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

Skip to comments.

The Real Reason John Roberts (The Bum) Upheld ObamaCare?
American Thinker ^ | July 10, 2012 | Selwyn Duke

Posted on 07/10/2012 5:58:55 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer

It's now well-established that Chief Justice John Roberts had ulterior motives for upholding ObamaCare. The usual theories involve his being concerned about the Court's, or maybe even his own, losing respect by seeming to operate in a partisan manner. But, to ask what may appear a rhetorical question, why such concern about respect? Is it just vanity, the desire to be viewed as a font of temperance and intellectualism? Perhaps. But there actually could be a more tangible area of self-interest.

Before delving into that, however, I'll address something related that also may help clarify Roberts's personal self-interest motives. One factor perhaps underemphasized is the chief justice's concern with his legacy. That is, our civilization has long been drifting left, and if you're even mildly astute politically (this includes Roberts), you'll perceive this and may consider that the future -- and future history writers -- will be defined by leftism. (If you're unusually astute [this does not include Roberts], you understand that civilizations move through phases, and our current leftist one won't last forever.) Now, under this view, it's a given that we would eventually have nationalized health care, just as Europe does; if not today, then in five, ten, or fifteen years. And, if this is your perspective and you're concerned about your place in the history books, do you want to be known as the chief justice who struck down landmark legislation decades in coming? Do you want to be seen by tomorrow's socialist utopian majority as a Justice Brown (of "separate but equal" infamy) standing against the "wave of the future"?

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: court; healthcare; obamacare; roberts
The author makes a great point in the second half of the article. This is a must-read.
1 posted on 07/10/2012 5:59:08 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
"Roberts is not a “Machiavellian genius.” Roberts is a moral degenerate lifetime Washington D.C. politico, who is well known in the beltway to be borderline obsessed with his image. In other words, Chief Justice John Roberts emotionally operates on the same level as the average twelve year old girl, and just sold out not just the Republic, the Constitution and the entire American populace, but really the entire planet, because now that the United States is no more, the forces of evil will run absolutely rampant over the rest of the planet. And Roberts did it so that a bunch of coke-snorting sodomites and psychopaths in Georgetown will pretend to like him – for about five minutes." --Ann Barnhardt
2 posted on 07/10/2012 6:01:25 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Sorry, Selwyn Duke, this pig don’t fly.


3 posted on 07/10/2012 6:07:54 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic (ABO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
He knows that he and the other Black Robes enjoy their power at the pleasure of the executive branch. He knows that, conceivably, a president could get fed up with the Court, echo Andrew Jackson, and say (I'm paraphrasing), "The justices have made their decision; now let them enforce it."

I am not justifying what Roberts did; however, Obama has already committed several unlawful acts & disregarded/trampled the Constitution. I have no doubt that if the SCOTUS decision had gone against him, he would have thumbed his nose and said 'we're going ahead & implementing Obamacare anyway'.

If you don't believe he would do this, look what he did with his immigration ruling .... previously acknowledged it was something he couldn't do under our system of government, then when he thought he needed hispanic votes for re-election, he went ahead and did it anyway. The guy will stop at NOTHING - his 'end' justifies whatever means he needs to employ to get there.

4 posted on 07/10/2012 6:09:32 AM PDT by MissMagnolia (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

If you compromise values for the sake of respect, you lose both the values and the respect.


5 posted on 07/10/2012 6:17:16 AM PDT by newheart (At what point does policy become treason?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Robert will find out that neither side likes or respects
a traitor!


6 posted on 07/10/2012 6:20:12 AM PDT by Dr. Ursus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

The author goes on to harshly condemn this way of thinking. It helps to actually read the article.


7 posted on 07/10/2012 6:20:26 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
>>> He (Roberts) knows that he and the other Black Robes enjoy their power at the pleasure of the executive branch.

This is complete bullcr@p. Roberts personally killed Article III, because of ‘self-interest’.

One SINGLE vote by Roberts, and he expanded SC power to ‘rewrite’ a passed law. He interpreted the intent by playing with wordsmith. How is this not similar to guessing the hanging chads?

June 28th, 2012 will live in infamy because of him.

8 posted on 07/10/2012 6:25:40 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
“It's now well-established that Chief Justice John Roberts had ulterior motives for upholding ObamaCare.”

There are only two things we know about the Roberts decision.

1. Roberts originally said the law was unconstitutional and changed his position very late in the process.

2. Roberts' decision had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law or the silly “it is a tax, no not a tax” sophistry.

Roberts clearly had an ulterior motive. Some speculate that this ulterior motive was an altruistic concern for the reputation of the court and the ability of the court to retain its position of respect in the future. Others speculate it was Robert's concern for his own legacy.

I think it was pure unadulterated fear. It might have been for his personal safety. It might have been for his family. It might be that Roberts has things he does not want made public and is subject to blackmail.

The Obama Administration are Chicago thugs. They will do anything to get their way. They threatened Roberts and the court after the Citizens United ruling. They most certainly made threats prior to this ruling.

9 posted on 07/10/2012 6:32:00 AM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

I am wondering how Kagan was allowed to vote on healthcare since she was clearly involved the making and passing of it.


10 posted on 07/10/2012 6:37:19 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

My theory:

He got a threat that he couldn’t protect himself from,
perhaps to a family member, etc.


11 posted on 07/10/2012 6:42:02 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
roberts is a progressive and he did his part to shove the Republic into communism. We are better than him and any of these tyrants on the left... in both parties. We will defeat them... we must defeat them... Freedom and Liberty must win to survive. We can win this... but only if every one of YOU helps in the cause of the restoration of our once great Republic. Many of you already have. Many more need to.

LLS

12 posted on 07/10/2012 6:46:37 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

I did read the whole thing before I posted my caustic remark. The pig (argument) still doesn’t fly (excuse Benedict Arnold Roberts). Roberts proved one thing: he’s no Solomon, and his reputation is in tatters.


13 posted on 07/10/2012 6:48:46 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic (ABO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

No more SCOTUS nominees from the D.C. Circuit or D.C. Appeals Bench. State court judges only!


14 posted on 07/10/2012 6:52:10 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

good question and the conservative judges should have asked her that


15 posted on 07/10/2012 6:52:37 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
I have a somewhat different theory:


16 posted on 07/10/2012 6:54:10 AM PDT by InterceptPoint (TIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
This article is important because it focuses on the tenuous legitimacy of "Judicial Review." As you pointed out to another reply, it helps to read the article with an open mind - as Duke is not defending Roberts' decision, but merely probing for why the Chief Justice changed his vote.

What Duke contributes to the debate is the fact that "Judicial Review" is not a Constitutional principle, but the result of a Supreme Court decision (Marbury v. Madison) that stands as precedent only because it has never been challenged. Let that sink in for a moment - this presumed authority that the Supreme Court claimed for itself has never been tested in a showdown between cloth robes and real power. Not yet. FDR almost did it in the 1930s, and Selwyn Duke asserts that Obama has considered it this year. What about the next president, or the next?

Obamacare is a hugely important issue. But the looming possibility of a showdown over Judicial Review is much, much bigger.

17 posted on 07/10/2012 7:10:55 AM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

John Roberts can go to hell.


18 posted on 07/10/2012 7:13:03 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detective
You are right on that. Roberts is not the first to be threatened. Just saw a great clip yesterday by an insider who said that the Clintons were threatened not to make public the issue of Obama’s eligibility. (Person alleges they shot Kenneth Gwaltney, a friend of the Clintons, and then threatened to kill Chelsea.) And I'm convinced that many of the judges who threw out the eligibility issue on ridiculous grounds were also threatened. How do you save a republic where this goes on regularly?
19 posted on 07/10/2012 7:30:58 AM PDT by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: detective

I think it was pure unadulterated fear. It might have been for his personal safety. It might have been for his family. It might be that Roberts has things he does not want made public and is subject to blackmail.

The Obama Administration are Chicago thugs. They will do anything to get their way. They threatened Roberts and the court after the Citizens United ruling. They most certainly made threats prior to this ruling.

This is the only explanation that makes any sense.


20 posted on 07/10/2012 8:00:02 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Better the devil we can destroy than the Judas we must tolerate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

The main assumption of the article’s author Selwyn Duke is contained in his following quote: “ - - - He knows that he and the other Black Robes enjoy their power at the pleasure of the executive branch. “

Others, such as yours truly, see THE NINE SUPREMES as a legal Check and Balance on the other branches of Government.

This idea is not even mentioned by Selwyn The Duke.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_real_reason_john_roberts_upheld_obamacare.html#ixzz20EQyXhRw


21 posted on 07/10/2012 8:00:55 AM PDT by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Missouri gal
How do you save a republic where this goes on regularly?

Fight back that's how. Fight back dammit. Fight fire with fire if necessary. But never give in to these miscreants. Never.

Someone used The Godfather analogy earlier. I'll take it one further. Remember what Michael Corleone did to Tessio, Barzini, Moe Greene and Tattaglia? He never forgot who was behind the hit on his father and he paid them all back. And Roth too.

You give in to this kind of strong arming, they own you.

22 posted on 07/10/2012 8:10:29 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (My dog, yes. My wife, maybe. My gun....NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

We are better than him and any of these tyrants on the left... in both parties. We will defeat them... we must defeat them...

Are you serious???? I have seen some crazy things in my life but you are not even close. We are getting ready to elect the worst Republican, by the name of Romney, in history and you are saying we can beat these tyrants of the left when we are inviting them right in....Man that is crazy.


23 posted on 07/10/2012 8:17:35 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

It’s the most rational defense of John Roberts I’ve seen - and very possible. Good men know what we’re up against... Louis Freeh did a similar thing during the Clinton years. Sometimes ‘preserve and protect’ takes seeing chess moves three or four moves down the road.

That said I’m in that group of people who think the rule of law should NOT be the rule of lawyers... ever.


24 posted on 07/10/2012 8:31:05 AM PDT by GOPJ (Speak truth to lies - to ignorance. Speak honesty to the corrupt . Stand-up to liberal elite liars..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Horsecrap.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court put his hand on the Bible and Swore to God to uphold the Constitution.

Then he changed his mind and decided to put other interests ahead of those he swore to uphold.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what his motives were.


25 posted on 07/10/2012 8:42:16 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
I am not going to help the gop/e or romney in any way and I am fighting against all of the powers of evil that we face... in BOTH parties. Call me crazy... I could not care less... they called Washington crazy... they called Madison crazy... the left calls all of our Founders crazy... how about that Nathan Hale fellow? How dare we try to stand up to tyranny. I will on my sacred honor... fight them politically until they kill me or we attain Victory. If they send a war machine after us... I will not bend. What will you do to help those of us that refuse to surrender or quit?

LLS

26 posted on 07/10/2012 9:02:59 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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