Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Occam’s Razor and Scalia Conspiracy Theories
Justice Scalia’s funeral is scheduled for Saturday, but the man was hardly declared dead before conspiracy theories started circulating to the effect that he was assassinated. There’s no point in addressing specific claims because we’re still in the innuendo stage. But more importantly, any hint of a conspiracy collapses with the slightest application of skepticism.
In order for any assassination conspiracy to work, the first question is “Cui bono?“ Who benefits? Who would go to the trouble of murdering a Supreme Court justice? When you’re playing the election-year conspiracy innuendo game, there’s only two choices: red team or blue.
What would be the point of a Republican conspiracy to murder Justice Scalia? The only suggestion I’ve heard is that it would be a rallying point for Republicans. They must, must, must win the White House back to be able to pick a replacement Supreme Court justice.
This runs headlong into two problems: Barack Obama is still President. So he gets to nominate a replacement. But supposing Senate Republicans can block an appointment for an entire year (which necessitates enormous fortitude on the part of Senate Republicans), that still requires (1) a Republican to be elected in November, and (2) the new President to nominate a conservative justice to replace Scalia. Even then, why kill a man hailed as a conservative legal hero to risk another David Souter? There’s just too much chaos, too much that can go wrong with that plan.
Ah, but what about the Democrats? If they assassinated Scalia, Obama would get to make the appointment. It would be a rallying point for Democrats, who must, must, must win the White House to appoint a progressive hero to the Court. After all, those people are capable of anything, aren’t they?
Yes, Obama would get to nominate a replacement. But there’s a better-than-even chance the Republicans will block any Supreme Court appointment. As a rallying point, it would be slightly bigger for Republicans. Conservatives control the Court, so they have more to lose. And if you’re going to go so far as to murder a Supreme Court justice, why do it now? Why not do it in 2009 before Citizens United was decided? Or in 2014 before Burwell was decided? (Or any other major case that could go the other way.) Of all times, why now, when it would guarantee a very bloody and chaotic nomination fight?
We are bound to hear these conspiracy theories. We’re already seeing the beginnings of it. These people said this. What about that. Those theories will continue to build, because like any death, there will be unanswered questions. Conspiracy theorists will engage in anomaly-hunting and exploit any unknown to generate innuendo.
No doubt, some Republican candidates will play the innuendo game (or outright conspiracy monger), just like Democrats did with 9/11 while George W. Bush was President, only to forget their pet conspiracy theories after their team gets back the White House. Shame on Republicans who do. They should know better. (Well, most of them anyway.)
What really damns any and all Scalia conspiracy theories is Occam’s Razor, the principle that the hypothesis that contains the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. So to anyone who thinks Justice Scalia may have been murdered, I ask ask this: Which is more likely? That a 79-year-old man with multiple health problems, who complained of discomfort before going to bed, died in his sleep? Or that a complex conspiracy killed him at a nonsensical time to create an uncertain outcome?
Published in General
Reading these comments I get the feeling killing a person who is 79 and has been to a cardiologist is easy to get away with, as cause of death will be assumed. thanks for the info. I’ll check the forensic statute in Texas Im sure it’s called the Scalia rule by now.
See: every gold digging black-widow murder mystery ever.
One more thought. If some lefty was behind this, wouldn’t they be more likely to have offed Justice Ginsberg? She’s older than Scalia, and looks more frail (presumably lessening the likelihood of suspicion) and will probably not continue on the bench through the next presidential election. If loss avoidance is a stronger motivator than gain (and it is), wouldn’t they be more likely to want to nail down one of their reliably liberal seats with a young justice? And wouldn’t it be harder for the Republican Senate to refuse confirmation of a Justice who doesn’t “tip the balance” of the court?
And if some right-winger was behind this, wouldn’t they still have wanted to off Justice Ginsberg, just on principle? (I kid Ruth, I kid!)
We’re being nice to her this week out of respect for her friendship with Scalia. Because we are classy that way. Classier than Obama.
Next week, anything goes. Business as usual. ;)
Tommy,
Exactly. Presumed to be dying any minute. Death panels etc. This is all part of the left wing “who needs morality we know it all” syndrome. I’ve got insurance actuarial statistics on my side so why take his pulse? Assumptions have consequences.
Regards,
Jim
Or that all the facts pointing towards foul play were murky at best, have been subsequently refuted and that one should respect the families wishes when it comes to their loved ones.
Or you know, fanning the flames of insane conspiracy is good too.
We’ll have O.J. look into that when gets out of prison, provided his team of investigators have finished looking for “the real killer.”
That’s just what they want you to think. ;)
That’s not really fair Jamie. I said up front without believing Scalia was murdered, one can question the procedure here. Not for Scalia’s case, but the next one.
If you are looking to pin me with a conspiracy theory tag, I’ll throw you one bone: I don’t buy, as does Fred, the backtrack on the location of the pillow. I don’t take it to mean Scalia was murdered. I take it as proof the Justice didn’t follow the spirit of the inquiry law.
If the pillow was in such a normal position up near the headboard above Scalia’s head, it wouldn’t have been mentioned when the man first reported it. I say this from 25 years of taking statements from witnesses. When a person is describing an extraordinary event, irrelevant facts aren’t volunteered in short statements. “I found a dead Supreme Court Justice! His slippers were next to the bed!” That pillow caught his attention. It was reported.
If you read the Texas statute, like I have, the inquiry conducted by the Justice should have led to an autopsy and the family has no say in it (another area where Fred’s failure to read the law causes him errors).
But the statute gives the Justice discretion, which he used. Procedurally, I think he isn’t in the spirit of the law. No doctors on the scene, a man who wasn’t sick, a celebrity target and the report of an oddly placed pillow.
This Justice is awfully liberal with his discretion.
Excuse me, Tommy. You can’t say he wasn’t sick. The man had numerous health problems and complained about not feeling well before going to bed.
Lol that’s hardly enough Fred. He could have had indigestion for goodness sakes!
He “didn’t feel well.” C’mon man! That’s not determinative.
According to the authorities at the scene, there was no evidence of foul play.
Once again:
Which is more likely? That a 79-year-old man with multiple health problems, who complained of discomfort before going to bed, died in his sleep? Or that a complex conspiracy killed him at a nonsensical time to create an uncertain outcome?
I not only object to the limitations set forth in your question Fred, but also point out again your refusal to read the Texas law while maintaining certain actions were consistent with it doesn’t breed confidence in your opinion.
Foul play? Is that what you assert the law says the standard is?
Ricochet is a learned website. Go read the law and see if it changes your view of procedure.
I’ll note too for all your libertarian ferocity espoused here, you are putting a great deal of stock in a telephone call between a Sheriff and a local Judge.
You are welcome to post and/or link to the section of law. It’s not something I have the time or easily dog out. Nor am I asserting any aspect of law. As you said, an autopsy is at the discretion of the Justice. He exercised his discretion in this case, in accordance with the wishes of the family (whose say don’t decide things, but that they’re free to express).
So again, we have a case where there’s zero evidence of foul play and all of the evidence is consistent with death by natural causes.
And I don’t see how libertarianism has to do with anything. One need only apply common sense to the situation to reach the same conclusion I have.
A lot of people that have heart attacks present with vague symptoms before the damage to the myocardium gets worse and they really start feeling bad. Often people will complain of indigestion. Not saying that that’s what happened, just saying that it’s not at all out of the realm of possibility. When doing a differential diagnosis on a patient that presents with chest pain or chest discomfort, my list includes: Acute MI, pulmonary embolism, aortic dissection, gastric reflux, and costochondritis.
VC,
Yes, my angel of professional medical opinion. Would anything be implied from a patient dead that looked completely peaceful as if sleeping. Would that rule out certain things as the cause.
Regards,
Jim
Really we’ll never know unless they do an autopsy.
VC,
Sounds like the answer that a responsible person would give.
Regards,
Jim
There you go again Fred…citing the “foul play” standard while at the same time admitting you haven’t read the law to find out if that’s the standard.
The family probably requested that they not do an autopsy, and the judge complied.
If your Uncle Ned has a grabber in front of the salad bar at Luby’s, they’ll probably go ahead and do it no matter what you request.
Different deals for bigger wheels – no big mystery.