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


1 posted on 02/24/2015 7:53:56 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum

Translation: They still have those gay bathhouse pics of Roberts and know there’s something hinky about his kids’ adoption papers.


2 posted on 02/24/2015 7:55:15 AM PST by peyton randolph (Good intentions do not excuse poor results.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Roberts will have to go further than a tropical island after he pulls this disaster off...The moon perhaps?


3 posted on 02/24/2015 7:56:08 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Well, we could fast & pray, but that is a suggestion not many do any more. But, with Lent season already in progress, maybe we could add a day of fasting each week for this.


4 posted on 02/24/2015 7:57:15 AM PST by Shery (Pray for righteousness to be restored and for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

That would be the destruction of the Supreme Court.


5 posted on 02/24/2015 7:59:44 AM PST by Ray76 (Obama says, "Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This is the reason Bush put him on the court. Many of the worst liberal justices have been nominated by Republicans.


7 posted on 02/24/2015 8:04:11 AM PST by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Now, you tell me, why would Justice Roberts suddenly change his mind on OBAMA CARE? If he sees that there is a “FLAW” on how OBAMA CARE was written, he will help re-write the law, to make it more acceptable to the justices. Is there any one out there that doesn’t think that Justice Roberts is the “5th Column” in our Supreme Court?


8 posted on 02/24/2015 8:04:24 AM PST by gingerbread
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Roberts did more than cast the deciding vote. He wrote an opinion that did backward flips to strain logic.

This case is going to come down to legislative history and the congressional record of what the legislature intended. The court will have lots of wiggle room if they want to perform acrobatics.


9 posted on 02/24/2015 8:04:58 AM PST by Regal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

No one should get their hopes up. This case is far easier (really, a fastball right down the middle of the plate) for Roberts to “reason” his way around hurting this abomination of a law.


10 posted on 02/24/2015 8:07:54 AM PST by BlueStateRightist (Government is best which governs least.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I am more optimistic on this decision. There is no hint for SCOTUS to be blamed of deciding a POTUS election again.


11 posted on 02/24/2015 8:08:21 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Swing.

What a wonderful word.

As in John Roberts swinging at the end of rope.

Tied to a lamp post outside of the SC building.


14 posted on 02/24/2015 8:15:59 AM PST by Arm_Bears (Rope. Tree. Politician. Some assembly required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
He will. Expect 5-4 votes on Obamacare, amnesty and homo marriage. I expect Roberts to cast the swing vote on the first two and Kennedy to cast the swing vote on the last.

The USSC only provides us with a few small victories as a sop. On the big issues, they are controlled and do as they are told.

20 posted on 02/24/2015 8:46:18 AM PST by Dr. Thorne (The night is far spent, the day is at hand.- Roman 13:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum; peyton randolph; LucyT; Fred Nerks; null and void
Three years ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast the tie-breaking vote in a ruling that saved President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform.

As everyone is aware, there is extensive gossip in the political community to the effect that Roberts and his wife have only two children who were adopted.

They were purportedly born in a foreign jurisdiction and there were in place legal constraints that effectively precluded US persons from adopting children born there under the circumstances of the Roberts adoption.

So to avoid those restrictions, the adoption was accomplished through the device of a third country system. Whether or not the third country worked to accomplish an effective adoption or not is not clear from the level of gossip in circulation.

The presumed threat is that the Roberts' could lose their two children several years down the road from the initial adoption events.

The end consequence of this condition, as reported by loose talk and political gossip, is that Roberts' vote on Obamacare was leveraged by the zero in the White House to uphold legislation that everyone knows is unconstitutional on its face.

I do not know what, if any, merit, substance, or facts exist to support the gossip.

I think it is and was the obligation of the Senate Judiciary Committee to know stuff like this. The gossip alone, unrefuted that it is by any authoritative response, affects confidence in our Constitutional process.

What should be done is that House Judiciary should immediately schedule a hearing on the issue and subpoena Justice Roberts to explain the actual facts.

Why House Judiciary instead of the Senate? Because that is where impeachment proceeding would be initiated. If this fairy tale is true, Roberts should be impeached immediately.

22 posted on 02/24/2015 8:49:46 AM PST by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Back in November 2014, Barney Frank was quoted here on FR as stating: "One of the key architects of of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, has explained that they specifically wanted subsidies available only to the state-established exchanges - to provide a strong carrot and stick to Governors and State legislatures to “play ball” with the Federal Government. They simply did NOT expect 36 States to turn down free Fed money."

This statement should be bolded and circulated widely.

Frank's statement, while he may not have intended to be so "frank" (pun intended), is a statement of fact which indicates the sheer arrogance of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi team and their rubber stamp Democrats.

Arrogance and an underestimation of the intelligence and will of "the People" who are their bosses in the States brought about this "mistake" which the Supreme Court should not legitimize by allowing any other interpretation of the word "mistake" when applied to the abominable Trojan Horse legislation masked as having to do with health care in America.

Gruber's description, coming from a complicit architect of ACA, should be accepted as evidence of intent, and "the People" and "States" have spoken!

24 posted on 02/24/2015 8:57:17 AM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Last time, “Obamacare is not a tax” meant “Obamacare is a tax”. This time, “exchanges established by the states” might mean “exchanges established by FedGov”. If Chief Justice Roberts votes that way, it’s time to give up on peacefully restoring the rule of law. We will no longer be a constitutional republic, and FedGov will have no legitimacy. Only physical force can compel free Americans to obey an illegitimate government, and I’m not sure even FedGov force will be enough if the Court disregards the plain language of a terrible and destructive law.


25 posted on 02/24/2015 9:08:49 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I am sure they can find a foreign law or a evaporative pnumbra as the source that makes Obamacare okay.


27 posted on 02/24/2015 9:10:01 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

UN elites supporting UN goals.


28 posted on 02/24/2015 9:12:36 AM PST by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

“It’s like deja vu all over again” Yogi Berra

SSDD

Besides, who really gives two shakes of a rat’s tail what the SCOTUS rules. Or for that matter, the entire government. I’ll do what I please, ignoring whatever laws I don’t like. Just like the half breed does.


29 posted on 02/24/2015 9:27:26 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Government’s favor = People’s disadvantage.


31 posted on 02/24/2015 9:39:57 AM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

38 posted on 02/24/2015 10:55:11 AM PST by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The libs always win so they will win again. The only time they don’t win is when it comes to higher taxes for wealthy and corporations. It seems like the country clubbers take conservative positions just to trade them off for these tax breaks. They prove Lenin’s, dictum, “the capitalist will sell the rope to his own hanging”.


39 posted on 02/24/2015 11:45:46 AM PST by amnestynone (A big government conservative is just a corporatist who is not paying enough taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


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

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