Replies

Thanks to LucyT who located this explanation posted by David:

I analyze laws for a living. Absent ambiguity, there are very few instances when “legislative intent” is presumed to trump the actual letter of the law.
Not only is that a correct rule as a generalization, but the Supreme Court has historically not only refused to rewrite legislation on this basis, the Court has specifically refused to consider legislative intent to interpret legislation.
MORE IMPORTANT! Everyone should write the House and Senate Judiciary committees asking for immediate action on the following issue. If you have a Senator or Member on Judiciary, write them a direct letter. The threat that Justice Roberts is subject to personal pressure merits review and consideration by Congress.
Three years ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast the tie-breaking vote in a ruling that saved President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform.
As everyone is aware, there is extensive gossip in the political community to the effect that Roberts and his wife have only two children who were adopted.
They were purportedly born in a foreign jurisdiction and there were in place legal constraints that effectively precluded US persons from adopting children born there under the circumstances of the Roberts adoption.
So to avoid those restrictions, the adoption was accomplished through the device of a third country system. Whether or not the third country worked to accomplish an effective adoption or not is not clear from the level of gossip in circulation.
The presumed threat is that the Roberts’ could lose their two children several years down the road from the initial adoption events.
The end consequence of this condition, as reported by loose talk and political gossip, is that Roberts’ vote on Obamacare was leveraged by the zero in the White House to uphold legislation that everyone knows is unconstitutional on its face.
I do not know what, if any, merit, substance, or facts exist to support the gossip.
I think it is and was the obligation of the Senate Judiciary Committee to know stuff like this. The gossip alone, unrefuted that it is by any authoritative response, affects confidence in our Constitutional process.
What should be done is that House Judiciary should immediately schedule a hearing on the issue and subpoena Justice Roberts to explain the actual facts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3264217/posts?page=17#17