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.

The Supreme Court is set to take up a major case next term involving affirmative action, and it could conceivably lead to an exceedingly rare phenomenon by Supreme Court standards: A tie.

As she did when the court last heard the challenge, Fisher v. Texas, Justice Elena Kagan will recuse herself from the case. That's because she worked on the case as the US' solicitor general from 2009-10.

That leaves the Supreme Court with eight justices to hear and decide on the case this time around. In 2013, the court largely kicked the can down the road. By a 7-1 decision, the high court agreed to send the case back to a lower court for it to rehear it with stricter scrutiny.

But the Supreme Court taking up the case again suggests it may be ready to hand down a major decision on affirmative-action programs.

And that raises the specter of a decision divided along ideological lines at the court. So, what happens in the event of a 4-4 tie?

"If the Court divides 4-4 the lower court opinion is affirmed without creating any Supreme Court precedent," said Jeffrey Fisher, a professor of law at Stanford University.

The last time that happened was in 2010, when the Supreme Court split 4-4 over a copyright-infringement case involving Costco and a Swatch Group unit. Kagan also recused herself from that case for the same reason.

Because Fisher v. Texas is an ideologically divisive case, there's more potential for a split decision. But that will likely involve the remaining three liberal-leaning justices to convince Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's typical swing voter, to side with them in the case.

"Kagan's recusal makes it harder for supporters of affirmative action to gain enough votes for a majority. Four of the justices have been strongly opposed to affirmative action," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told Business Insider....

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Saturday said there would be no vote on any appointment picked by President Obama to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia — setting the stage for a dramatic political showdown in Washington.

McConnell said a new appointment would have to wait until a new president takes office.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president," McConnell said in a statement.

With his previous two appointments, Obama was replacing liberal justices with younger liberals. But with Scalia, he'd have the chance to replace the justice who has held the fort down for conservatives on the court for the past 30 years, potentially moving the court dramatically to the left.

Democrats have already made it clear that they intend to push aggressively for a new justice to be appointed....

Archangel1
The Senate cannot take a break or allow an appointment for the next 11 months or we will end up with the total transformation of the constitution.

we will end up with the total transformation of the constitution.

Originally posted by Archangel1:
I have little hope for McConnell...

Originally posted by ConSigCor:
Archangel,
We don't have another generation left. Otherwise I agree.

This far and no farther.

If Obummer gets his way, then it should be total war.

e Constitution not only assigns to the president the task of making nominations to the Supreme Court, setting off Senate review that may or may not result in approval, but it also gives the Chief Executive the opportunity to fill a vacancy on the Court temporarily, bypassing the Senate initially, if a nominee languishes in the Senate without final action.

Within a few hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it became abundantly clear that, first, President Obama will choose a possible successor and try to get the Senate to go along, and, second, the GOP leadership of the Senate say they will try to block any such nominee from final approval.

If that does result in an impasse, President Obama may ponder the possibility of putting on the Court a new Justice of his choosing, to serve temporarily. The problem, though, is that less than two years ago, the Supreme Court severely narrowed the flexibility of such temporary appointment power, and strengthened the Senate’s capacity to frustrate such a presidential maneuver.

It is true that one of the Justices regarded as a giant on the Court’s history, William J. Brennan, Jr., actually began his lengthy career with just such a short-term appointment. The chances of that happening again today seem to have diminished markedly.

The presidential authority at issue in this possible scenario exists, according to Article II, when the Senate has gone into recess and the vacancy a president seeks to fill remains. Such an appointment requires no action at all by the Senate, but the appointee can only serve until the end of the following Senate session. The president (if still in office) can then try again during a new Senate session, by making a new nomination, and that must be reviewed by the Senate.

The Supreme Court had never clarified that power until its decision in June 2014 in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.

The decision was something of a compromise. The Court expanded the concept of when the Senate would be in recess so that the president could make a temporary appointment, but it also gave the Senate more control over when it does recess and how long the recesses last. The gesture toward the Senate’s choices was probably the more important result.

Here, specifically, is what the Court decided:

First, on the president’s side, the Court ruled that the recess appointment power applies when the Senate leaves town for a break in the middle of an annual sitting, or a break at the end of each annual session.

Second, also on the president’s side, the decision declared that the president during a recess can fill a vacancy even if the opening occurred well before the recess began.

Third, on the Senate’s side, the ruling made clear that it has to last more than three days, without saying how much more time must pass without the Senate out of town and doing nothing.

Fourth, strongly on the Senate’s side, the decision left it largely up to the Senate to decide when it does take a recess, allowing it to avoid the formality of a recess by taking some legislative action, however minor or inconsequential and however few senators actually take part in some action.

Suppose President Obama goes ahead with a nomination to the open seat on the Court, and suppose that the Republican-controlled Senate chooses not to allow that nominee. The GOP has enough seats in the Senate to control that scenario.

Suppose, then, that the Senate goes into recess to allow its members who are running for reelection to spend some more time campaigning back home.

Could President Obama make a nominee during that recess? Only if the Senate is taking a recess lasting longer than three days, and does not come in from time to time during that recess to take some minimal legislative action. Both of those circumstances would be entirely within the Senate’s authority.

In that circumstance, a recess appointment to the Court would not be within the terms of the Constitution, as spelled out in Article II.

The same situation would likely apply when this year’s Senate session comes to an end, and the senators take a recess before the next Congress assembles.

The bottom line is that, if President Obama is to successfully name a new Supreme Court Justice, he will have to run the gauntlet of the Republican-controlled Senate, and prevail there. The only real chance of that: if he picks a nominee so universally admired that it would be too embarrassing for the Senate not to respond.

Originally posted by mak9030mag:
Could he use an eo to get one in till he leaves office?

Originally posted by Hawk45:
The time between the Christmas recess later this year and the time of the inauguration, Obama CAN make a recess appointment. The only way to prevent it is for the Senate to take NO recesses until we have a NEW sworn in President.

Originally posted by Lord Vader:
But wouldn't the Appointment be temporary and only be good until the the Senate returns from Recess or until the Inauguration?

Originally posted by airforce:
A temporary appointment can do a lot of damage.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Originally posted by ConSigCor:
At this point in time it really doesn't matter who is appointed judge or president.

They are all about to be made irrelevant.

Originally posted by Lord Vader:

Quote

Originally posted by airforce:
[b] A temporary appointment can do a lot of damage.

Onward and upward,
airforce

But wouldn't it be possible for any case that this Temporary Justice Ruled on for those cases to be brought back before the Supreme Court with the Conservative Justice? [/b]

Originally posted by Lord Vader:
And what about the considering the same issue or law but a different Case.

There are plenty of conspiracy theories floating around out there claiming political opponents murdered Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to open up a seat on the court. Radio talk show host Alex Jones, never one to pass up an opportunity to stir the pot, said he feels this happened “in his gut.”

Well, fine. It’s a madcap scheme that comes from the pages of terrible pulp political thrillers, but let’s go there anyway. We can follow Jones’ batshit theory and use it to learn something about murder and forensics.

The absence of an autopsy will stoke the fires of conspiracy, but they may be doused later this week when a statement from Scalia’s doctor will be added to his death certificate. The 79-year-old jurist suffered from several chronic conditions, The Washington Post reported.

Also intriguing to theorists: The U.S. Marshal said that Scalia had declined any security at the ranch. This opens up a host of possible, if extremely long-shot, murder scenarios where an interloper arrives at the ranch and escapes unseen.

Scalia was not a young man. He was 79 years old and friends at the West Texas ranch where he died say he went to bed early because he didn’t feel well. There are many natural causes of death that could be responsible. A heart attack seems to be the most probable cause, and local media are reporting that his death certificate will read “myocardial infarction.” Other media reports say the cause will be deemed natural. Either way, no official is suggesting homicide.

Let’s not let that stop us from conjecture. Besides, there are also a few man-made ways to kill him that would fit the very thin facts — some of which would be hard to prove even if examiners conducted an autopsy.

1) Smothered

Many conspiracy-minded people are pointing to a small detail to throw some suspicion over Scalia’s death: a pillow found over his head. So could someone have entered his room and used that pillow to asphyxiate him? This method only really works with really old or young people, or those already unconscious. There are usually telltale signs of these murders — not only will most victims struggle, leaving signs of the fight behind, but the suffocation takes up to 5 minutes and the body shows this with hemorrhages under the skin. But there’s a catch: Sometimes the suffocation triggers a heart attack, leaving the corpse without many of the signs of a homicide.

Even a close examination can miss this cause of death. “Homicidal smothering is extremely difficult to detect,” reads one book on forensic pathology written by Dinesh Rao. “The autopsy may reveal asphyxia, but there may not be any corroborative medical evidence to prove foul play.”

2) Poisoned

Assassination by poison is an ancient art form. It’s also a good way to kill people without getting caught. Let’s say you’re the professional killer hired by — oh, let’s just go the whole way and blame this on the White House. They might ask how you plan on doing this.

“Well,” the killer would respond, “I’m a trained nurse and I’m a big fan of this muscle relaxant called succinylcholine. It’s the stuff we inject into patients when we want to jam breathing tubes down their throats while they’re still awake. But get this: In high enough doses, it paralyses people so they can’t breath. Most autopsies show this as a heart attack. It’s brilliant.” The White House aide smiles. “Then let’s take out that SOB."

Sound far-fetched? Well, sure. But a similar scheme killed Nevada State Controller Kathy Augustine when her husband injected her with succinylcholine. The hubby was nabbed when coworkers reported that he was pondering ways to kill her, and looked more closely at her body. They found a small needle mark.

The drug doesn’t leave any direct traces, but it breaks down and leave metabolites behind that can indicate a poisoning. But the medical examiner has to be looking for those signs to catch them during an autopsy.

3) Gassed

The paranoid can also ponder whether Scalia could have been killed with a gas. One easy choice would be to use carbon monoxide poisoning, undetectable by smell or color. There have been cases where a murderer has run a hose from the tailpipe of a car into a room where the victim is sleeping. (A doctor in Ohio named Mark Wangler did this in 2006 and got caught, mostly because his claim that the victim had a seizure was proven false. Prosecutors showed that she was dead when the call was made.) All a hired killer would need is a commercially available canister of carbon monoxide and a hose.

There’s a catch, though. There are usually telltale signs when a person is killed by CO. There may be froth at the mouth and nose. (The kind of evidence absorbed by a pillow perhaps?) The skin and internal organs can become bright red, almost like a stain. It’s unlikely that such clues would be ignored by an M.E.

Then again, Scalia’s family was insistent on not performing an autopsy. That alone will keep this theory — and many, many others — in people’s minds for a long time.