Posted on 06/10/2013 12:44:11 PM PDT by TheMantis
During their discussion, Mr. Beck raised an intriguing possibility: Was Chief Justice John Roberts blackmailed by the Obama regime into changing his ruling on Obamacare at the last minute? Given what he knows about the NSA, Mr. Binney couldn't rule such a thing out.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
But who is the Big Brother?
Though BHO seems to be quite shrewd and self-serving, I can't believe he is smart enough to be or to operate the agency behind the scenes that is gathering/digesting/applying the snoop product.
Who/what is his handler (other than Valerie Jarrett, that is)? Though he were deposed by some legitimate process, one will not have even begun to get to the bottom of the apparatus exposed in Illinois, eh?
Better that he remain in place for the time, the corrent machine be negated, and that he come to heel to a better, more benign control center. Hmmmm.
Roberts messed up the pledge at 0bama’s first inaugural, requiring a secret ceremony later. He may have been “turned” all along.
Are you smarter than Mark Levin on the US Constitution and History?
I really want to believe you but, that seems far-fetched.
The blackmail angle is more believable.
John Roberts’s ObamaCare decision is a continuing mystery.
He didn’t change his decision ‘’at the last minute’’ in the sense that there was little time for the other justices to study his final, convoluted opinion. They had as much time as necessary to decide if they agreed or disagreed with it.
So why was Justice Scalia incensed by it? He was more than capable of interpreting Justice Roberts’s intricate web of reasoning if it had made any sense, yet he didn’t understand it; and neither did the other Conservative justices. To these brilliant legal minds, it was nothing but a mystifying betrayal, and how can anyone argue with them?
As for the blackmail explanation, it’s a serious crime to attempt to bribe or threaten a judge. So it’s also a serious crime on the part of a judge not to make public such attempts and bring charges against the perpetrators.
How would Justice Roberts have been hurt if he’d publicly accused the Obama Administration of blackmailing him? If his children had been threatened, they’d be safer than ever once the evil blackmail goings-on had been revealed.
In addition, by breaking the law by refusing to charge his blackmailers with their crime, Justice Roberts would be opening himself to further blackmail attempts. Why wouldn’t he have spoken out?
This will be an interesting subject for future historians to ponder once Obama and his secret police have lost their power.
Even if he has something on so many people, these effin people should be willing to sacrifce themselves for the greater good of this great country and come out with it. If enough people come out with being blackmailed, that is the ultimate ammo to take these scum down.
Morever, if it ever comes out that high level people were blackmailed, and did nothing, these so called “victims” should be burned at the stake for not coming forward in the first place!!
oh god...
here we go again..
the roberts decision did more to restore constitutional rights than ANY other ruling in over 80 years..
just to let you all know..
roberts is not a conservative..
roberts is a federalist...
sometimes, you make a tactical decision that looks bad on paper, only to have this decision win the war....
one more year, and fubocare is history, hell, even the unions will be fighting it..
if it is not done away with outright..
if I am wrong, I will stand corrected, but..
2 out of 3 of his major points in his ruling are already being used by the states...
those that are calling him a traitor probably have IQ’s that barely reach into the double digits..
or they are listening to rush, hannit, levin, etc...
in other words, instead of reading the bill and the ruling, they would just allow others to make up their minds for them...
in other words, lazy...
Of course he was blackmailed. As far as I have read it had to do with his adopted children.
But, Oh, how I wish he had come out with his statement at that time! Even if it meant he had dirt on his hands.
I don’t think it was so serious that it would have disqualified him as a justice of the Surpreme Court, however.
Very good analysis. Thanks.
I hope you are right.
they did’nt meet qualifications and approval to remove the kids from Ireland. the kids were sent to a 3rd world country and then he took possession of them to sidestep Irish laws
ugh...
Can anyone in our government just be a law abiding person?
http://healthcarelawsuits.org/detail.php?c=2171284&;
26 states now suing HHS
(Importantly, this has been going on for a long time. Here is an article from 1994.)
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1994/12/bg1011nbsp-home-rule-how-states
Home Rule: How States Are Fighting Unfunded Federal Mandates
It’s not just me and Mark Levin at odds on this. There are large groups of intelligent conservatives on both sides. That is, one group think that Roberts pulled off a huge home run; and the other group thinks he lost his mind or something (including blackmail, now).
It’s important to be aware of both arguments, based on what is going to happen. Had none of the current scandals happened it would have been clearer, but right now the Democrats are swimming in a pool with a bunch of Great White Shark Republicans, who smell blood in the water.
We’ll only know for sure if the next congress has both the house and senate run by Republicans. If they kill Obamacare, Roberts was right. If the Democrats can save it by blocking them, Roberts was wrong.
It was by far one of the most poorly reasoned and at times contradictory decisions I’ve ever seen.
I honestly still think Roberts originally wrote the dissent as the majority opinion. When he split, the other four decided to just leave it as the now dissenting opinion (even though it reads like a majority opinion) just to stick it to Roberts.
I’ve thought this from day one.
Somebody got to him. It’s really the only thing that explains it.
The tax reason is contradicted by his own opinion that it wasn’t a tax and therefore the Anti Injunction Act did not apply.
But it was all he could do to uphold it by a thread without embracing Congressional authority or the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause.
He did manage to gut the enforcement provision by declaring that “it is not unlawful to not purchase health indurance.”
It’s clear that the original penalties for failure to purchase were ripped from the bill.
Ultimately this may be the point where the law unravels. We shall see.
Yes, because it simply compels limitations on what the Federal Government can do to/for us and he thinks it should also, or instead should mandate what it should do to/for us. He also thinks everything should just be black and white with no shades of gray. Us older people want more shades of gray to match our hair and our silver sneakers!!!
Try to keep up now and follow along, ok??? What was your question Ray???
No question. Just agreeing with your statement.
>> He’s full of poisonous resentment over the way this country was not founded on the correct ideas... ideas taught him by professors in his affirmative (action) educational process of becoming a constitutional expert!!!
And thank you for agreeing with my analysis of the resentful radical in the whitehouse. I was just gettin a little silly with the "follow along" stuff cause it's gittin close to my bed time here in the Schwartzenrenegger Sierra-Nevada CONservancy.
I don’t think so.first off, Kennedy does NOT always break the wrong way in 5-4 decisions.
See US v. Printz (most important federalism case in many decades striking down part of the Brady Bill which required state law enforcement agencies to conduct background checks on gun purchases)
All cases below were 5-4.
See US v. Lopez (commerce clause-striking down the gun free school zone act)
See US v. Morrison (commerce clause- striking own the violence against women act)
See DC v. Heller (2nd Amendment an individual right)
See Chicago v. McDonald (applies 2A to states via 14th A)
He also voted twice (once in minority and once in majority) to uphold bans on partial birth abortion.
There are others but to say he is a reliable vote for the left isn’t correct.
Furthermore, evidently the vote in private chambers was to strike down the individual mandate with Roberts in the majority.
Kennedy could easily have joined the left and assigned himself authorship since he would have had seniority amongst the five on the left.
He was appointed by Reagan and would have been alongside two zero appointees and two Clinton appointees.
I get your theory and don’t disagree with you about him being an egomaniac.
But Kennedy was nearly as harsh on the government during oral arguments as Scalia and Alito.
Honestly after listening I felt better about our chances with Kennedy than Roberts, although I did think Roberts would go our way.
And the poison pills are true. If they don’t kill us (by allowing zerocare to suffer a slow painful death) then the law may die of its own accord and the republic actually survive.
We shall see.
BTTT.....just heard that Roberts says justices are too aggressive when questioning lawyers and is advising lawyers not to answer the justices’ questions. Is there any doubt he’s being blackmailed? Is there not a better reason to impeach him?
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.