Posted on 03/04/2015 6:31:11 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: Here's how the Regime's doing it. The Regime and the Drive-Bys are trying to intimidate the court, trying to influence the court, trying to shape the court. Josh Earnest, press briefing at the White House today. A reporter said, "One of the justices this morning suggested the court could give states time to prepare for the impact if it decided to rule against the government in this case. I'm just wondering if you have any response to that, Josh. Would that be feasible? Just wait 'til next year for a decision like that to take effect?"
EARNEST: It's important for people to understand that there is no contingency plan that could be implemented that could prevent the catastrophic damage that would be done by essentially undermining the Affordable Care Act with an adversarial, uh, ruling on this. The truth is that there are no easy answers! There is no simple step, no obvious step that anybody can take that would prevent this catastrophic damage from taking place.
RUSH: Okay, and what that's supposed to here is Justice Kennedy and Justice Roberts are supposed to go home tonight and turn on the news, and they're supposed to see the White House press secretary say that if they rule against the administration, "It's gonna be a nationwide catastrophe! You don't want that on your shoulders, Judge, and you don't want that on your shoulders, Mr. Chief Justice. It's gonna be a catastrophe! We don't have any contingency plan. You're gonna be wiping people's health care out."
That's how it's to be reported, and it is not just Earnest doing it. This is happening throughout the Drive-By Media. The reason is, they think it worked on Roberts the first time. They are convinced that it worked on Roberts the first time. Note, by the way, it worked on Roberts, not Kennedy, the first time. Everybody thinks Kennedy is the swing vote that we need to be worried about, and I'm thinking you may need to change your focus on that, folks, just a little bit.
There is a very good case to be made that Robert's wife told him in no uncertain terms that she wanted to adopt two blond haired children,a boy and a girl, from her home country of cork, Ireland which is very hard if not impossible to do.
So they got creative.
Roberts through surrogates got the birth mothers to smuggle the kids into Central America and he adopted the kids from there.
Trouble is years ago the NYT researched the story found out what was going on and "almost" blew the whistle. IN the end since they figured out that there might be consequences if they told the entire truth they stopped covering the end of the story due to "the children's civil rights" which is BS for they had no guts to tell the whole story.
Anyway the kids were brought into the US and the regime found out and blackmailed the crap out of Roberts.It's why zerocare is a tax.
Thanks for the answer, for the Robert’s sake I hope this gets settled once and for all.
My pleasure.
Frankly, if the court does anything other than throw this law out, it no longer deserves to exist.
These people have entirely too much power based upon their interpretation of what they want and nothing else.
It is not a court as far as I am concerned.
The facts are the Roberts’ adopted 2 children from Ireland, a country that does not allow adoption of its children by noncitizens. It was done by having the mothers go to a South American country with their infants and the adoption took place there.
The assumption is that that was an illegal way to adopt these children.
Don’t blast me for this - I’m just relaying the information. I personally think it’s more likely that Roberts was looking at ‘his’ court’s legacy and thought it needed to appear bipartisan or nonpartisan, actually.
It was explained in full, further into the thread.
I was listening to talk radio all day: Cain, Limbaugh, Hannity, Erickson. Didn’t catch every minute of each show, but didn’t hear it once from any of them.
More than anything, I’m curious to know if any of that was brought up in the arguments before SCOTUS.
Pelosi's webpage:
MYTH: Mandating health insurance coverage is a new tax.FACT: Not true.
http://web.archive.org/web/20101008091759/http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/factcheck?id=0114
MYTH: Mandating health insurance coverage is like a new tax.FACT: As President Obama pointed out yesterday: “[F]or us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase…
http://web.archive.org/web/20101008091920/http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/factcheck?id=0109
If Roberts wheels out another far-fetched lie and tells us "exchange established by the state" really means "exchange established by the HHS Secretary", then rule of law has been destroyed.
Do we need to remind Roberts about compulsion to contract?
Nov 4, 2009 - According to a new analysis by MIT Professor and CBO health advisor Dr. Jonathan Gruber...
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/mit-analysis-confirms-that-hr-3962-will-deliver-substantial-savings
Pelosi cites Gruber, he is an adviser to the CBO, he has testified before numerous committees, he has participated in Oval Office meetings discussing health insurance, yet Dems try to downplay Gruber. Why would that be? Could it be: "If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits" - Gruber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rttqLh12U
If John Roberts is involved in human trafficking then Ireland and Interpol should step in and arrest him and his wife, and they both should be convicted and sentenced to hard time in an Irish jail, and so if it is true then I wonder why is this not happening? Especially if it is true that they visit Ireland every 2 years. IOW is Ireland in on the Roberts blackmail?
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.