Posted on 10/04/2013 9:11:53 PM PDT by MrChips
Is there any evidence that Roberts was blackmailed when he made his Obamacare ruling . . . which required such contorted logic . . . and left us all hanging? I need to know for an argument I am having.
Talk on certain internet based radio programs at the time was that the NSA had dirt on him, probably child porn. But at the time is was a silly “Conspiracy Theory” that the NSA spied on Americans much less Supreme Court Justices and hell before that it was a conspiracy theory that the NSA even existed.
Reading “Brainwashing” Psychopolitics.
Marxists have been bribing, killing and getting control over all people in positions of power, since early 1900s. It is their MO—to infiltrate EVERY institution which wields influence and power. They destroy/Blackmail/kill since way before McCarthy. McCarthy was put in their bullseye and it destroyed him. They have controlled the media since early 1900s.
They have been owning Judges-—and controlling their rulings since they stole Tesla’s patents. Sure-—there are some “Good” judges that can’t be bribed-—but they will have an accident or commit suicide.
Two areas which makes Roberts bribable. There are numerous photos of him with homosexuals as if he is a homosexual.....and then his adoption of “Irish” children (which is illegal) is also a problem. Marxists have controlled APA since early 50s-—and get all sorts of data on wealthy “clients”.
It is like Glenn Beck states——if YOU are going to do “Good” and get involved in politics, you had better have NO skeletons in your closet-—NONE. They will still try to ‘Ted Cruz’ everyone since they own media——but it will be much harder-—because lies will not stick as well.
can we prove anything?...no....so what?....we know it took contorted strange logic to say what he said....
“in the Mediterranean with a long term friend who also looks happy,,,”
Why, one might even say he looks gay,,,,
What a lose accusation.Who the hell are you to accuse him of that.Back it up with links or remove the post.
So today the conservative Justice says lets follow the Constitution and give the congress the benefit of the doubt upholding what they pass..
But the liberal Justice says the Constitution is a living document subject to our interpretation and because the Congress critters are a bunch of idiots we will interpret what they say also...
Roberts is saying it not our role to change the will of the legislature..
grossly unpopular ..yeah..
But it still got the required majority to pass..the SC only deals with what is before them ..the legislative record, the briefs submitted, they do not and should not pay attention to the popular sentiment IMO
Again the SC is not designed to rubber stamp the will of the majority. Its function is to prevent the majority from getting outside of the strike zone.
I’m just stating what was said at the time. And those that said this predicted he would rule the way he did when everyone else thought otherwise.
he went beyond umpire, that’s why people are wondering.
1. he changed his position.
2. he wouldn’t explain it to his colleagues he switched on.
3. he unconstitutionally rewrote the law.
this is why many believe he was threatened/blackmailed.
Something will eventually come out about him, probably won't help prove he was blackmailed, but something will come out.
His ruling and logic was pure garbage, he's not that stupid, he was blackmailed.
i don’t want to watch an old lady asleep and a dumb dyke who thinks she’s wise.
He did his job..you just don’t agree with his conclusion.
There is a reason for 9 Justices. There are usually at least nine opinions.
The framers, knowing there are always going to be different legal interpretations to any legal question, created the SC.
That said the SC is not infallible, but it usually takes 3 or 4 generations at least to reverse a decision. The minority view can become the majority but in the mean time our system is set up to enforce the view of the majority on the SC....
expanding 1, he changed his position at the last second.
What was before the court was the constitutional basis for mandating that every individual must buy health insurance, under penalty of law from the federal government. The people who wrote the damn thing stated over and over that the penalties for not buying were not taxes, but penalties. They said it on TV, they stated it before the court. However, Roberts in his tortured logic, rules that Harry Reid and Obama are all wet calling the penalties, penalties. Because if it was penalties, then Obamacare would be unconstitutional. So John Roberts, on his own initiative says it is not a penalty but a tax, something Obama, Reid, Pelosi have been denying since day one. Thus its a tax, thus constitutional. These are the facts Roberts was presented with, and he twisted them out of all proportion to fit what he wanted so the liberal talking heads would not criticize him and make him cry.
So who said it?
Four of those justices are just there to rubber stamp what ever the Democrat Party wants them to. You can all guess who they are. They could care less what the Constitution says on anything. It means nothing to them. No the framers did not know what John Marshall had in store for them. They found out the hard way in Marbury v Madison. Most of them were horrified, by the way the loser of that case was the guy who is called the father of the constitution.
He was supposed to be a “Conservative” but when he did not do what all the Conservatives thought he was going to go he suddenly changed his position..blah blah blah
It may come as a shock to many here but no judge or justice shares his/her thinking with anybody. Many claim to know the workings of a court, but anyone with real experience will not believe anything they hear
What I recall of the stories immediately following his decision, Roberts was originally prepared to vote against ZeroCare but, sometime during the last month before the ruling, someone convinced him to switch sides.
I have no doubt that someone got to him, but I never heard anything about blackmail. In this thugocracy, I have no doubt he was threatened. However, I have no sympathy for him. If Roberts can’t tolerate the heat, he should never have entered the kitchen.
Instead of doing something honorable and sticking to whatever principles he allegedly had, he sold America out to save his political career. He kind of lost my support after that. I kind of lost my lunch . . . . . . . . !!
Again, any appellate court can and will uphold a act passed by a legislature on any basis they find Constitutional.
My definition of a Conservative Judge is one who does hand down “judge made law”
The libs and its seems many who call themselves conservatives are fine with Judges imposing their shared point of view when convenient.
“So John Roberts, on his own initiative says it is not a penalty but a tax”
Obama’s Solicitor General argued to the Supreme Court that ObamaCare can and should be considered a tax.
My definition of a Conservative Judge, to use your term, I prefer Constitutional Judge, is one who rules to uphold the Constitution. To make sure that the executive, legislative, and even judicial branch plays by the rules that are stated in the Constitution. Under your scenario, hell we can just close down the Supreme Court. What good are they if they will refuse to over rule anything Congress or the President does. Me, I want them to slap down Congress and the President when they exceed the authority given to them by the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.