Skip to comments.Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare?
Posted on 02/10/2013 8:02:21 PM PST by Wisconsinlady
Many of us have questioned what causedRoberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as repo..., 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotaction.net ...
I have no answer to that question. However, Roberts did do a good thing, believe it or not. By ruling Obamacare a tax, it became the responsibility of Congress to implement, or not. Roberts made it impossible for the socialists to keep using the courts to push their agenda on social issues. If he had ruled it unconstitutional, the have healthcare advocates would have just kept trying until they got their way with a friendly Supreme Court.
Now it’s a matter of winning Congress, so it can be overturned.
Oh for Pete’s sake people, the Irish birth mothers probably traveled to the “Latin American country” and gave birth there, and the Judge adopted from there. The birth mothers were probably Catholic and it was mortifying for them to be pregnant out of wedlock and their priests and parents were going to have a heart attack if the neighbors found out. An American adoption might be undone by a misguided judge who thinks putting a child who has been loved and protected in a good home will be fine back in the care and custody of their meth addicted natural parent, so people who can afford it go overseas. If anything, he didn’t want the press making something up that wasn’t there and making his children miserable.
Winning the congress with a large enough majority to override a presidential veto.
Anyone that remains believing in just a little shred of decency in perhaps a few people in our various politcal juntas need to either wise up or get some professional help. The US government is the largest criminal enterprise is history and has been that way for the last 20+ years.
None of them are clean and if you feel like defending YOUR congressman, senator, governor, or what have you, don’t bother. That just identifies you as part of the problem in my eyes. Your own pet congressman or judge deserves their own lamppost and length of rope right next to the one you might despise...
With enough seantors that have not been bought or blackmailed to avoid a filibuster and the 2/3 majority in both houses to over-ride the veto.
The GOP won Congress. So far they have done nothing to reduce the "tax" to zero, and show no inclination to do so. Know why? Because ultimately they GOP believes in fascism lite just as much as the dems. The idea of indenturing the serfs to private entities gives them wood. If you are a U.S. Citizen you now belong to a health insurance plantation.
Please, stop the crap. Roberts did not do a "good thing."
Do you see Congress lifting an effeminate finger to stop a damned thing this communist-coup administration is doing? Do you see even the remotest of chances that "we" can defeat their massive election fraud machine to retake Congress? Please don't shill for Roberts.
There is near-zero chance it will be repealed. The Congress is for it. They have no choice, as it is being implemented more and more each day. We are stuck with it.
How is voting along with Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg a “good thing”?
Amen. Congress hasn’t done a damn thing to stop Soetoro..
His hidden gay past was probably uncovered. He’s supposed to be a closet dweller. Married super late when he wanted to advance his career. Did pro bono work for the gay side trying to overturn a Colorado constitutional amendment. Queer as a 3 dollar bill if you ask me.
Blackmail,, one more vote.
Not necessarily. The states can refuse to implement it, although many of our governors have already folded like cheap suits. Shame on them.
Yep. And, I don’t see them doing so anytime soon.
We are so screwed, my FRiend.
How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare
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.
Drudge did an article in 2005
- The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the papers standard background check.
Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.
Were the Children Adopted from Ireland?
This is not clear ... -- the Associated Press reports that they were "adopted from Latin America." This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American. 1
TIME had a web exclusive on the Roberts's (7/24/05) and quoted a family friend as stating the kids were born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart.
How were the Children Adopted?
According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts's sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption.
As explained by Families for Private Adoption, "[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency."2
But was Robert's adoption utilizing "a legal method"?
Apparently the process of adopting Jack involved some stress for John Roberts. According to Dan Klaidman of Newsweek, during the contested 2000 election, Roberts "spent a few days in Florida advising lawyers [for George W. Bush] on their legal strategy," but "he did not play a central role," because " at the time, Roberts was preoccupied with the adoption of his son."
It is now quite evident that the two Children were from Ireland. Even wikipedia references these adoptions at the time of Roberts' confirmation, and indicates that the children were of Irish birth.
However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.
This would explain the children's origin from a "Latin American country", so as to circumvent Irish law.
Evidently Roberts arranged for this adoption through some sort of trafficking agency, that got the children out of Ireland and into that Latin American country, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing two Irish laws -- entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers (two) transporting the children out of Ireland.
Undoubtedly Roberts and his wife spent a great deal of money for this illegal process, circumventing Irish laws and arranging for the transit of two Irish children from separate birth-mothers to a foreign nation. Come 2012, those two children have been with the Roberts' for roughly 10 years, since they were adopted as "infants".
Some might feel an impulse dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home.
That would be an inaccurate belief. As recognized, such an inter-country adoption would only come about at great cost, and those who utilize this method are creating a for-profit black market in adoptive children, trafficking across international borders, and doing so from mothers who have not yet given up their children except for that profit. Such actions are creating a very unsavory profit-for-children human trafficking market that even necessitates immediate contact with new birth mothers in dire circumstances to offer financial gain. The entire arrangement is thoroughly predatory, turning children into only financial commodity, and even providing motivation for their birth mothers to give them up! That's an important ethical recognition.
Roberts is not deserving of any sort of respect here, and is only the latest example of people in position believing themselves above the law, beyond scrutiny and exempt from repercussion.
It all now makes sense.
The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure. Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment.
This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare.
... And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government. Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution.
And it is consistent with Obama's Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed <divorce> records in order to win election.
And, to this day, he's still doing pro homo work. Likely queer as a football bat, we might say...
Is there not one patriot left in our Congress/Government who cannot/will not be blackmailed?
Where’s the 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.