He'd first have to be convicted by this House of Reps.
And then Obama gets to replace him. Yeah, right.
Get a grip. You really think that would happen?
FReegards!
Posted on 02/11/2013 5:05:53 AM PST by libstripper
Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question.
In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were "from a Latin American country", but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish. Why this matters will become evident.
In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush. The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate the anonymity of the adoption process... however there is more to the story.
(Excerpt) Read more at libertycaucus.net ...
No argument here. Roberts cannot be relied upon to hand down decisions based on the Constitution. (Obviously)
I gotta go with you on that one. In this day and time, being queer is a badge of honor. Eventually, obamacare will strangle the Nation with its rules and regulations. Just as it was designed to do.
I wouldn’t doubt for a moment that Roberts is being blackmailed for buying a kid illegally from a child trafficking ring or that he is a closet homosexual but there is a even more obvious and simple explanation for his Obamacare vote. Like the rest of the GOPe, he is a big government loving liberal at heart and thinks Obamacare is a grand idea.
Its great stuff. A lot there and much of it makes perfect sense.
One thing that really helps validate this and could hardly be considered a coincidence is his wife’s family is from the same area, Cork, Ireland, that his kids were adopted from. Too much coincidence there.
Roberts SHOULD be the most hated man in the USA, but nothing..........no one even mentions this POS’s name. Can’t even begin to tell you what should be done.....well, you get the point! He helped that Kenyan prick further destroy OUR country. You figure it out from here!
He'd first have to be convicted by this House of Reps.
And then Obama gets to replace him. Yeah, right.
Get a grip. You really think that would happen?
FReegards!
“We can’t have a compromised judge on the Supreme Court.” ... Bwahahahahahahaha, wake up already!
Let me guess:
You probably vote 3rd party all the time too just to "send 'em a message."
It certainly appears that some peoples' strategy around here lately is as logical as "open mouth, insert gun."
FReegards!
Extortion is also illegal. If this is true, Roberts should say who is blackmailing him.
Buck up, or stay in the truck.
You signed up at Free Republic just three months ago just so you could come here and moan about how the world is coming to an end?
Sniff....
McCain.
lol- and the first time I read FR was back in 1999.. so that means...
What?!?!
Do a google search on “John Roberts gay” and I think you will be convinced. There are some pretty blatant photographs of him and his, um, buddies.
But more to the point, back when he was a lawyer in DC, he apparently did pro bono work for a gay group. What is said out there in the world of gossip, is that when he was younger (ie, before getting married) this was sort of common knowledge.
For my part...my methodology is a little more intuitive. Once I began to ponder what exactly happened last summer, when he changed his vote last minute, I looked for the first time at a photo of him with that queer smirk that he has. When I “looked” for the first time, it struck me: “Oh my gosh! This guy is very gay!”. So I immediately went to google, and did a search and was surprised (well, actually, not surprised) by the wealth of info out there.
Though I haven’t done such a search, I’d wager if you did a google of “Antonin Scalia gay” you wouldn’t come up with much. With regards to this issue, my personal life experience is that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
I have no doubt that Roberts is gay. (Sort of explains the very late in life marriage and the adoptions, doesn’t it?).
I did not doubt you. I just need to know how to respond to someone who said,”How do you know that?”
“If this is true, that he circumvented Irish law and thereby violated international treaties on international adoption, then he could be impeached and his decisions might even be vacated.”
If anyone’s going to persue what you have said above, it will be the ‘rats.
Once Roberts is removed, Obama will have free reign to install a leftist as his new “personal chief justice”.
Perhaps Ann Lander’s famous question needs to be asked:
Are we better off with Justice Roberts, or without him?
With him, we at least have a marginal conservative filling that seat. One who may or may not be pressured, depending on the case.
Without him…. ?????
This story probably “has legs”, if the media truly wants to investigate. The facts are there to be uncovered, even if that requires “a price”.
Perhaps if Roberts issues too many anti-Obama rulings, “the one” may finally put his foot down and issue the media their marching orders.
In that case, the country may end up with “the without him” scenario...
Seems to me he already has one in Roberts.
“He’d first have to be convicted by this House of Reps.
And then Obama gets to replace him. Yeah, right.
Get a grip. You really think that would happen?”
Yes, it certainly could happen.
First of all, you have your facts wrong. A justice of the Supreme Court is impeached by the House and faces trial in the Senate.
If Roberts did in fact engage in unethical conduct, there might be sufficient number of Republicans in the House to vote articles of impeachment against him. It goes without saying that all the ‘rats in the House would go along with this.
I’m not sure how it would go in the Senate. It takes 2/3 to convict, I believe. Of course, all the ‘rats in the Senate would vote for removal, perhaps even a handful of Republicans “on principle”, but Roberts might still survive a conviction vote.
HOWEVER — in that case, even though he had not been forcibly removed, I don’t see him as being able to remain on the Court afterwards. He would probably resign and fade away. Remember, sometimes the appearance of impropriety is as damaging to one’s reputation as the improprieties themselves.
If the ‘rats are willing to force the issue of impeachment, I think they might well “win”, regardless of whether Roberts is convicted — or not...
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.