Posted on 06/28/2022 5:42:20 AM PDT by 70times7
Over the weeks since the Alito Draft was leaked a few things popped into my head. Pardon if this (supposition) has been offered before.
*After the RvW draft leaked Roberts quickly called for a full investigation.
*That "rigorous" investigation has not revealed anything at all. (I'm not surprised)
*Roberts had not voted yes or no in the draft; at that time it was 5 to 3 in favor of overturning RvW.
*There have been rumors that Roberts visited pedo island and that, as a result, the left owns him.
*Roberts was the deciding vote that permitted the unconstitutional ACA.
*There have also been rumors that Roberts tried to convince at least one associate justice to change their vote.
What if both rumors are true? What if the leak actually came from Roberts?
Leaking the draft was an effective way to apply pressure to the 5 in favor of overturning Roe. Imagine if Roberts had been successful in finding just one justice to bend to that pressure. Roberts would then would become the deciding vote in a 5 to 4 decision upholding Roe. Fortunately no one flipped. And when Roberts was unsuccessful he voted to overturn to help maintain his (fake) conservative bona fides, with no significant political cost.
Robert’s is such a fake.
What if “Roberts” is completely compromised?
You are wasting your time.
I’ve been pondering what kind of crap show it would have been without the leak. If this ruling came out with no warning. Can you imagine what that would have been like? Everyone expecting a “split the baby” ruling, only to have the whole thing tossed out. At least the leak tempered the riots a little (alas, it also gave them some extra time to prepare, though).
Robert’s DID NOT vote to overturn Roe, that was a 5 - 4 split.
I agree with your suspicions: Chief Justice Robert’s is owned by the Left because he visited Jeffrey Epstein’s island, and they have the dirt on him. It explains almost all of his “peculiar” behavior while on the SCOTUS.
I don’t know if I agree with your supposition or not.
But Roberts ain’t exactly as promised in the sales brochure. If we could trade him in on a new & better model, I would back anyone nominated by a Trump or a DeSantis. Or about 8 to 10 other MAGA Republicans.
We do need to “Stay out of the Bushes”
Literacy is your friend, Caver.
That is the point - he is compromised and may be the leaker rather than the 3 "No" votes.
Roberts did *not* vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
He wrote a separate opinion in which he did uphold the Mississippi law that restricted abortion, but that’s as far as he was willing to go.
And you are still wasting your time.
“*There have also been rumors that Roberts tried to convince at least one associate justice to change their vote.”
I’m suspecting that Trump’s appointees are pretty damn pissed that they listened to Roberts in rejecting the Texas election case...considering what the country has become because of it. The reason for that rejection was, as reported, as that ruling in favor of Texas would cause ‘the cities to burn’.
He likely tried that stunt with Roe...but one big problem in the end, the people who burn down our cities are not even visible during the Roe protests - not even 1% of the protesters.
The vote was not 5 to 4. Although Roberts issued some weasel words to try and avoid any heat, he was the 6th vote in the 6 to 3 split.
Thank you. I agree. I will not reply to you again.
Fair point!
I think the reason Antifa hasn’t rioted so far is because they’ve gotten orders from on high not to. The Rats know that it looks bad during an election year where they are vulnerable.
The SCOTUS leak happened at 7PM May 2nd... The EXACT time 2000 Mules premiered on select theaters. The leak was planned to distract from the proof the election was stolen. Bring this up in every discussion on the SCOTUS leak and decision on Roe v Wade.
Mark Hampering, Democrat News max contributor, suggested it was one of the Judges. He wouldn’t say a name other than mention it could of been the Judges which was the most politically adept (or something to that effect) I took it as Roberts.
Yeah, I deliberately labeled it as supposition because there is no way to know. Rumors are just that - rumors. But most here agree that there is a pattern that seems to fit. Either way, Roberts' votes have shown many that he isn't trustworthy.
No, the vote was indeed 5 to 4 to overturn Roe. It was 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi laws. That position was clearly where Roberts was leaning based on the oral arguments - hardly a conspiracy or a surprise that is where he landed in the end. Hardly a conspiracy or a surprise Justices try to win over colleagues to their own side (the same has been done with Roberts - specifically on the ACA per reports), the "rumors" about Epstein have zero merit (John Roberts is not exactly an uncommon name).
Without evidence, such rumors should not be repeated. With evidence, they should be investigated.
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.