Skip to comments.
Wikileaks reveal Obama coerced Justice Roberts to pass Obamacare
912communique ^
Posted on 10/15/2016 5:43:35 PM PDT by MNDude
"it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off"
(Excerpt) Read more at 912communique.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0carenightmare; aca; news; obamacare; roberts; robertsobamacare; scotusobamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
1
posted on
10/15/2016 5:43:35 PM PDT
by
MNDude
To: MNDude
Threatening his family was vital.
He should have manned up and exposed it all.
2
posted on
10/15/2016 5:44:38 PM PDT
by
Secret Agent Man
(Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
To: MNDude
Need something specific - death theats? Gays in the closet? Just being President Stompy Foot is not going to cut it.
3
posted on
10/15/2016 5:44:53 PM PDT
by
Fido969
To: MNDude
... the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. This was a threat? Oh, please.
4
posted on
10/15/2016 5:46:52 PM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("Go ahead, bite the Big Apple ... don't mind the maggots.")
To: MNDude
But I thought John Roberts left a diabolically clever trap in his decision that would undermine the whole thing? </Krauthammer et al
5
posted on
10/15/2016 5:52:33 PM PDT
by
Ken H
(Best election ever!)
To: MNDude
And if this upcoming stolen election reaches this supreme court Roberts will be ‘persuaded’ to side with the democrats. That's why Scalia was taken out of the way. We think it's 4-4 but with a compromised Roberts it's actually 5-3 for their side now.
6
posted on
10/15/2016 5:52:45 PM PDT
by
Bullish
(The fly on Hillary's foreheadknows)
To: Fido969
How do you get to be chief justice when you rule against the Constitution on your first landmark case?
Ask yourself that specifics boy.
7
posted on
10/15/2016 5:53:52 PM PDT
by
Eddie01
(Democrats are the Liquidate America Party)
To: MNDude
The entire D.C. needs to be nuked from orbit.
To: MNDude
Check to see if there’s mention of Scalia’s Body post assassination.
My bet is that it was death threats to family plus assassination and replacement with a judge who would.
9
posted on
10/15/2016 5:55:14 PM PDT
by
Bayard
To: Alberta's Child
Well it was reflected in the way he talked in his opinion, that the political branch should answer such questions, as if the constitution didn’t even figure. It’s a tax, except when it is not a tax.
10
posted on
10/15/2016 5:55:52 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: Alberta's Child
The role of the court was “politicized” when it was written into the constitution as a coequal branch of government.
To: Ken H
But. I thought John Roberts left a diabolically clever trap in his decision that would undermine the whole thing? Krauthammer et al.
We remember Krautty and his loyal GOPe butt boys writing for NR and the trolls of FR telling us that Roberts had left a trap for Obama care to scuttle it.
We are still waiting.
12
posted on
10/15/2016 5:57:52 PM PDT
by
Grampa Dave
(We are not electing a saint. We are electing an ass kicker! Vote for Trump! Defeat Illiarily!)
To: HiTech RedNeck
Well, that part of his opinion was correct.
It's not the Supreme Court's job to fix sh!tty legislation. It can only decide cases on constitutional grounds.
13
posted on
10/15/2016 6:04:38 PM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("Go ahead, bite the Big Apple ... don't mind the maggots.")
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
It’s the only way to be sure...
14
posted on
10/15/2016 6:04:52 PM PDT
by
jeffo
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1372399/posts)
To: AndyJackson
This was an achilles heel. A tie breaker would have been a good idea like the Bork Amendment.
15
posted on
10/15/2016 6:04:53 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: Alberta's Child
Whether that should truly apply, however, was denied by 4 of the other justices. I’m not sure how they would have been wrong, not just a minority.
16
posted on
10/15/2016 6:05:44 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: MNDude
I don’t see any coercion.
To: Secret Agent Man
Yep. Threatening the court would be politicized by an adverse decision is not a threat.
But threatening to take his children away and send them back to Ireland was sufficient. That is what persuaded him.
To: SweetPatriot84
See post 18. Roberts had not properly adopted his two children. Thus he was vulnerable to coercion.
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
I remember back a few years ago when I was concerned about a nuke attack on DC.
I’m now convinced it would be the best thing to happen in the history of the United States.
20
posted on
10/15/2016 6:09:23 PM PDT
by
Rome2000
(SMASH THE CPUSA-SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS-CLOSE ALL MOSQUES)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson