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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court and Obama: Go Chief Justice John Roberts !
email | 11/29/2011 | Dan Hennessy

Posted on 11/30/2011 5:43:25 AM PST by IbJensen

Our Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble...with Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack-down of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court , even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on... And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.' Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii, double citizenship, natural born...and others.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies. This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And also the ATF and DOJ and the gun sales under Fast and Furious.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bhocorruption; bhofascism; email; evilregime; johnroberts; nitpicking; notnews; notsourced; obama; supremecourt; toomanyobamafans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last
This will be an interesting turn of events when it does come to the surface.....bring it on!!
1 posted on 11/30/2011 5:43:32 AM PST by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I continue to keep hoping and praying.


2 posted on 11/30/2011 5:48:08 AM PST by Qwackertoo (New Day In America November 03, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
FINGERS, TOES EVERYTHING I CAN THINK OF CROSSED.
Go Supreme Court. . . . . Do your Job. . . . .
3 posted on 11/30/2011 5:48:29 AM PST by DeaconRed (My Hat Don't Hang on the same Nail to Long. I am a CAT adjuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I will wait until I see this turn of events before I believe it.

I like the way this email is written, but I doubt it will come to fruition.


4 posted on 11/30/2011 5:48:42 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Who swore him in? Publicly, and then privately for...I dunno why?


5 posted on 11/30/2011 5:49:35 AM PST by Lady Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
...when it does come to the surface.

Yeah, we've been hearing "it's unconstitutional" for 3 years now ... "when" does it get really "unconstitutional?"

6 posted on 11/30/2011 5:49:50 AM PST by ThePatriotsFlag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

The date on this missive is 11/29/11, but I have received same or similar missive in forwarded emails. My point is simple: this has been floating around the internet for sometime, so where’s the action, where’s the rubber hitting the road, where’s the proof in the pudding?


7 posted on 11/30/2011 5:52:00 AM PST by izzatzo ( Anybody but Obamney and Huntsman. Cain looks better and better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The Court will put the final nail in the coffin for the Constitution, with a narrow reading of the Mandate in Obamacare. So many other factors (Executive Orders and Administrative/Regulatory mandates by un-elected Czars) will go un-challenged, and we are stuck with them forever.

The Usurper (which is an issue that would ultimately cause another Civil War if the truth of the "Natural Born Citizen" were legitimately pursued will NEVER go into daylight until somewhere down the road in History, when the truth will come out.

Last, without addressing the legality of Regulatory Legislative Action (which is by-passing Congress, CLEARLY), must be undone, where the Constitution gives NO AUTHORITY to create such a Dictatorship. Merely Ruling that the Individual Mandate is Un-Constitutional is a BIG WIN for the Progressive/Socialist/Democrat Cause, where the takeover of Healthcare, Auto Factories, etc. is complete without being un-done. The Unions in Public Employment is another issue that the USSC won't touch, as it's KEY to the Socialist Agenda.

8 posted on 11/30/2011 5:52:27 AM PST by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

This would be superb, But I’m not holding my breath.

I’m quite tired of the Charlie Brown and the football routine.


9 posted on 11/30/2011 5:52:27 AM PST by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The Supreme court can rule all they want...but until there is a mechanism of enforcement it will remain ineffectual.

Heck the press is already saying if the court strike down 0bamacare or portions there of...the government is going to enforce it anyway and they have already relegated the SC to the annals of symbolic history.

10 posted on 11/30/2011 5:52:48 AM PST by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Not familiar with Mr. Hennessy-can you give any info on him?


11 posted on 11/30/2011 5:56:56 AM PST by TexasKate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Unfortunately it will be a cold day in hell before the court pursues any of this.


12 posted on 11/30/2011 6:00:54 AM PST by certrtwngnut (It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes. (Josef Stalin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Another really, really critical reason to make sure Obama is not re-elected ........ he'll probably have the chance to nominate two more Supremes if he stays on. Don't know if Kennedy can hold on for another 4 & Ginsburg is battling pancreatic cancer. The Court is already stuck with "Recusal Refusal" & the "Wise Latina Woman".

13 posted on 11/30/2011 6:01:28 AM PST by MissMagnolia (Obama 2012: Debt Man Walking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Personal feelings have no place on the court. I have enough faith in Chief Justice Roberts and in Justice Alito and Scalia and Thomas and most of the rests to believe that any decisions striking down any of Obama’s policies will be made based on firm Constitutional grounds and not because Obama doesn’t like them.


14 posted on 11/30/2011 6:01:42 AM PST by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

The silliness I heard was that 0bama “made” Roberts redo the swearing in. He did so because he felt Roberts was trying to “trick” 0bama into an “illegal” oath, therefore nullifying him as POTUS. LOL Gosh, if life were only that simple.


15 posted on 11/30/2011 6:02:02 AM PST by papasmurf (I pledge to vote (R). How 'bout you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
So far, SCOTUS are Obama butt-lickers and treason-enablers
of the ineligible TYRANT, whom THEY met and installed
by violating THEIR OWN "code of (so called) ethics".


General Kimsey: “I wouldn't trust SCOTUS with a potato gun.”

16 posted on 11/30/2011 6:03:01 AM PST by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH
"The Supreme court can rule all they want...but until there is a mechanism of enforcement it will remain ineffectual."

When Andrew Jackson was ruled against in his forced move of Indians by the Supreme Court, he was supposed to have said that the Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it. Whether he said it or not, does not matter. It's the attitude he displayed after the decision and his administration continued to forcefully remove Indians in the southeast of our country. I imagine that will be the same attitude that Obama has.
17 posted on 11/30/2011 6:04:08 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

“Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.”

Up until this point I was sold.


18 posted on 11/30/2011 6:10:07 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (To fix government, we need a rocket scientist. Oh, wait we have one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Qwackertoo

“I continue to keep hoping and praying.”

Me TOO!!!!


19 posted on 11/30/2011 6:12:34 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
You mean the same Justices who took away the right to own private property via their eminent domain ruling?
They will rule FOR Obamacare (how is the mandate any different than forcing SS and Medicare on us?), and freedom will be dead.
20 posted on 11/30/2011 6:14:14 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Source? I guess I missed that statement, which is surprising as I'd peg it at magnitude 6.8.

21 posted on 11/30/2011 6:14:37 AM PST by NonValueAdded (At 4 AM, it is a test; at 2 PM, it is a demonstration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

...against all enemies foreign and domestic.


22 posted on 11/30/2011 6:22:15 AM PST by TheGunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky
Who swore him in?

Barack 2nd Oath, Chief Justice Roberts swears in Barry Soetoro.

NOTICE - No Lincoln's bible for this one!

23 posted on 11/30/2011 6:23:59 AM PST by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Please give a creditable source before you post something like this, else FR and its readers can justifiably be criticized for using the information in the post.


24 posted on 11/30/2011 6:28:55 AM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727

Yes, keep breathing. This is an opinionated email.


25 posted on 11/30/2011 6:30:57 AM PST by gortklattu (God knows who is best, everybody else is making guesses - Tony Snow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii, double citizenship, natural born...and others.

Tick...tick...tick...

26 posted on 11/30/2011 6:32:19 AM PST by Paine in the Neck (Where's he getting these ideas? He's not smart enough to be that stupid all by himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

I have read snippets of this information elsewhere, including a large article posted some time ago on FR. If you’ll read the material in the article you’ll see that it refers to events that have occurred and are about to hit the fan as far as Chief Justice Roberts is concerned.


27 posted on 11/30/2011 6:36:46 AM PST by IbJensen (What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Wishful thinking at best. Commieboma is here till 2012 and as another poster said only will he be exposed in the annals of history.
28 posted on 11/30/2011 6:37:47 AM PST by Romans Nine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I, for one, would be quite entertained to see a H0lder frog-march.


29 posted on 11/30/2011 6:39:00 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Is it true he has the power to force Kagan to recuse herself? I keep hearing conflicting info on that matter.


30 posted on 11/30/2011 6:41:55 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen; All

I would like some sourcing for all of this material...it is encouraging to believe the Court is sick of Hussein and this regime’s hatred for the Constitution...but I want some evidence beyond an email.

Also, where did this happen: “...And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’”


31 posted on 11/30/2011 6:42:43 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

So many other factors (Executive Orders and Administrative/Regulatory mandates by un-elected Czars) will go un-challenged, and we are stuck with them forever.
*************************************************************

I thought an executive order imposed by one president can be overturned by another.Is this not the case?


32 posted on 11/30/2011 6:49:57 AM PST by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TexasKate

Hennessy lives in South Florida.


33 posted on 11/30/2011 6:50:47 AM PST by IbJensen (What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TexasKate

http://www.meetup.com/CC-912-Project/members/14121038/


34 posted on 11/30/2011 6:52:55 AM PST by IbJensen (What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

Here’s info on Hennessy which I posted to another Freeper who queried me.

http://www.meetup.com/CC-912-Project/members/14121038/

I’ll post a link to various segments of the material as I find them, but they have been in the news before. Perhaps you missed them.


35 posted on 11/30/2011 6:55:50 AM PST by IbJensen (What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
“...it refers to events that have occurred and are about to hit the fan..”

Events that occurred mean nothing until a case is brought and winds it's way through the lower courts, and then is accepted by the USSC. Are any of these mentioned, except the obamacare mandate, even on the USSC docket?

36 posted on 11/30/2011 6:56:21 AM PST by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

Here’s another link to SC-Obozo squabble.

There’s nothing in the email from Hennessy that isn’t correct, but I believe you already know that and are nit-picking for some undefinable reason.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/06/nation/la-na-court-roberts-obama-20100706


37 posted on 11/30/2011 6:58:30 AM PST by IbJensen (What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Apparently you haven’t completed your ‘recovering’ phase.


38 posted on 11/30/2011 7:00:36 AM PST by IbJensen (What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TheGunny
"...against all enemies foreign and domestic."

You got that right brother. I took that oath so many times and never considered so deeply the domestic enemy part. Nowadays, I think it may be the most important part of the oath. Protecting the constitution from the domestic enemies. And probably like you, I take oaths very seriously. Even if I am retired from the military, I'm still obligated to the oath I took.
39 posted on 11/30/2011 7:01:29 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All

Would it have made any difference to the few nit-pickers here if I had indicated that Mr. Hennessy’s email was in fact an editorial. It is an editorial that is substantiated by news stories that have been trickled throughout this past year.


40 posted on 11/30/2011 7:04:27 AM PST by IbJensen (What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Why would you say that.


41 posted on 11/30/2011 7:09:09 AM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Who wrote this letter?

Hope its valid....


42 posted on 11/30/2011 7:12:54 AM PST by Former MSM Viewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia
Another really, really critical reason to make sure Obama is not re-elected ........ he'll probably have the chance to nominate two more Supremes if he stays on.

To me, that is the MOST critical reason. Supremes can continue to do damage years longer than the Presidents who appoint them.

43 posted on 11/30/2011 7:14:32 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Outside of ruling Obambicare unconstitutional,these are empty,meaningless threats and amount to absolutely zero.

Is he going to be removed from office as he should be? Nope.Nothing significant will happen to these poseurs who occupy the White House in the next year and while a concise summary, without actions this article is a waste of cyberspace.


44 posted on 11/30/2011 7:21:17 AM PST by Zman (Liberals: denying reality since Day One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

How is the mandate different from forcing SS and Medicare on us? You asked...

I say they are different, even though I question the constitutionality of all three...

SS and Medicare is a tax, in return for which you become eligible for retirement and medical benefits.

The mandate is forced purchase of an insurance product, for which you receive punishment if you refuse to purchase the mandated product. The IRS is empowered against you for your refusal to purchase.

There is no known limit on what the government could force you to purchase under a similar scheme. No limit on their power to punish you if you refuse, through the IRS.

I would add, SS and Medicare do have congressional involvement and oversight, whereas in the Obamacare bill the Secretary of HHS is virtually given carte blanche to do as they please.

Finally, the Court will hear arguments re: the bill forcing states to greatly expand Medicaid onto which the “newly insured” will be forced.

Does a state have no standing against doing whatever the feds order them to do? That would be a total reversal of the Founders intent. The feds were to be a creation by the states for the states purposes, not the other way around.

So, take note...more than the mandate will be ruled on.


45 posted on 11/30/2011 7:28:26 AM PST by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

You no doubt missed this:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-06/news/27069208_1_elena-kagan-conservative-bloc-swing-vote


46 posted on 11/30/2011 7:30:17 AM PST by IbJensen (What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

Read, damnit!


47 posted on 11/30/2011 7:31:09 AM PST by IbJensen (What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
I'd love to believe that the SCOTUS is actually doing all these things, but based on their prior history, I expect absolutely NOTHING to come of most of this. This is mostly wishful thinking. Roberts could start by telling Kagan that she must recuse herself from the 0bamacare case or he will exclude her, but I don't expect either to happen.
48 posted on 11/30/2011 7:32:21 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo

“Personal feelings have no place on the court. I have enough faith in Chief Justice Roberts and in Justice Alito and Scalia and Thomas and most of the rests to believe that any decisions striking down any of Obama’s policies will be made based on firm Constitutional grounds and not because Obama doesn’t like them.”

But who would enforce decisions that go against Hussein? It’s not likely that holder would do it—and that’s why hussein keeps him there.


49 posted on 11/30/2011 7:32:44 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: izzatzo

Sounds familiar. I believe it was posted here months ago.


50 posted on 11/30/2011 7:37:47 AM PST by goldi (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 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.

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