democrats are hoping a coordinated get-out-the-vote effort for Coakley will hold off the surging Republican. Brown's campaign is hoping the raw energy among his supporters is enough to overpower the state’s Democratic machinery.

The cold, cloudy weather could be a challenge for the candidates. Intermittent light snow showers – and some rain – are expected throughout the day and into the early evening.
Polls remain open until 8 p.m.

To read profiles of the candidates and a rundown of where they stand on the issues, click here for Brown; here for Coakley; and here for Kennedy. To find out where to vote, click here.







Massachusetts Vote Could Affect Obama Agenda


Voters across Massachusetts braved winter cold and snow Tuesday to decide who will inherit the U.S. Senate seat controlled by the Kennedy family since 1953.

At stake was President Obama's domestic agenda, including the overhaul of health care.

If GOP state Sen. Scott Brown upsets Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley, Republicans would strip Democrats of their 60-seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Republicans would have enough votes to block future Senate votes on a broad range of White House priorities.

Election turnout is expected to be "pretty good," said Brian McNiff, a spokesman for the office of Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin.

Galvin predicted Monday as many 2.2 million of 4.5 million registered voters would vote -- at least double the turnout from December's primary.

"I don't think weather is going to impede too many people" from coming out to vote, McNiff said. "I think the interest in this election will trump any bad weather."

More than 100,000 absentee ballots have been requested, he added.

Coakley initially was expected to win the race easily to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy, known as the "liberal lion" of the Senate who made health care reform the centerpiece of his nearly 47-year Senate career. Kennedy, 77, died of brain cancer in August.

Former Kennedy aide and longtime friend Paul Kirk was appointed to the seat on an interim basis after the senator's death.

Until recently, Brown was underfunded and unknown statewide. No Republican has won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972. Democrats control the governorship, both houses of the state Legislature and the entire congressional delegation.

The latest poll, however, shows Brown leading Coakley by 7 percentage points, 52 percent to 45 percent. The American Research Group survey, taken Friday through Sunday, had a sampling error of 4 percentage points.

No poll released in the past few days has shown Coakley ahead.

Obama and former President Clinton hit the campaign trail over the past three days in an attempt to save Coakley's campaign, which observers said has been hampered by complacency and missteps.

Obama crushed Sen. John McCain in Massachusetts in 2008, beating the GOP presidential nominee by 26 percentage points.

"If you were fired up in the last election, I need you more fired up in this election," Obama urged a crowd Sunday at a Coakley campaign rally.

Vicki Kennedy, the late senator's widow, called on Democrats to turn out to save her husband's legacy.

"We need your help. We need your support. We need you to get out there and vote on Tuesday," Kennedy said. "We need you to bring your neighbors. We need you to bring your friends."

Brown, who has trumpeted his 30 years of service in the National Guard, hewed to traditional GOP themes at the end of the campaign. He promised at a rally Sunday that, if elected, he would back tax cuts and be tougher on terrorists than Coakley.

He also repeated a pledge to oppose Obama's health care overhaul effort.

"Massachusetts wants real reform and not this trillion-dollar Obama health care that is being forced on the American people," he said. "As the 41st [Republican] senator, I will make sure that we do it better."

Forty-four percent of Massachusetts voters cited the economy and jobs as their top concern in a recent 7 News/Suffolk University poll. Thirty-eight percent mentioned health care as their top concern.

Voters more concerned with the economy were split almost evenly between the two candidates; voters more worried about health care narrowly supported Coakley.

Democrats far outnumber Republicans in Massachusetts, but there are more independents than Democrats and Republicans combined.

Democratic sources said Obama advisers have told the party they believe Coakley is going to lose. The sources said they still hoped Obama's weekend visit to the state, coupled with a late push by party activists, could tip the balance in her favor.

Facing the possibility of Coakley's defeat, Democrats were trying to figure out if they could pass health care legislation without that crucial 60th Senate vote.

But top White House aides publicly insisted they are not engaging in any talk of contingency plans because they believe Coakley will come out on top Tuesday.

Galvin, a Democrat, said last week that certifying Tuesday's election results could take more than two weeks -- potentially enough time to allow congressional Democrats to pass a final health care bill before Brown would be seated should he win.

But Democratic sources said this is unlikely.

Two Democratic sources in close contact with the White House said Monday they've urged the Obama administration, in the event of a Brown victory, to push House Democrats to pass the Senate's health care bill as currently written. Doing so would prevent the Senate from having to take up the plan again.

"I think the Senate bill clearly is better than nothing," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said Tuesday.

A third option would be for Democrats to revisit the idea of trying to push health care through the Senate with 51 votes -- a simple majority.

But to do so, Democrats would have to use a process known as reconciliation, which presents technical and procedural issues that would delay the process for a long time. A number of Democrats are eager to put the health care debate behind them and move on to economic issues such as job creation as soon as possible this election year.

Senate Democrats also could try again to get moderate GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine to vote for a compromise health care plan. Multiple Democratic sources, however, have said they believe such a scenario is unlikely.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, Boston Globe, CNN, Youtube, Google Maps