Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ghost and John Roberts: The Plot Thickens on the Obamacare Decision
American Thinker ^ | 02/05/2014 | Bill Dunne

Posted on 02/05/2014 7:59:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind

The chief justice must have "gone off his meds." No, it was blackmail. No, it was cowardice. He caved. It was a perverse abdication of his fundamental responsibility.

Those are some of the many disputations that came in to American Thinker regarding my exploration of another possible explanation for why Chief Justice John Roberts chose, astonishingly, to keep the "Affordable Care Act" alive and kicking.("The Roberts Trap Is Sprung", American Thinker, Jan. 2)

Of the nearly 680 comments, roughly four out of five were against the thesis I advanced, which is that Roberts ruled as he did because he foresaw that if the Supreme Court were to kill the "Affordable Care Act" in its infancy, the ruling would ultimately backfire on the cause of constitutional governance. Further review, however, has led me to look upon that thesis as even more plausible, not less. Here's why.

Let's look first at the most popular counter-theory among the commenters, because it seems the simplest to dispense with, albeit the most sensational. Here's the gist of it:

The Scullduggery

John and Jane (nee Sullivan) Roberts were married in 1996 and about four years later they adopted their two children, both infants at the time, a boy and a girl, about four months apart in age. The adoptions were "private," meaning they were arranged through private parties without the involvement of any agencies. The notion of the Obama White House blackmailing Roberts arose with rumors that the adoptions may have been illegal under the laws of Ireland.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bhoscotus; johnroberts; obamacare; obamacaretax; robertscourt; scotus; scotusobamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

1 posted on 02/05/2014 7:59:18 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

bfl


2 posted on 02/05/2014 8:01:13 AM PST by ConservativeMan55 (In America, we don't do pin pricks. But sometimes we elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riri

bookmarking for later


3 posted on 02/05/2014 8:02:05 AM PST by riri (Plannedopolis-look it up. It's how the elites plan for US to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

VERY interesting theory and possibly very true.


4 posted on 02/05/2014 8:08:10 AM PST by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

hmmm... i don’t know...


5 posted on 02/05/2014 8:09:02 AM PST by latina4dubya (when i have money i buy books... if i have anything left, i buy 6-inch heels and a bottle of wine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes John Roberts, it IS your job to protect us from tyranny even if 51% of America votes for it. That’s the beauty of the design of our system .


6 posted on 02/05/2014 8:09:22 AM PST by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Great article - You can't say the democrats haven't been eating dog food since October - or whenever it was the Healthcare.gov "launch" was.

If anyone has insiders knowledge of how incompetent and corrupt the current administration really is - you'd figure it to be the SC.

If the authors thesis is accurate, it would kind of be like setting out poison for rats to eat so they die.

7 posted on 02/05/2014 8:10:14 AM PST by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He declares the blackmail theory to be the easiest to dispense with, but ultimately just dismisses it as suspicion and rumor. His only argument against it is the idea that the anti-Bush crowd would have dug this up during the nomination process and scuttled it. Yeah, because it would never occur to a Democratic operative that having such blackmail material in their back pocket against a Supreme Court justice would come in handy in the future.

Apart from that, the author doesn’t even attempt to refute the allegation that the adoptions were illegal. Maybe he can’t because the adoptions were private and he wouldn’t have access to any information that would settle the matter one way or the other, but by not even bothering to make that point, he’s not exactly steering anyone away from such speculation.


8 posted on 02/05/2014 8:10:43 AM PST by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We will only know the thinking of Roberts when/if he writes a memoir. Right now he’s not talking, which demonstrates a degree of self-control on his part.

In the meantime, it seems a reach of fancy to hope that the collectivist Dems won’t like the dog food they served up in O Care. They are unable to learn from mistakes, and they believe the answer to their dog food is more dog food.


9 posted on 02/05/2014 8:11:48 AM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
the New York Times was hot on the trail of anything untoward in the nominee's past.

A pity the Slimes never had the same inclination to probe for a certain birth certificate, or college transcript or...

If Roberts had the balls why wouldn't he counter-blackmail Soetoro? There continues to be a mountain of crap available for Roberts to pursue to quash any attempt to neutralize him.

10 posted on 02/05/2014 8:14:13 AM PST by immadashell (The inmates are running the asylum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

For there to be merit to that theory we have to credit Roberts with wide and forward thinking.


11 posted on 02/05/2014 8:14:17 AM PST by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Roberts ruled as he did because he foresaw that if the Supreme Court were to kill the "Affordable Care Act" in its infancy, the ruling would ultimately backfire on the cause of constitutional governance

After reading the article, I believe the author is saying that Roberts knew the law was unconstitutional. But Roberts ruled in the law's favor anyway because he feared the backlash that would follow.

And the author seems to be okay with that.

If that theory is correct, then Roberts has violated his oath of office and should be impeached.

12 posted on 02/05/2014 8:15:05 AM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: william clark

disinformation in order to say “experts have discredited.”


13 posted on 02/05/2014 8:15:18 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: william clark
Let's assume Robert's was guilty of an illegal adoption and was being threatened with blackmail ... let's also assume he says; "Screw you, I'm killing the bill right now", and let's further assume zero follows through and gets the kids away from Roberts.

NOW what ?

You better believe the press would be all OVER this ... negatively, of course, but it would be super hot stuff.

The public would go wild over the government breaking up a family (those mexi kids didn't do this, their parents did, don't break up a family .. )

Let's go further ... The US deports the kids to ... wherever.

NOW we have some press, yoobetcha' !!

Johnboy ... TELL me ... do you REALLY want to stay in the US with a government that does that to you?

Would you and your wife at least buy a summer home in Ireland or wherever?

See ... Roberts couldn't go to jail for this, but the USGov't could be brought to task

14 posted on 02/05/2014 8:20:55 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Incredible stretch coupled with an overly written narrative. “Silver lining” in the decision? Utter nonsense. Given the essential elements of Obamacare, which few have read, and have nothing to do with health care, the decision rendered under the rubric of article 14, Sec. 4, of the U.S. constitution signaled the death of republic. The rumor of extralegal overseas adoptions may be without merit, but I have no doubt Roberts was a man with a gun at his back, and rendered his opinion accordingly.
15 posted on 02/05/2014 8:21:58 AM PST by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
“After reading the article, I believe the author is saying that Roberts knew the law was unconstitutional. But Roberts ruled in the law's favor anyway because he feared the backlash that would follow.

And the author seems to be okay with that.

If that theory is correct, then Roberts has violated his oath of office and should be impeached.”

Totally agree.

His dismissal on the blackmail theory is only based on the adoption of his children. I think there is a far more obvious blackmail angle that has been discussed all over the Internet. The author didn't even mention other possibilities.

16 posted on 02/05/2014 8:22:41 AM PST by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: immadashell
Maybe Roberts realizes the endgame if he attempts to blackmail Obamao.
-Roberts brings the dirt on Obamao.
-Roberts then gets booted off the SC for an “illegal” adoption or worse. (I'm sure that's there's worse “dirt” under his nails)
-Obamao get to pick the next SC justice.

Roberts is saving his own skin, at least temporarily. There will be another R president, and only then will Roberts dirt be shown the light of day.

17 posted on 02/05/2014 8:23:16 AM PST by BigpapaBo (If it don't kill you it'll make you _________!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Blackmail? Saving the Republic via the Constitution?
HOGWASH! He Caved!
I no longer believe any of the denizens of Washington District of Corruption do anything on or for principals.
As Rush used to say “Follow the money.”
I would venture to guess a look at ALL of his finances would give us the answer to why he caved.

As an aside, has anyone noticed you do not hear Rush say that anymore.

18 posted on 02/05/2014 8:23:51 AM PST by Tupelo (I am feeling more like Philip Nolan every day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Interesting article ping. A follow up to an earlier article on the Robert's 0bamacare decision. I know you didn't buy into that initial premise.

However, the thing that I wonder about, that this bad (and it was a BAD decision from a Constitutional perspective, as Justice Scalia so ably documented in his dissent) decision avoided, is the outcry from the LEFT. Just imagine the reaction by the LEFTIST government/media complex to a SCOTUS decision that overturned 0bamacare at its 'infancy'. And within a few months of a POTUS election. It would have made Roe v Wade and Bush v Gore look like pillow fights in comparison.

19 posted on 02/05/2014 8:26:23 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict
I highly doubt it was the kids/adoption. they'd have black mailed him and still outed this information. It's too out there now and it'd be too easy for them to do.

More than likely, IMO, Roberts has the typical sexual deviant crap in his closet. After all, we have all seen the birthday cake Village People picture floating around the internet.

All of our betters (elites) seem to have these issues. The crap floats to the top.

20 posted on 02/05/2014 8:27:26 AM PST by riri (Plannedopolis-look it up. It's how the elites plan for US to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson