USSC Justice Scalia Dead at 79

[Lt.Uhura]

When there is an unexpected death in or outside a hospital, the coroner/judge contacts the patient's family and private physician to gather information about the health of the deceased.  In Scalia's case the Presidio County judge--with the delightful and improbable name of Cinderela, spoke with Scalia's doctor who outlined Scalia's health problems, including his advanced age, morbid obesity, hypertension, and "weakness" that prevented him from having a recent surgery.  The public is not privy to the exact details of Scalia's health issues, but suffice it to say, information was shared with the judge that lead to a cause of death from natural causes, likely an MI. 

If there was indeed a nefarious plot to murder Scalia, it would require the participation of his own family as well as his private physician--either of whom could have insisted upon an autopsy had they felt it was warranted.

The Supreme Court consists of several elderly members who might also suddenly die or have health issues requiring them to step down.  Reason enough not to delay in appointing a new judge.  The foolish obstructionists are courting chaos.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Since I said that I meant that only current holders of these positions who died in those positions should be required to have a cause of death determined this would probably be no more than two or three people a year as very few major public officials die in office.

Way to keep the fuckin government out of our lives buddie.

Oh well, since it's only a few per year that are having their right to privacy stomped on, it's no big deal.  And they're politicians, so they only count as 3/5 of a person anyway.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Place a pillow on a bed in the customary location.  Now lie down such that your head does not reach the pillow -- say, six inches space between the top of your head and the pillow. 

How would one describe the location of the pillow, relative to your body?  "The pillow was above [your] head" might be one way. 

Here's the quote: "“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled.”

NOT "a pillow was over his mouth/face," or "a pillow was covering his mouth/face," or ANY wording WHATSOEVER that he might have been suffocated. 

Conspiracy retards start from the premise that there HAD to be a conspiracy, and then go looking for real facts to assrape to fit a conspiracy, "facts" that they make up, and fruit loops speculation to support that premise.

[136 or 142]

Way to keep the fuckin government out of our lives buddie.

Oh well, since it's only a few per year that are having their right to privacy stomped on, it's no big deal.  And they're politicians, so they only count as 3/5 of a person anyway.

I mentioned that if all current and former public officials were required to have an autopsy at the time of their death, that some might raise privacy concerns.

However, if a person doesn't want an autopsy (or, at least having their cause of death determined and released) at the time of the their death, they can simply not accept a cabinet or Supreme Court appointment and not run for Congress or the Presidency/Vice Presidency.  There are already a lot of jobs in both the public and private sector that require for sound reasons ongoing medical tests and the like.  Unlike for those people, these results would be made public, but I think that's appropriate as their employers are the people.

So, I don't take this 'privacy issue' seriously as nobody is being forced to do anything against their will.  If you don't want an autopsy (or the cause of your death to be released) at the time of your death, don't take the job.  The number of people who are so far ahead of everybody else that their loss to public service would mean a great loss to the public, well I can't think of anybody like that in any of those positions right now.  I'm sure if SredniVashtar held one of those positions (for all I know she does) he'd think he's one of those superior elite people, but that's because she has massive feelings of superiority.

Also, the vast majority of people already know when they are in declining health.  So, if a public official fears their imminent demise and doesn't want to be subject to the release of the cause of their death, they can also resign in advance.  In most cases, declining health alone would be enough to cause most of these people to resign, except, it seems, U.S Senators.

[albrecht]

None of us know, and we shouldn't. I am pretty sure the doc that pronounced had much more to go on than just the phone call. To do or not do an autopsy isn't decided on the cost variabilities from a spread sheet.

The exact cause of death... Good luck with that.

Here, in Texas, we autopsy or have some type of inquest homeless people found dead and go to great lengths (sometimes to our detriment because some serial killer/crazies like to take advantage) to track down and investigate when bones are found, or unidentified bodies. And those are people that, sadly, many people might consider 'worthless' or at least 'not worth it.' But a Supreme Court Justice- even if there is NOTHING suspicious (pillow issue simply being the way he slept or had a fit, his apparent general poor health, his age, his apparent bad diets, habits, etc) the cost would be nothing considering what the government spends! One more autopsy of such an important figure? Why not? We spend more on just one illegal Obama accepts into our country if one considers the housing, schooling, free meals, healthcare etc. And, guess, what when we find illegals dead here encouraged by Obama's promises (often happens in summer or due to the brutality of the coyotes or cartels) we autopsy, or at least have an inquest, for them! But not for a Justice? 
And, what about his security detail? Don't Justice's have security details, drivers, valets, etc? Or maybe they don't (or don't at all times) but visiting an area close to a border with a near failed narco-state and not have any protection?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.49.htm I get that this is done 'legally' per the statute (with doctor claiming, etc) but still a little strange. Also that there wouldn't Federal law about investigations with important figure. They took JFK's body pretty darn quick despite State law but at least allowed an autopsy and even had hearings and commission (whether you buy it or not.)

[FearBoysWithBugs]

I mentioned that if all current and former public officials were required to have an autopsy at the time of their death, that some might raise privacy concerns.

However, if a person doesn't want an autopsy (or, at least having their cause of death determined and released) at the time of the their death, they can simply not accept a cabinet or Supreme Court appointment and not run for Congress or the Presidency/Vice Presidency.  There are already a lot of jobs in both the public and private sector that require for sound reasons ongoing medical tests and the like.  Unlike for those people, these results would be made public, but I think that's appropriate as their employers are the people.

So, I don't take this 'privacy issue' seriously as nobody is being forced to do anything against their will.  If you don't want an autopsy (or the cause of your death to be released) at the time of your death, don't take the job.  The number of people who are so far ahead of everybody else that their loss to public service would mean a great loss to the public, well I can't think of anybody like that in any of those positions right now.  I'm sure if SredniVashtar held one of those positions (for all I know she does) he'd think he's one of those superior elite people, but that's because she has massive feelings of superiority.

Also, the vast majority of people already know when they are in declining health.  So, if a public official fears their imminent demise and doesn't want to be subject to the release of the cause of their death, they can also resign in advance.  In most cases, declining health alone would be enough to cause most of these people to resign, except, it seems, U.S Senators.

What problem is it that you are trying to solve?

That a bunch of conspiracy retards on the Internet are not satisfied with the explanation that they got?  Because from my chair, that's all you are going to get out of this proposal of yours.  No normal person is troubled by the idea that Scalia was murdered.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Here, in Texas, we autopsy or have some type of inquest homeless people found dead and go to great lengths (sometimes to our detriment because some serial killer/crazies like to take advantage) to track down and investigate when bones are found, or unidentified bodies. And those are people that, sadly, many people might consider 'worthless' or at least 'not worth it.' But a Supreme Court Justice- even if there is NOTHING suspicious (pillow issue simply being the way he slept or had a fit, his apparent general poor health, his age, his apparent bad diets, habits, etc) the cost would be nothing considering what the government spends! One more autopsy of such an important figure? Why not? We spend more on just one illegal Obama accepts into our country if one considers the housing, schooling, free meals, healthcare etc. And, guess, what when we find illegals dead here encouraged by Obama's promises (often happens in summer or due to the brutality of the coyotes or cartels) we autopsy, or at least have an inquest, for them! But not for a Justice? 
And, what about his security detail? Don't Justice's have security details, drivers, valets, etc? Or maybe they don't (or don't at all times) but visiting an area close to a border with a near failed narco-state and not have any protection?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.49.htm I get that this is done 'legally' per the statute (with doctor claiming, etc) but still a little strange. Also that there wouldn't Federal law about investigations with important figure. They took JFK's body pretty darn quick despite State law but at least allowed an autopsy and even had hearings and commission (whether you buy it or not.)

So to summarize this post:

1)  Let's force autopsies on public officials.  Who cares what are the wishes of that person or his grieving family?  Fuck them.  It's a cost issue, not a privacy issue, and the Internet has a right to know.

2)  I still can't understand why his "security detail " isn't being interrogated, even though I don't know if he had one and am too stupid to research it.  But that's okay, I'll keep it around as one of those "suspicious" questions anyway.

3)  The aftermath of Scalia's death was handled in accordance to the law.  I find that very strange indeed and extremely suspicious.  Because after all, a middle aged and reasonably healthy JFK was publicly murdered and that's the same thing as a 79 year old, morbidly obese smoker who was too weak physically to have an operation in the weeks before he died alone in his room.

[Showroom Dummy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzKehvXNBus

[GravitySucks]

So to summarize this post:

1)  Let's force autopsies on public officials.  Who cares what are the wishes of that person or his grieving family?  Fuck them.  It's a cost issue, not a privacy issue, and the Internet has a right to know.

2)  I still can't understand why his "security detail " isn't being interrogated, even though I don't know if he had one and am too stupid to research it.  But that's okay, I'll keep it around as one of those "suspicious" questions anyway.

3)  The aftermath of Scalia's death was handled in accordance to the law.  I find that very strange indeed and extremely suspicious.  Because after all, a middle aged and reasonably healthy JFK was publicly murdered and that's the same thing as a 79 year old, morbidly obese smoker who was too weak physically to have an operation in the weeks before he died alone in his room.

Two different articles I read said he was offered a security detail and turned them down.

[136 or 142]

What problem is it that you are trying to solve?

That a bunch of conspiracy retards on the Internet are not satisfied with the explanation that they got?  Because from my chair, that's all you are going to get out of this proposal of yours.  No normal person is troubled by the idea that Scalia was murdered.

Reasonable question
1.Blocking the more rational conspiracy theorists would be one reason (real conspiracies per the legal definition occur all the time and some murders are also due to a conspiracy, so the belief that  a murder of a high public official may be due to a conspiracy is not inherently loony).  As I said earlier the number of people who die in any of those offices is very small so there isn't a large sample size to go on, not recently anyway. So, while I agree that the conspiracy theories in this case are loony, they may not be in all cases in the past or in the future.  A requirement that the cause of death be determined and reported in all cases would standardize the issue and remove any potential problem in the future where the death may be genuinely odd enough that a cause of death should be determined but the family still refuses to have one it released, or if needed to determine the cause of death, to have an autopsy held.  I admit that is likely a very rare concern, but then, as I've said already several times now, the number of people who die in any of those offices is also very small.

For the irrational conspiracy theorists  an autopsy won't settle anything.  For instance, Vince Foster's body was autopsied and the irrational conspiracy theorists now say that autopsy report released is itself  fake.

The death of Vince Foster is actually an example where there were some genuinely odd things with his suicide (which is probably why the autopsy was done.) I remember seeing a story on Nightline at the time of his suicide that brought up what sounded like some genuinely odd things.  Of course, it seems that pretty much every death however it happens has a few 'odd' things attached to it, and if you look hard enough you could probably find coincidences and other occurrences that suggest foul play, although no foul play occurred.

2.For the historical record.  On the surface I agree that this is a pretty weak reason for a public official to have to give up their privacy over this. But for nearly all recently deceased public officials it seems practically everything else was known about them anyway.

3.To make it more difficult for a genuine murder of a public official to occur.  Again, I agree that this is a rare event (though not necessarily in other countries,  especially, for instance, in Russia.)  Given the increase in dangers around the world, not just from ISIL (who I don't think are likely to murder public officials in ways that make it look like they weren't murdered but other terrorist organizations in the past, especially the ones from Germany did kill murder high public officials and tried to make it look like they died of natural causes) but also from China, Russia and maybe a few other nations around the world and from international and domestic criminal organizations, I think it makes sense to check out the death of every major public office holder who dies in office.  Certainly the infrequency of the deaths of high public officials proves that they aren't being killed by any of those groups, but I think it's agreed that Putin is becoming more extreme (erratic?) and it's also pretty much agreed (though not confirmed by a court) that he ordered the murder of Alexander Litnvinenko while he was in the U.K, and that he has ordered the murder of quite a number of Russian citizens including opposition politicians.  In these cases, if the cause of death is initially put down to some natural cause but it's known that the official was working in areas that dealt directly with any of those organizations, I think an autopsy should be mandatory.  For all I know, maybe it already is.

I don't know too much about how these murders are done in terms of how they make them look like the death occurred from natural causes, so I don't know if an autopsy would catch these things, but I think in general anything that makes a murder more difficult to hide makes it more difficult to be carried out in the first place.

So, those are three reasons that  are all individually at best probably less than 50% less than good reasons to insist that the cause of death be determined, but I think combined they make at least a half decent argument.  Feel free to disagree. After all, I am a retard.

Also, those are just the reasons that came to me off the top of my head, there may be other sound reasons that I haven't thought of.

[onan]

Here, in Texas, we autopsy or have some type of inquest homeless people found dead and go to great lengths (sometimes to our detriment because some serial killer/crazies like to take advantage) to track down and investigate when bones are found, or unidentified bodies. And those are people that, sadly, many people might consider 'worthless' or at least 'not worth it.' But a Supreme Court Justice- even if there is NOTHING suspicious (pillow issue simply being the way he slept or had a fit, his apparent general poor health, his age, his apparent bad diets, habits, etc) the cost would be nothing considering what the government spends! One more autopsy of such an important figure? Why not? We spend more on just one illegal Obama accepts into our country if one considers the housing, schooling, free meals, healthcare etc. And, guess, what when we find illegals dead here encouraged by Obama's promises (often happens in summer or due to the brutality of the coyotes or cartels) we autopsy, or at least have an inquest, for them! But not for a Justice? 
And, what about his security detail? Don't Justice's have security details, drivers, valets, etc? Or maybe they don't (or don't at all times) but visiting an area close to a border with a near failed narco-state and not have any protection?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.49.htm I get that this is done 'legally' per the statute (with doctor claiming, etc) but still a little strange. Also that there wouldn't Federal law about investigations with important figure. They took JFK's body pretty darn quick despite State law but at least allowed an autopsy and even had hearings and commission (whether you buy it or not.)

I can't give you consistentcy of procedure. I am not a Medical Examiner. I have assisted as a tech in three autopsies (not nearly as interesting, exciting, or dramatic as it sounds). I am not going to change your mind; but the family declined. The authorities, who have more information than any of us, decided it wasn't necessary. And, aren't you the guy that basically believes local regulation (state's rights) is better? I do believe if Romney were in office, this wouldn't concern you in the slightest.

[Jackstar]

It doesn't really matter that an autopsy was not performed, as there would have been a contingency plan in place for that outcome. Duh.

What I would like to know, is what it would take to arouse suspicions in these fluoride-addled mouthbreathers. "He was old and fat and a smoker, people like that suddenly die all the time! Immediate embalming is totally normal!"

[Jackstar]

Why can't we all agree that Scalia almost certainly clearly died of natural causes, that the conspiracy theories are not only silly but based on false claims AND that, as a major public official, his body should be autopsied.

Let's start with "you neglected the question mark" and leave it at that. Me, that's totally plenty enough.

[Jackstar]

If there was indeed a nefarious plot to murder Scalia, it would require the participation of his own family as well as his private physician

No.

[Yorkshire pud]

i].

What I would like to know, is what it would take to arouse suspicions in these fluoride-addled mouthbreathers. "

GIF, check. Fluoride, check. Chemtrails, oh...oh well. Building 7, no again...oh dear. Aliens, .....nope. Well well, maybe next time eh?

[Jackstar]

Well well, maybe next time eh?

[Yorkshire pud]

1930's era photos are no substitute for chemtrails. You lost the internet again. Breath slowly.

[Value Of Pi]

So you have no fucking idea if he had federal agents escorting him, but you're going to throw it out there anyway.  And when nobody refutes it (or even if they do), that turd will harden into established fact.  You'll broadcast it to your fellow paranoid retards.  Then, others will do the same fuckin thing until you have the proverbial "mountain of evidence."  But like every other idiotic conspiracy theory, it's nothing more than a mountain of bullshit.

Is there ANY comparison to the Kennedy MURDER and Scalia, near 80 and morbidly obese and a smoker, dying in bed?  Fuck no, but why not rub the stench of the Kennedy "conspiracy" onto it to give it some validity?

You conspiracy nuts need to be rounded up and isolated somewhere.  Some large open-air insane asylum with a high mortality rate and no HBO.

FearBoys, I take it you are a scientist, engineer or something like that based on your comments in the Astrophysics thread? Get thee to the Art Bell thread and read my question to Chronaut (posted tonight), a disciplined science whiz who somehow still manages to be a huge believer in conspiracy theories. I would like your take on how this works inside the brain of a single individual, since I fear that I will not get an entirely clear answer from Chronaut. I'm sure he won't mind you interjecting your thoughts.

[Jackstar]

somehow still manages to be a huge believer in

[136 or 142]

I can't give you consistentcy of procedure. I am not a Medical Examiner. I have assisted as a tech in three autopsies (not nearly as interesting, exciting, or dramatic as it sounds). I am not going to change your mind; but the family declined. The authorities, who have more information than any of us, decided it wasn't necessary. And, aren't you the guy that basically believes local regulation (state's rights) is better? I do believe if Romney were in office, this wouldn't concern you in the slightest.

The Kennedy autopsy was left up to the local coroner and he thoroughly botched it up.  I don't think there is any contradiction between saying that the vast majority of autopsies should be left up to local authorities but that autopsies of major federal officials (which I've defined) who die in office should be mandated by federal rules.

Anyway, on to the more important topic: were you involved in the infamous alien autopsy?  ?  (This second question mark is here because I apparently missed using one earlier.)

[Jackstar]

The cost of this autopsy would be negligible,

I can just envision this now. "Hello, Next-Of-Kin? This is some flunky with a U.S. Marshals phone number. No, lol, we've never met. Anyway, uhm, yeah, uh, Nino, he like, died. We think he was just old and fat. We're all real sorry for your loss, and all those horrible comments you're going to read on the Internets are gonna be a real bummer for you, free speech is so bad these days, amirite? So what's next is, since me and some judge named C. Guevara and everyone else out here in the backass end of West NoPlace have decided that everything here looks hunky-dory, if you wanna challenge that, you gotta pony up the full cost of the forensic examination. Did I mention? We're out here in the backass end. Make sure you have your private contractor bring a sleeping bag and tent, because there's not gonna be any rest out here."

It probably didn't go quite like that--they might have just offered to take Discover. So, how much do you think an autopsy costs?

[136 or 142]

I can just envision this now. "Hello, Next-Of-Kin? This is some flunky with a U.S. Marshals phone number. No, lol, we've never met. Anyway, uhm, yeah, uh, Nino, he like, died. We think he was just old and fat. We're all real sorry for your loss, and all those horrible comments you're going to read on the Internets are gonna be a real bummer for you, free speech is so bad these days, amirite? So what's next is, since me and some judge named C. Guevara and everyone else out here in the backass end of West NoPlace have decided that everything here looks hunky-dory, if you wanna challenge that, you gotta pony up the full cost of the forensic examination. Did I mention? We're out here in the backass end. Make sure you have your private contractor bring a sleeping bag and tent, because there's not gonna be any rest out here."

It probably didn't go quite like that--they might have just offered to take Discover. So, how much do you think an autopsy costs?

Huh?  Did you read my entire comment.  I explained that the cost of this autopsy would be just the actual outlays for the single-use medical supplies and the cost to sterilize the medical equipment (anything else?).  The costs that would be given for an autopsy would almost certainly be based on full cost accounting which includes overhead.  But the overhead would be the same whether this one autopsy is performed or not.  So, the only incremental costs for this autopsy would be the actual outlays.  I wrote I didn't know how much the supplies and such would cost, but then I wrote that I didn't see how it could be more than a few hundred dollars, which would not even be a rounding error on a budget (which is my definition of negligible in this case.)

Do you have any information on the actual costs of the outlays?

For what it's worth, I'm well aware that overhead and fixed costs aren't the same.  But, for a single autopsy I don't think there would be any additional variable overhead, although if the medical supplies are bought in bulk (which, to be honest, they probably are) they are variable overhead.  So, maybe the correct terminology should be 'fixed cost' and not 'overhead.'  I haven't studied this in over 20 years (so, back off me man,  back off, you ain't fat anymore, you ain't nothin') and the main point is that the only costs that matter are the actual additional costs and should not include the costs included in the "full costing" of the autopsy which would include a share of such expensive items as the amortization on the equipment, the charge for the room and the coroner's salary.

Reading your comment again, I also don't see how you could have read anything that I've actually written.  My argument is that the cause of death of a senior public official (I've previously given my definition of this) who is currently serving in that office should be determined and if it takes an autopsy to determine this approximate cause, then it should be paid for by the taxpayers.

I think this is the exact opposite of what you seem to think I wrote.  I think we're actually in agreement on this.

[Jackstar]

Do you have any information on the actual costs of the outlays?

http://www.scragged.com/articles/yes-virginia-a-298-hammer-really-costs-our-government-100

Irrespective of the exact costs, my point is that without a Federal mandate, any investigation into the cause of death would have to be borne by the family.

It would not simply be the cost of the autopsy itself. You're talking transportation and storage of the body. You're talking record keeping. You're talking long-distance phone calls. All of this, and more, would be on someone's dime. "Negligible," lol. Tens of thousands, minimum. How much did Ken Starr's operation bill for?

[Jackstar]

I think this is the exact opposite of what you seem to think I wrote.  I think we're actually in agreement on this.

Look, just pretend we're mortal enemies, okay? It makes for better ratings.

[136 or 142]

http://www.scragged.com/articles/yes-virginia-a-298-hammer-really-costs-our-government-100

Irrespective of the exact costs, my point is that without a Federal mandate, any investigation into the cause of death would have to be borne by the family.

It would not simply be the cost of the autopsy itself. You're talking transportation and storage of the body. You're talking record keeping. You're talking long-distance phone calls. All of this, and more, would be on someone's dime. "Negligible," lol. Tens of thousands, minimum. How much did Ken Starr's operation bill for?

Yes, so we do agree, since a Federal mandate in these cases is exactly what I'm calling for.  I realize one doesn't exist now (which is why I'm calling for it) but, it's moot in this case since the family doesn't want an autopsy to be performed.

The transportation costs should also be negligible as the body has to be moved anyway, so just have the autopsy performed close to where he'll be buried.  The vast majority of the costs associated with the storage of the body are likewise almost certainly based on 'full cost' accounting and the actual additional outlays would also likely be very small.

I know you're making a joke about the costs based on the perceived wasteful nature of governments, and I well remember the story about the hammer and the like.  I don't know what the story was on the other items mentioned there, but one of the other items that the taxpayer supposedly paid a ridiculous amount of money for was an ashtray.  The T.V show "West Wing" did a scene about this story that explained the real reason for the high cost: it turns out the ashtray in question was the prototype for the ashtrays to be used in submarines and the specifications for it were that it had to not break apart if it fell (and it would likely fall many times).  I'm not sure why it had to be made out of glass, but there were likely sound reasons for that as well. 

"Do Submarines feel rough seas?"

"Hmm .... I certainly recall rolling quite substantially at a keel depth of 500 feet in an SSBN so, on the above basis, what must it have been like up top?"
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/452526-do-submarines-feel-rough-seas.html

In the transport cost situation, I agree with you that for legal and other reasons, governments don't always do what seems to be common sense.  So, it's entirely possible that any government mandate here might include a regulation that the autopsy would have to be performed at a specific autopsy site.  So, that cost may be somewhat high.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Reasonable question
1.Blocking the more rational conspiracy theorists would be one reason (real conspiracies per the legal definition occur all the time and some murders are also due to a conspiracy, so the belief that  a murder of a high public official may be due to a conspiracy is not inherently loony).  As I said earlier the number of people who die in any of those offices is very small so there isn't a large sample size to go on, not recently anyway. So, while I agree that the conspiracy theories in this case are loony, they may not be in all cases in the past or in the future.  A requirement that the cause of death be determined and reported in all cases would standardize the issue and remove any potential problem in the future where the death may be genuinely odd enough that a cause of death should be determined but the family still refuses to have one it released, or if needed to determine the cause of death, to have an autopsy held.  I admit that is likely a very rare concern, but then, as I've said already several times now, the number of people who die in any of those offices is also very small.

For the irrational conspiracy theorists  an autopsy won't settle anything.  For instance, Vince Foster's body was autopsied and the irrational conspiracy theorists now say that autopsy report released is itself  fake.

The death of Vince Foster is actually an example where there were some genuinely odd things with his suicide (which is probably why the autopsy was done.) I remember seeing a story on Nightline at the time of his suicide that brought up what sounded like some genuinely odd things.  Of course, it seems that pretty much every death however it happens has a few 'odd' things attached to it, and if you look hard enough you could probably find coincidences and other occurrences that suggest foul play, although no foul play occurred.

2.For the historical record.  On the surface I agree that this is a pretty weak reason for a public official to have to give up their privacy over this. But for nearly all recently deceased public officials it seems practically everything else was known about them anyway.

3.To make it more difficult for a genuine murder of a public official to occur.  Again, I agree that this is a rare event (though not necessarily in other countries,  especially, for instance, in Russia.)  Given the increase in dangers around the world, not just from ISIL (who I don't think are likely to murder public officials in ways that make it look like they weren't murdered but other terrorist organizations in the past, especially the ones from Germany did kill murder high public officials and tried to make it look like they died of natural causes) but also from China, Russia and maybe a few other nations around the world and from international and domestic criminal organizations, I think it makes sense to check out the death of every major public office holder who dies in office.  Certainly the infrequency of the deaths of high public officials proves that they aren't being killed by any of those groups, but I think it's agreed that Putin is becoming more extreme (erratic?) and it's also pretty much agreed (though not confirmed by a court) that he ordered the murder of Alexander Litnvinenko while he was in the U.K, and that he has ordered the murder of quite a number of Russian citizens including opposition politicians.  In these cases, if the cause of death is initially put down to some natural cause but it's known that the official was working in areas that dealt directly with any of those organizations, I think an autopsy should be mandatory.  For all I know, maybe it already is.

I don't know too much about how these murders are done in terms of how they make them look like the death occurred from natural causes, so I don't know if an autopsy would catch these things, but I think in general anything that makes a murder more difficult to hide makes it more difficult to be carried out in the first place.

So, those are three reasons that  are all individually at best probably less than 50% less than good reasons to insist that the cause of death be determined, but I think combined they make at least a half decent argument.  Feel free to disagree. After all, I am a retard.

Also, those are just the reasons that came to me off the top of my head, there may be other sound reasons that I haven't thought of.

If you truly have Aspergers as you say, this might not resonate with you, but most people would not want to have bootleg autopsy photos of their loved one splashed all over tabloids for the amusement of seat-sniffing submorons.  It happened with Michael Jackson, JFK, Elvis, and others.  It would not surprise me in the slightest if Scalia's family decided they didn't want to chance it.  I would think avoiding that would be more important to them than "the historical record" or whatever.  What if an autopsy is forbidden by a deceased religious beliefs?  Are you going to say, "Okay then, members of [religion] can never be President or serve in Congress or on the Supreme Court"?  Come on.

It's not that there is anything unreasonable in your plan, it's just that you brush aside the privacy concerns, the feelings of the family, and the wishes of the deceased like they are nothing.  Right now there are many qualified people who refuse to run for office because of the imposition it makes in their person lives (Colin Powell, for example).  Your proposal makes things more onerous and would result in a higher percentage of attention queens like Trump being candidates, not less.

[albrecht]

And, aren't you the guy that basically believes local regulation (state's rights) is better? I do believe if Romney were in office, this wouldn't concern you in the slightest.

1) Yes, the Supreme Court has far too much power- as does the rest of the Federal government. Another reason that any death of such a powerful figure demands full public disclosure and investigation. Until their power become more limited any and all possible, even very remotely, interference or conspiracy needs to be investigated.
2) Ha, yeah, but only because Romney would be fulfilling the "White Horse Prophecy." 

[136 or 142]

If you truly have Aspergers as you say, this might not resonate with you, but most people would not want to have bootleg autopsy photos of their loved one splashed all over tabloids for the amusement of seat-sniffing submorons.  It happened with Michael Jackson, JFK, Elvis, and others.  It would not surprise me in the slightest if Scalia's family decided they didn't want to chance it.  I would think avoiding that would be more important to them than "the historical record" or whatever.  What if an autopsy is forbidden by a deceased religious beliefs?  Are you going to say, "Okay then, members of [religion] can never be President or serve in Congress or on the Supreme Court"?  Come on.

It's not that there is anything unreasonable in your plan, it's just that you brush aside the privacy concerns, the feelings of the family, and the wishes of the deceased like they are nothing.  Right now there are many qualified people who refuse to run for office because of the imposition it makes in their person lives (Colin Powell, for example).  Your proposal makes things more onerous and would result in a higher percentage of attention queens like Trump being candidates, not less.

Where did I mention that the autopsy photos should be released?  I was just referring to the text report.

I searched for autopsy photos of three celebrities who I know had that procedure performed somewhat recently:  Brittany Murphy, Robin Williams and Michael Jackson.  I agree with you that there are creepy people out there who would like to see or show these pictures, I find a thumbnail image of Brittany Murphy 'autopsy photo' that had been taken down and looked fake to me, and a youtube video of purported images from Robin Williams autopsy that had been confirmed as fake.

The only autopsy photos that were released of those three were from Michael Jackson and that happened because the family sued Michael Jackson's medical doctor and the autopsy photos were released as evidence. 

So, there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the autopsy photos actually would come out.


There would be reason to worry that fake autopsy photos would be put up on the internet, but then, since most people don't know if some deceased person has had an autopsy or not, there is nothing to stop these creepy people from photo-shopping and putting up fake pictures of autopsy photos of deceased people who never even had an autopsy performed.

I realize that perception trumps (no pun intended) reality, but then I can also make a case that some people avoid public office because they fear that should they die in office they would become the subject of idiotic murder conspiracies or that they may be the subject of assassination attempts.  Of course, mandating an autopsy if one is required to determine the approximate cause of death would not stop all idiotic murder conspiracy theories and nor would it prevent all assassination attempts (I don't think there has actually been an assassination attempt on any major public official since Ronald Reagan)  but, it would hopefully stop the more rational people from coming up with conspiracy theories and it would hopefully have the mainstream media, rather than report on the entire conspiracy theory as is being done with Scalia's death to simply say "there are conspiracy theories regarding Xs death, so, we'll await the report from the medical examiner on the cause of death before reporting any further on that, if there is anything further to report."

Also, despite the fact that I don't think there has been an assassination attempt on a major politician in 30 years, there are still politicians who say they are afraid they might get assassinated if they ran for President.  The last murder attempt on a politician in the United States I can recall is that of Virginia State Senator Creigh Deeds who was attacked by his son, who was psychotic at the time.

Also, since as I just wrote, based on my limited search there doesn't seem to be any reason to fear that autopsy photos would be released, once it becomes clear to people who want to seek high office that they don't have to worry about this, most of those fears should go away.

[VtaGeezer]

The Kennedy autopsy was left up to the local coroner and he thoroughly botched it up.  I don't think there is any contradiction between saying that the vast majority of autopsies should be left up to local authorities but that autopsies of major federal officials (which I've defined) who die in office should be mandated by federal rules.

Anyway, on to the more important topic: were you involved in the infamous alien autopsy?  ?  (This second question mark is here because I apparently missed using one earlier.)

JFK was not autopsied in Dallas.  His autopsy was at Bethesda Naval Hospital by Navy doctors who, IIRC, were not well trained in autopsy procedures.  The Dallas Coroner was prohibited from conducting an autopsy by the Secret Service, who violated TX law by removing Kennedy's body.

[136 or 142]

JFK was not autopsied in Dallas.  His autopsy was at Bethesda Naval Hospital by Navy doctors who, IIRC, were not well trained in autopsy procedures.  The Dallas Coroner was prohibited from conducting an autopsy by the Secret Service, who violated TX law by removing Kennedy's body.

I stand corrected. Thanks.