Why John Roberts (Likely) Is Protecting Obamacare…

[DefiantSix]

Why John Roberts (Likely) Is Protecting Obamacare…
JANUARY 9, 2014 BY DR. KEVIN "COACH" COLLINS

On Monday, without comment (because he could not make a coherent one),  Chief Justice John Roberts denied a request by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA for a stay in the implementation of Obamacare. The groups had made their application last Friday, arguing that since the bill had been declared a tax by the Supreme Court (with Justice Roberts himself the deciding vote), and it had originated in the Senate (the Constitution says revenue bills may not originate), the law was therefore unconstitutional; and implementation of Obamacare  should at least be stayed pending further examination.

While there are other minor issues attached to the application that were also not addressed, the truth of the matter is clear: John Roberts will never do anything to derail Obamacare, no matter what arguments against it are brought before him.

There is very good reason to believe that regardless of the media’s skillful smothering of the story, John Roberts is being blackmailed to make certain Obamacare never falls in a Supreme Court case. The basis of this charge surrounds the fact that a series of strange (and probably felonious) acts are attached to the adoption of his two children.

In 2005, when they thought they were doing the Democrats’ bidding, the New York Times dug into apparently easily accessible records and found that the children Roberts and his wife adopted in “South America” started life as Irish citizens. This is a red flag. The laws of Ireland regarding adoptions are very clear: adoptions by non-citizens are prohibited, as are private adoptions.

Apparently, when the Democrats realized they could control a Supreme Court Justice’s vote through blackmail over his having committed a number of international crimes, the Times pulled back and dropped its investigation. The Democrat paper of record pulled back because it didn’t want to “ break the seal of an adoption case” – as if violating laws ever means anything to Democrats in their quest for power. Keep in mind Barack Obama’s violation of his opponents’ “sealed” divorce records propelled him to a US Senate seat.

<snip>

If true, this is very disconcerting. It also explains a great deal.

[Gina]

It is something I believed from the verdict.  They have something on him.

[DefiantSix]

It is something I believed from the verdict.  They have something on him.

If there's any veracity to this, he's looking at human trafficking, kidnapping and conspiracy charges. And it would be just like the Regime to use it for blackmail, rather than prosecute his corrupt ass for it.

What I want to know is whether George W. knew, and what the **** he thought was going to happen if he did...

[Big Dog]

Ummm.... no. A shadowy, unprovable conspiracy involving blackmailed Supreme Court justices and kidnapped Irish babies is not necessary to explain Roberts' decision. The truth is simpler: the facts of the case do not support the allegation. The Supreme Court can refuse cert for any reason, or no reason, and noting the facts are not as they were presented in the briefs is a pretty good reason.

Article I, Section 5 (clause 2) of the US Constitution says of Congress, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings". Keep that in mind as you read on, my friends.

The first bill in the Obamacare saga was House Resolution (HR) 3590, which was written to grant tax relief for military members who bought or owned houses. The Senate retitled the bill, and replaced the language of the bill with the first Obamacare language, but kept the bill number - all of which was allowed under the Senate Rules. The Senate Rules had no limitation on how much of a bill could be rewritten, so Harry Reed took full advantage of it.

The new bill, HR 3590 "As Amended", was passed in the Senate with zero Republican votes, then sent back to the House. The House passed the "as amended " bill with zero Republican votes. A lot happened along the way, but you know the story as well as  I do.

Since the original lawsuit was based on the premise that Obamacare originated in the Senate, and the fact is that it originated in the House, the Supreme Court was correct to reject the appeal.

And here we are. All of us are suffering from King Hussein's Folly.

[DefiantSix]

Afraid I have to disagree with you, Big Dog. Yes, it's unprovable. Yes, the fact that it originated at the New York Times of all places makes it a bit more suspect than usual. (I would be less leery of this article if it was the Enquirer making the accusation.)

But even with granting all of that, Roberts' behavior vis-a-vis the ObamaCare cases that have gone before the court do not jibe  with the man's history and record. Even his own Majority opinion on ObamaCare;'s constitutionality doesn't jibe with his actual vote on the matter.

For all the reasons I mentioned above, I do not and have not said that this article is the truth. However, the supposition within it's paragraphs have come a lot closer to explaining why John Roberts did the utterly unexplainable with his ObamaCare votehan anything else I've seen.

[Dori]

Article I, Section 5 (clause 2) of the US Constitution says of Congress, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings". Keep that in mind as you read on, my friends.

The first bill in the Obamacare saga was House Resolution (HR) 3590, which was written to grant tax relief for military members who bought or owned houses. The Senate retitled the bill, and replaced the language of the bill with the first Obamacare language, but kept the bill number - all of which was allowed under the Senate Rules. The Senate Rules had no limitation on how much of a bill could be rewritten, so Harry Reed took full advantage of it.

The new bill, HR 3590 "As Amended", was passed in the Senate with zero Republican votes, then sent back to the House. The House passed the "as amended " bill with zero Republican votes. A lot happened along the way, but you know the story as well as  I do.

This sounds so underhanded.  Do we know how many times this charade has been played?

[Big Dog]

This sounds so underhanded.  Do we know how many times this charade has been played?

I don't know, Dori.

I agree that it is underhanded, but it is neither unconstitutional nor illegal.