Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare?

[longknife]

I've seen this allegation at about three different websites, one a “freedom” discussion forum. I cannot say this is true and am only posting it as a possible in the Conspiracy Theory realm. Read it @ Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare? - Patriot Action Network

While this is an UNFOUNDED ALLEGATION, it is still very disturbing. If the chief judicial figure of this country can be blackmailed into making a decision affecting every one of us, what does that mean for future decisions that affect each and every one of us with our freedoms and rights?

While many will claim this is nothing but rubbish, it is still something we cannot ignore.

 

[phoenyx]

I've seen this allegation at about three different websites, one a “freedom” discussion forum. I cannot say this is true and am only posting it as a possible in the Conspiracy Theory realm. Read it @ Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare? - Patriot Action Network

While this is an UNFOUNDED ALLEGATION, it is still very disturbing. If the chief judicial figure of this country can be blackmailed into making a decision affecting every one of us, what does that mean for future decisions that affect each and every one of us with our freedoms and rights?

While many will claim this is nothing but rubbish, it is still something we cannot ignore.

Quite interesting. I'm left wing, but I don't support Obama Care. Essentially, I don't believe that anyone should be forced to pay for health care by a means other then taxation. Here in Canada, health care is paid for by taxes; if you're poor, you actually get your taxes re-inbursed

 

[Thoreau72]

Of course he COULD be blackmailed, but the question is WAS he? I have no idea, but Madison's dream of the federal judiciary being the last bulwark against tyranny was but a pipe dream, and there is precious little empirical evidence 200 years later to support Madison's hopes.

I read the article linked, but did not see anything to suggest a blackmail. Did I miss something?

 

[phoenyx]

Of course he COULD be blackmailed, but the question is WAS he? I have no idea, but Madison's dream of the federal judiciary being the last bulwark against tyranny was but a pipe dream, and there is precious little empirical evidence 200 years later to support Madison's hopes.

I read the article linked, but did not see anything to suggest a blackmail. Did I miss something?

The linked article wasn't the complete article. The complete article is here:
How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare

Here's the rest of the complete article, starting from where the originally linked article left off; I take out one piece that I don't agree with, however. Regardless of whether what Roberts did was technically legal in Ireland, if the birth mothers gave their children up for adoption, I think that morally speaking, it's alright. There is a caveat here, however; there is no mention of the children's fathers; I'd want to know whether they had any objections to the adoptions. Anyway:

***
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"...

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.
***

I don't see a smoking gun here; there is no hard evidence that Roberts changed his decision because of this. Nor do I find it certain that if this evidence were more widely circulated that it would necessarily lead to his impeachment. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that Roberts may have been told that it would be more widely circulated if he didn't pass Obama's health care legislation and also possible that he didn't want to gamble as to what would happen to his position as Chief Justice if that happened.

 

[Fisher]

so he was blakmailed for adopting 2 kids? :screwy:inandout:

 

[phoenyx]

so he was blakmailed for adopting 2 kids? :screwy:inandout:

How much of this thread did you actually read?

 

[Fisher]

How much of this thread did you actually read?

all of it. in what world would somebody be impeached for having the audacity to actually figure out a way to adopt two kids that the parents wanted them to be able to adopt? There appears to be nothing at all illegal about what he did.

 

[Perotista]

Of course he COULD be blackmailed, but the question is WAS he? I have no idea, but Madison's dream of the federal judiciary being the last bulwark against tyranny was but a pipe dream, and there is precious little empirical evidence 200 years later to support Madison's hopes.

I read the article linked, but did not see anything to suggest a blackmail. Did I miss something?

The judiciary is just as politicized as congress and the rest. The judges have to have the right political beliefs of what ever party/president that nominates him. They have their agenda just like every other politician. Madison dream went out the window with most of the justices not paying any attention to original intent of the framers.

 

[MaggieD]

The linked article wasn't the complete article. The complete article is here:
How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare

Here's the rest of the complete article, starting from where the originally linked article left off; I take out one piece that I don't agree with, however. Regardless of whether what Roberts did was technically legal in Ireland, if the birth mothers gave their children up for adoption, I think that morally speaking, it's alright. There is a caveat here, however; there is no mention of the children's fathers; I'd want to know whether they had any objections to the adoptions. Anyway:

***
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"...

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.
***

I don't see a smoking gun here; there is no hard evidence that Roberts changed his decision because of this. Nor do I find it certain that if this evidence were more widely circulated that it would necessarily lead to his impeachment. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that Roberts may have been told that it would be more widely circulated if he didn't pass Obama's health care legislation and also possible that he didn't want to gamble as to what would happen to his position as Chief Justice if that happened.

This is the kind of **** we should ignore. It might have . . . it could have . . . maybe they . . . it's all bull****. To drag a loving adoption process through baloney is just plain wrong. He adopted the children while they were in South America. Irish? Latin American? It's nobody's business but, possibly (and hardly likely) Ireland's. Period. End of story.

 

[phoenyx]

How much of this thread did you actually read?

all of it. in what world would somebody be impeached for having the audacity to actually figure out a way to adopt two kids that the parents wanted them to be able to adopt? There appears to be nothing at all illegal about what he did.

Alright, you say you read all of it. Can you cite what Irish law says about private adoptions and/or adopting to someone who's not a resident of Ireland?

 

[samsmart]

I've seen this allegation at about three different websites, one a “freedom” discussion forum. I cannot say this is true and am only posting it as a possible in the Conspiracy Theory realm. Read it @ Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare? - Patriot Action Network

While this is an UNFOUNDED ALLEGATION, it is still very disturbing. If the chief judicial figure of this country can be blackmailed into making a decision affecting every one of us, what does that mean for future decisions that affect each and every one of us with our freedoms and rights?

While many will claim this is nothing but rubbish, it is still something we cannot ignore.

This is quite weird.

Conservatives are digging for wrongdoing by Chief Justice Roberts to try to find out what possible wrongdoings of his liberals could have dug in order to assign wrongdoing to liberals.

Weird.

 

[phoenyx]

This is quite weird.

Conservatives are digging for wrongdoing by Chief Justice Roberts to try to find out what possible wrongdoings of his liberals could have dug in order to assign wrongdoing to liberals.

Weird.

If by weird you mean that the logic is a little complicated, I'd agree. Nevertheless, when dealing with national politics of the U.S,, I'd think it stands to reason that things can get a little complicated.

 

[samsmart]

If by weird you mean that the logic is a little complicated, I'd agree. Nevertheless, when dealing with national politics of the U.S,, I'd think it stands to reason that things can get a little complicated.

No, it's not complicated. It's weird.

Conservatives are so partisan and expect conservative officials to be in such lockstep with GOP ideology that they can't help but think that liberals found wrongdoing on our Chief Justice who did not follow party ideology on a law, and are now investigating him for wrongdoing to find out what liberals held over his head.

That's not complicated. That's weird, and to an absurd degree. And it also highlights how self-destructive the American right-wing is.

 

[phoenyx]

No, it's not complicated. It's weird.

Conservatives are so partisan and expect conservative officials to be in such lockstep with GOP ideology that they can't help but think that liberals found wrongdoing on our Chief Justice who did not follow party ideology on a law, and are now investigating him for wrongdoing to find out what liberals held over his head.

That's not complicated. That's weird, and to an absurd degree. And it also highlights how self-destructive the American right-wing is.

I'm left wing, so I can't be accused of being part of any right wing thinking here. I think that you'll find that when it comes down to it, there are few people who are immune to blackmail. Now, I'm not saying that there's concrete proof that John Roberts was blackmailed; I'm only saying that it's possible.

 

[samsmart]

I'm left wing, so I can't be accused of being part of any right wing thinking here. I think that you'll find that when it comes down to it, there are few people who are immune to blackmail. Now, I'm not saying that there's concrete proof that John Roberts was blackmailed; I'm only saying that it's possible.

Which brings up the question of which possibility is more likely to be true- that a Chief Justice chose to forego conservative ideological purity and make what he felt was an objective ruling on a law, which is what judicial officials are supposed to do, or that liberals found out about this shady adoption and thought they could blackmail the highest judicial official in our country who serves for life or until impeached by the House, which is composed by a majority of conservatives, into voting one way on a particular law?

 

[Ray410]

Robert's leap across the aisle was so out of character and so diametrically opposed to his former constitutional positions, we deserve a truthful explanation of why he turned. Until that honest explanation is forthcoming, Roberts should expect to hear questions with the words "Bribed or Blackmailed." He has gone from a highly respected figure to one of outright disgust.

Additionally, it is common knowledge that the Liberals believe that any means justifies their end goals; Lying, cheating, stealing, whatever. If the Liberals have no qualms about selling out their own country to be advance their programs, why should they care about the integrity of the Supreme Court?

 

[phoenyx]

Which brings up the question of which possibility is more likely to be true- that a Chief Justice chose to forego conservative ideological purity and make what he felt was an objective ruling on a law, which is what judicial officials are supposed to do, or that liberals found out about this shady adoption and thought they could blackmail the highest judicial official in our country who serves for life or until impeached by the House, which is composed by a majority of conservatives, into voting one way on a particular law?

It's a good question. I don't know the answer.

 

[phoenyx]

Robert's leap across the aisle was so out of character and so diametrically opposed to his former constitutional positions, we deserve a truthful explanation of why he turned. Until that honest explanation is forthcoming, Roberts should expect to hear questions with the words "Bribed or Blackmailed." He has gone from a highly respected figure to one of outright disgust.

Additionally, it is common knowledge that the Liberals believe that any means justifies their end goals; Lying, cheating, stealing, whatever. If the Liberals have no qualms about selling out their own country to be advance their programs, why should they care about the integrity of the Supreme Court?

Being left wing, I'm more inclined to believe the right wing exemplifies those qualities. That being said, I think both sides are actually pretty bad. As an example, both Bush and Obama bailed out the banks for billions of dollars, leaving the tax payer with the bill and nothing to show for it. The banks should have been nationalized if the government was going to bail them out in my view.

 

[Fisher]

Alright, you say you read all of it. Can you cite what Irish law says about private adoptions and/or adopting to someone who's not a resident of Ireland?

It does not matter what Irish law says. If the parents went to South America and did it there, Irish law has no jurisdiction over the adoption because the adoption occurred elsewhere. They used a straw party nation.

 

[phoenyx]

It does not matter what Irish law says. If the parents went to South America and did it there, Irish law has no jurisdiction over the adoption because the adoption occurred elsewhere. They used a straw party nation.

Do you know if any punishment would apply to the mothers who travelled to South America to have their children adopted? Anyway, Is Obama's Health Care bill still valid after this?:
Obamacare now invalid because tax bills must originate in House - Manchester Independent | Examiner.com

 

[Fisher]

Do you know if any punishment would apply to the mothers who travelled to South America to have their children adopted? Anyway, Is Obama's Health Care bill still valid after this?:
Obamacare now invalid because tax bills must originate in House - Manchester Independent | Examiner.com

No clue, but I doubt public sentiment would have allowed him to be impeached over an adoption even if he had smuggled the children out of Russia in one of his body cavities, flown to Mexico and carried them across the border on his shoulders. Obamacare is the law for now either way. I suspect once it goes into full effect and people actually get the standing to challenge the law as it applies to them, there will be other chances for the Court to re-examine it.

 

[Thoreau72]

Certainly Roberts is vulnerable. As an attorney he must have known that he was in violation of the Irish law. Whether the law is just or not is another matter, but it does not look good for a Mister Justice to be a scofflaw, though such evidence can be found on several of them.

Roberts' reasoning in the decision blew everybody's mind, as mentioned by several posters here. It came out of the blue, and classifying it as a tax voids it since tax bills must originate in the House.

If he was in Florida advising the Bush Gang on tactics and strategy for the 2000 election debacle, the odds are he is a crook of some sort.

Kinda funny it would be over adoption, but politics always leads to strange bed fellows. :lol:

 

[phoenyx]

Do you know if any punishment would apply to the mothers who travelled to South America to have their children adopted? Anyway, Is Obama's Health Care bill still valid after this?:
Obamacare now invalid because tax bills must originate in House - Manchester Independent | Examiner.com

No clue, but I doubt public sentiment would have allowed him to be impeached over an adoption even if he had smuggled the children out of Russia in one of his body cavities, flown to Mexico and carried them across the border on his shoulders. Obamacare is the law for now either way. I suspect once it goes into full effect and people actually get the standing to challenge the law as it applies to them, there will be other chances for the Court to re-examine it.

I don't claim to know whether public sentiment would have allowed it or not. I'm only offering it as a possibility. As to challenging it, from the looks of the link from Examiner.com, it's already been stricken down as invalid. I'm sure someone here would know more on this, that article is almost 7 months old.

 

[longknife]

Now you see why I posted it in Conspiracy Theory!

 

[phoenyx]

Now you see why I posted it in Conspiracy Theory!

For sure. I have no evidence to suggest that it's anything more then a theory at this time. To be honest, even if true, it may be that he's come to the conclusion that the blackmail isn't strong enough to warrant his kow towing to it unconditionally, as his recent decision to essentially nullify Obama's health bill would seem to suggest.