Browse By

Cibolo Creek Ranch Begins To Look Like A Payoff To Antonin Scalia

Republicans like to describe the recently deceased Justice Antonin Scalia as a principled conservative who repeatedly ruled in favor of big businesses who had cases before the U.S. Supreme Court because of his “originalist” legal principles.

That’s not what it seems was going on with Justice Scalia and John B. Poindexter, the owner of the Cibolo Creek Ranch where Scalia was found dead last week.

Last year, the Mic Group, a subsidiary of a company owned by John B. Poindexter, was facing a discrimination lawsuit before the Supreme Court. Under circumstances that are not yet fully understood, the Supreme Court refused to allow the case against Poindexter’s company to go forward.

Today, the world is learning that Antonin Scalia received a vacation at the Cibolo Creek Ranch as a gift from John B. Poindexter. Scalia didn’t pay for his lodging, for his food, or for his hunting activities while at the desert resort.

antonin scalia john b. poindexter corruption

Scalia also had his plane ticket to Texas paid for by somebody, but at this point, it’s not known who that person was.

Scalia brought a “friend” with him to the Cibolo Creek Ranch, although the identity of this “friend” is also not yet known.

There’s a great deal of mystery around Scalia’s free vacation, but right now, it looks like a payoff.

The question many are asking now is how many other payoffs Antonin Scalia received during his time as a Supreme Court Justice. It may well be that Scalia repeatedly ruled in favor of big business interests because he received financial rewards for doing so, rather than for any ideological reason.

At present, the public does not have access to any details of the discussions about legal cases before the Supreme Court that were held between Poindexter and Scalia behind closed doors, at the Cibolo Creek Ranch or elsewhere. We don’t have definitive proof that bribery took place, but it appears that corruption of some sort did go forward.

When judges take big gifts from people who have received favorable rulings before their courts, it looks to reasonable eyes that court decisions are for sale. That appearance is what matters. When shadowy dealings such as those between Antonin Scalia and John B. Poindexter are allowed to take place, it’s impossible for ordinary citizens to have trust that the courts will provide them with true justice if they ever have to go to court against a wealthy adversary.

77 thoughts on “Cibolo Creek Ranch Begins To Look Like A Payoff To Antonin Scalia”

  1. Frank says:

    ..while the others are all “Angels” pure in spirit and intentions…

    1. J Clifford says:

      Frank, do you really think that it’s a valid excuse for unethical behavior to point out that other people have been unethical?

      1. Hilton T. Meadows says:

        In the world of criminality, “opportunity” is a criteria for suspicion. Is that what Frank invokes??

    2. Stacy Haviland says:

      I’m so sick of people using the lame excuse that “others do it too” as a way to justify criminal and or unethical behavior! It’s always from those who are think themselves morally , (read Christian ) superior too!🤔

      1. Brother says:

        I’m Christian and believe unethical behavior is not to be excused from both sides of the political spectrum.

        1. Louis Caldwell says:

          Im Jewish, and I think repeated unethical behavior from so called Christians is a joke. No Im not superior, but I have heard MANY preachers and many Rabbis. I have heard preachers tell you exactly who to vote for, and who not to vote for. I never in my life heard a rabbi on the pulpit stoop to such low behavior.
          And yes, I am talking about PINE Grove in Monroe Louisiana. Lots of great people. Totally fucked clergy.

          1. LookHarder says:

            Odd that the writer of this garbage failed to mention that John Poindexter is a liberal mega donor and prized supporter and friend of Obama. Also that he has hosted these events 3 or 4 times a year for decades and nobody who has ever attended has paid, they are guests. Maybe he left that out because he is trying to appeal to left wing idiots who are so very easily influenced and never take the time to figure out anything, they just let people like “Rowan” think for them.

          2. Pahsac says:

            A man in Antonin Scalia position should never receive free gifts from anybody. If he has been receiving free gifts, he is an embarrassment to justice in this country and to the people of this country.

          3. Mark says:

            And like right-wing morons, we should dismiss it as politically-motivated bullshit?? It’s one thing to be a supporter of the President, it’s another to be on the receiving end after the SCOTUS decision on personal discrimination case!!

          4. CRo says:

            Exactly! …and I support Obama, et al., …but this “journalism” is just total crap (read “lies”) to fool the feeble-minded.

          5. Gun Free UH says:

            Supreme Ct. justices are not in any sense, “ordinary” guests. They are the vessels of supreme justice in a democratic society. Ergo, their actions on the bench and off must be beyond the slightest hint of scandal. If they fall below this mark, they deserve whatever suspicion and scorn is heaped upon them. No one held a gun to Scalia’s head and forced him onto the SCOTUS bench, but once there, he is legally and ethically duty-bound to uphold justice blindly. Period.

          6. Valerie says:

            The problem is the look of in propriety and a Federal supreme court jurist should be above reproach! In this instance there are questions that are being raised

          7. GARLAND D KALLAM says:

            totally fucked clergy,,what did you mean,,i didn’t really get the picture,but its our privilege and choice to help me with that summary in comment,,i hate to want to not think i missed the joke.

        2. EVANGELIST P. says:


          1. Demarice says:

            Amen and again Amen

          2. Jeff says:

            Who cares what the Bible says? That book isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

          3. Robert Ludwig says:

            Scalia almost got away with it if it were not for the media. This was reported on all stations but FOX. That’s why the righties know nothing about it.

      2. CRo says:

        Aren’t you “so sick of people” that automatically believe complete nonsense like this “report”, without questioning it, just because it’s on the internet?

  2. jim rouillard says:

    I think it’s a bit of a stretch. Little as I liked Scalia or his medieval world views I, like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, love opera and respect HER enormously. The two were reportedly great friends as well as SCOTUS colleagues. I don’t think she’d be gulled by a guy who was demonstrably corrupt. The corruption was in his thinking and application of law: Very self-serving. His wit was celebrated mostly by sycophantic Mainstream Media (MSM), who don’t know diddly, but facile and often strained & sophomoric.

    1. Al Hopfmann says:

      Scalia was the second best Justice. Ginsburg was the worst. Scalia deserves credit for his professionalism and also for maintaining a good Christian attitude toward all his colleagues, including the ones who are helping to destroy the Constitution.

      1. KC says:

        You have a strange conception of what it means to be a Christian.

      2. Stacy Haviland says:

        What the hell does being a “Christian” have to do with being a judge? You’re an idiot!

        1. EVANGELIST P. says:

          IT has a lot to do with it. Those whom judge will also be judged, by God and His son. Matt 7:1, if it isn’t judged righteously Jn 7:24

          1. Jeff says:

            According to your stupid book, no one should judge lest they themselves be judged by God. So from now on, no Christians can be judges.

        2. Jenny Z says:

          Agreed. Religion has caused half of my dysfunctions. I’ve seen all the hypocrisy I needed to see…raised Christian Reformed, joined Baptist Church, graduated Catholic College…and now I’ve seen the light, and it isn’t controlling behavior with a fear based book. C’mon, really? Probably appropriate to quote from the Book of Isaiah, as he wouldn’t be around to see things going to hell in a handbasket. That’s baaaaad.

      3. Louis Caldwell says:

        May that bastard burn in the hell I do not believe in. Professionalism, PLEASE!!!! Christian, no place for that in our government, as said bu all the founding fathers, “Christians” tend to make the bible say whatever they want it to.

        1. Sid says:

          Please walk around our capital & read the inscription’s etched in the limestone above you. You will learn why this nation was founded.

      4. Douglas says:

        You mean destroy the constitution by denying civil right ,to “some” and not “others”?.Pure hypocrisy.

    2. Robert Johnson says:

      What does a model seated SCJ do for recreation? Apparently, some think that they should live a withdrawn life quietly staying within their guarded homes, lest they be caught indefensibly dead while attempting to enjoy any extracurricular activity. May God condemn those people! Robert

  3. Marty says:

    How did he vote on Citizens United? Corporations are people? How opposed was he to rulings that went against him, how scathing were his written dissents? There are many indicators this man was bigoted, a misogamist and a big money lap dog!

    1. Louis Caldwell says:

      heres a Jewish Omein to that

    2. Jeff says:

      Yes, he ruled in favor of free speech. Horrors.

  4. yessir says:

    Who was the FRIEND he was there with???

  5. Eileen says:

    Not a surprise. Whenever someone is so rigid and strident I question their purpose.

  6. flexdoc says:

    Both he and Thomas received enough payoffs to support a small nation. Both are and were dishonest as they come. One down , one to go.

  7. Richard Beldin says:

    Getting smokey here. …
    Where’s the fire?

    1. Louis Caldwell says:

      where Scalia is now is where the fire is

  8. Greg says:

    Disgusting… The SCOTUS for sale….. Extremely disappointing but not a surprise….

  9. jake says:

    quick question how much research did any of you do on the case this relates to? I have read the document, and it was a baseless lawsuit from the beginning. The plaintiff lied about doing inspections of a produced and distributed unsafe products to the consumer putting people’s lives at risk. Had prior discipline for similar conduct in the past to also include training a new hire improperly.

    1. J Clifford says:

      I’d love to know, if it was a baseless lawsuit from the beginning, how the lawsuit got as far as it did. Could you help us understand that, Jake?

      1. Jeff says:

        What do you mean “got as far as it did?” The plaintiff’s suit didn’t “get” anywhere. He lost at every turn.

    2. Jeff King says:

      I’m no legal expert, but that does appear to be a frivolous lawsuit. Still, it’s hard for me to understand why a person as knowledgeable as Scalia wouldn’t avoid the appearance of impropriety.

      1. Jeff says:

        It wasn’t even appearance of impropriety. The suit didn’t involve Poindexter himself, just some subsidiary of his company. Poindexter’s name doesn’t appear anywhere on the pleadings, nor was it relevant to the case in any way. There’s no evidence Scalia even knew who Poindexeter was, what he had to to with this lawsuit, THAT he had anything to do with this lawsuit, that Poindexter even meant to invite Scalia (he had invited a friend, who in turn had invited Scalia), or that any of this was arranged while the suit was still before the Supreme Court at all. This is a huge nothingburger.

        1. J Clifford says:

          Wait a minute, Jeff.

          To this nothingburger, you just brought something.

          The only thing we know about this “FRIEND” who got Antonin Scalia into the Cibolo Creek Ranch for free is that the “friend” was a lawyer.

          Did that lawyer have business before Scalia on the Supreme Court in the past, or upcoming?

          That may turn out to be a lottaburger.

          Furthermore, who was the friend who paid for Scalia’s plane ticket? The same lawyer, or a different lawyer?

          1. Jeff says:

            Yes, if it turned out the inviting friend was someone with business of his own before the court, or that whoever paid for the flight did, that could be a somethingburger. And if Alex Jones was correct that Obama the secret atheist Muslim had Scalia murdered, that would be a somethingelseburger. But I’ve seen no evidence of either.

          2. J Clifford says:

            That’s not an apt comparison, Jeff.

            We know for a fact that Antonin Scalia was receiving secret gifts from at least one powerful lawyer. The identity of the lawyer who went to Cibolo Creek Ranch is being kept secret. That’s worth looking into.

            There is absolutely no evidence that Obama is either a Muslim or an atheist, or that he had Scalia murdered. This nonsense is not worth looking into.

          3. Jeff says:

            There is no evidence to support any of those allegations. It’s all nonsense not worth looking into. Perhaps that’s why we’re only reading about it on a blog which, by its own admission, is unfit to print?

          4. J Clifford says:

            No, Jeff, that’s not true.

            Antonin Scalia had this vacation given to him for free by a mysterious lawyer whom nobody wants to name.


    3. Elliander Eldridge says:

      That’s irrelevant. It’s still unethical to accept a gift under such circumstances.

      1. Louis Caldwell says:


      2. Jeff says:

        Why? Note that my question assumes the actual facts of the case, not the nonsense Rowan wrote here.

  10. J Clifford says:

    I think it’s important to note, for those who follow politics closely, that John B. Poindexter is not the same person as John M. Poindexter, who was implicated in the Iran Contra scandal whereby Ronald Reagan sent missiles to the Islamic government of Iran in exchange for help with an illegal plot to arm death squads in Central America.

    1. Jenny Z says:

      Who, the same guy who promoted the contrived War on Drugs?

  11. Pearl says:

    It sounds like coruption to me. I wonder if I could get the same invite with all the freebies as the judge. But then again. I wouldn’t take it because who knows. I might end up dead there. I’m just saying.

  12. Aston Kellman says:

    Never steal a pig. It will squeal on you.

    1. Louis Caldwell says:


  13. Paul says:

    A plaintiff doesn’t get an appeal to the Supreme Court as a right, he must file a writ of certeori requesting that the Court hear it, and all 9 justices vote on whether to hear it. So the fact that the case “wasn’t allowed to proceed” to the Supreme Court is no evidence of Scalia being improperly influenced. Very few discrimination cases get to the Supreme Court. I hate Scalia’s decisions as much as anyone, but he doesn’t deserve to be smeared with a weak charge of corruption.

  14. Thurston Howell, III says:

    Where there’s smoke, there’s often fire. Especially in politics. Scalia always struck me as a bagman for the plutocrats. Citizens United being perhaps his nadir. While too early to judge, I hope this story has legs and someone digs a lot deeper here (beyond even this one trip.) It reminds me of how Nelson Rockefeller died. Never expire while engaged in a dodgy act. It just invites inquiry.

    1. Jeff says:

      Where there’s smoke, there’s people blowing smoke. That you could leap from Scalia’s principled support for freedom of speech to him being someone’s bag man indicates you have serious issues of your own. Get help.

  15. Elliander Eldridge says:

    Now there’s irony: He died because of the bribe he accepted.

    Most government groups have a policy against accepting any free gift from anyone that might even create the impression of a bribe. The very acceptance of the gift is unethical even if it wasn’t a bribe.

    The Supreme Court should have such a policy. I mean, if they act unethically you have no one to complain to. They need to be above reproach being that they literally are the justice of the land.

    1. Jeff says:

      If there were a judicial ethics rule against ever taking any gifts from anybody, you might have a point there. But there isn’t, so you don’t.

  16. Sharon Long says:

    What’s new. We (the average everyday working American citizen) are being SCREWED by corrupt, ungodly, greedy, Politicians & Law enforcers’. I don’t know 😞 how to fix this. Once America let GOD leave the building, we slid down the hill to HELL. Unfortunately, most Americans are good people. But outsiders only see the BAD, UNGODLY, CORRUPT, SOCIOPATHS. I pray every day 😞😢❤

    1. Sammy says:

      But it’s always those who claim to be godly that are found to have their hands in the cookie jar. Don’t blame the ungodly when it’s the godly who are doing the crimes.

    2. J Clifford says:

      Sharon, supporters of Antonin Scalia have been trying to wreck the Separation of Church and State to enforce an right wing Christian agenda. It’s not atheists who have been in charge of America.

    3. Missy says:

      There IS a way to fix this deeply corrupt, uncaring, inept government we now have. It will take WE THE PEOPLE to stop being so Goddamned apathetic and wake up from the brainwashing that has been going on for years. Our entire Constitution is being ripped apart right in front of our eyes, yet WE THE PEOPLE have stopped voting, have stopped protesting loud enough about the things that are so wrong with this country. When WE THE PEOPLE stop condoning the mess we are in THEN things will start to change. Right now, we have the government we deserve because many of us are unwilling to effect a change. One woman’s opinion.

  17. H. Welsh says:

    It’s disgraceful to post things like this about a man no longer alive to defend himself.

    1. cheryl says:

      Being dead does not negate the truth…smh. People have been talking about the dead from the beginning of time. It’s called History…

      1. ella says:

        Aren’t you glad you are still alive? Scalia isn’t in the grave yet and here you all are throwing stones. Interesting.

        1. T.J. Thomas says:

          I promise from now on I won’t throw any more stones at Scalia than, say, the amount thrown by conservatives at unarmed kids who get shot by cops before those kids are in their graves.

      2. Jeff says:

        Calling lies and innuendo “truth” does not make them so. There’s no evidence Scalia and Poindexter even knew about each other’s respective roles in anything, or even that any of this was arranged before October 5, 2015. Prior to then, this case was only barely before the court,” along with thousands of others that were summarily dismissed the same day. After then, the case was dead as a door nail, and not “before the court” in any way, shape or form. Do you have any evidence this was arranged prior to October 5?

  18. Dave says:

    If they were friendly, he would have to recuse himself, so he probably did not make this decision (that is, the other judges did not select this case). Also, the Supreme Court only hears a very small percentage of the possible cases that have already been appealed to their penultimate court. They do not refuse to hear cases…some are automatically taken by statute and they select others from a set that is far larger than they can possibly completely hear. Hammers thing everything is a nail, and they do not understand how the US court system works.

    1. Shirley says:

      Certainly know how Supreme Court does NOT work; and, that’s because of men like Judge Scalia. A man of his own invention, that continues to threaten our democracy.

  19. Shirley says:

    All anybody has to do is read Benjamin Franklin’s speech to the Continental Congress in 1787. That will tell anyone who is interested how to view the Constitution and the Writers. For sure you will understand that Judge Scalia was a fake and a fraud, precisely the kind of leader that Ben Franklin warned us about.

  20. Jeff says:

    “Under circumstances that are not yet fully understood, the Supreme Court refused to allow the case against Poindexter’s company to go forward.”

    What’s to understand? The Supreme Court takes about 1% of the cases brought to its attention and dismisses the other 99%. If four disinterested Justices had voted to make this case one of the rare 1% they hear, the case would now be before the court and Scalia’s invitation might have raised some real ethical issues. But they didn’t so it doesn’t.

  21. Holly says:

    So, you have no proof of anything, and he was only one of nine people on the Supreme Court, but you go ahead and commit libel against a dead man.

  22. Rick says:

    Let the truth be known, Antonin Scalia choked to death on one of Clarence Thomas’ pubic hairs!

  23. ismael says:

    This is the way it is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!