You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Stukov ago

I'm tottally on board with this and cant believe I didn't read this stuff earlier...but one thing I don't understand, can someone explain how or what Scalia would do that would be necessary to remove him? What I mean is, I know the constitution and law somewhat well, but I don't know why you would remove a USSCJ as necessary to annex Mexico?

TheJesusDude ago

He was one of the only starch conservative voices.

Stukov ago

But how is he going to stop annexation of Canada? How is his removal and assumption they would get a different justice in there going to help with that?

yabbadoody ago

you DON'T need to annex Canada - all you need is TPP, which Barry and Hillary had been working on behind closed doors for about 2 years.

Stukov ago

Canada? You mean Mexico? So they could need Scalia out of the way to make sure TPP passes USSC?

TheJesusDude ago

Remove him and Clinton replaces him with their plant. Except they didn't think Trump would actually win.

Stukov ago

No I get that part, just not understanding how once they have supreme court that will allow them to annex the US. The only thing the court would matter for in this NAU (which they even made currency for once) is repeal of the 2nd amendment so they can do whatever they want. I'm just not understanding what Scalia would have impeded them on for annexation of Mexico as that would have been able to occur with him around. Either there is something we are missing as to what his impediment would have been or they wanted him gone for another reason?

ZalesMcMuffin ago

Or annexation was codespeak for something else (like amnesty).

TheJesusDude ago

There are probably many other pieces at play that we just do not know about or haven't seen yet.

Stukov ago

Fair enough. We will find it.

2impendingdoom ago

he was one of 5 reliably conservative voices, so now the court is split 4-4.