I apologize to the members here for reproducing research I originally presented "elsewhere", but I figure members here might find these facts of interest, and this story did get serious traction across the blogosphere, and sites such as "WhatReallyHappened.com" (http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/how-roberts-was-blackmailed-support-obamacare) and "BeforeItsNews.com" (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/01/unraveling-the-mystery-behind-chief-justice-roberts-sudden-switch-to-rule-in-favor-of-obamacare-2488814.html)
_____________________________
How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCareINTRO:Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/cbs-roberts-switched-vote-on-health-care/1#.UQePFvJLqSo), and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent.
According to some sources, Roberts wrote both the majority and a large portion of minority dissenting opinions. The liberal news outlet Salon.com has a story on July 3, 2012,
"Roberts Wrote Both ObamaCare Opinions" (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/roberts_wrote_both_obamacare_opinions/), written by law professor Paul Campos, citing "a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process."
In this Salon article, Campos rejects the claim that the conservative minority wrote the dissenting opinion in response to Roberts' majority opinion. Instead Campos' source indicates that Roberts authored as much as the "first 46 pages" of the dissent, a full 70%, originally intended to be the majority opinion entirely rejecting ObamaCare. Only after Roberts switched his vote at the last minute did the remaining four Justices author the final 19 pages of that dissenting opinion.
In support of this, Campos points out that it is extraordinary "in the court's history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting", and yet there are repeated references to dissent from the majority opinion in those last 19 pages.
These facts may answer that question.
Roberts Adoptions:In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were "from a Latin American country", but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish. Why this matters will become evident.
In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush. The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate the anonymity of the adoption process... however there is more to the story.
Drudge did an article in 2005
http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-investigating-robertss-adoption-records/ (http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-investigating-robertss-adoption-records/)
- The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts' two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's "standard background check."
Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."
Were the Children Adopted from Ireland?This is not clear ... -- the Associated Press (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/12173106.htm) 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 (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html)
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, (http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/NYTimes0705%20Roberts.htm) 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 (http://www.ffpa.org/faq.php4), "[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 (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html)
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 (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4915939/site/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts_Supreme_Court_nomination#Adoption_records) 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".
Some might feel an impulse dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home.
That would be an inaccurate belief. As recognized, such an inter-country adoption would only come about at great cost, and those who utilize this method are creating a for-profit black market in adoptive children, trafficking across international borders, and doing so from mothers who have not yet given up their children except for that profit. Such actions are creating a very unsavory profit-for-children human trafficking market that even
necessitates immediate contact with new birth mothers in dire circumstances to offer financial gain. The entire arrangement is thoroughly predatory, turning children into only financial commodity, and even providing motivation for their birth mothers to give them up! That's an important ethical recognition.
Roberts is not deserving of any sort of respect here, and is only the latest example of people in position believing themselves above the law, beyond scrutiny and exempt from repercussion.
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.
The only weak point in my original post, above, beyond actual proof of blackmail, was my understanding of
Irish Adoption Law. However an overview of widespread Irish Adoption laws do bear out the assertions.
Reference: Overview of Ireland Adoption Law (PDF) (http://www.adoptionpolicy.org/pdf/eu-ireland.pdf)
The above document makes the following statements:
- "The responsibility for making adoption orders is vested in the Irish Adoption Board, An Bord Uchtala. Before a final adoption order is made, the child usually is placed with the future adopter(s) by one of Ireland's Registered Adoption Societies." [page 1]
Who may adopt?
- ... "While the Irish acts do not require the applicants have Irish nationality or an Irish domicile, the applicants must be ordinarily resident in Ireland or have resident there during the year ending on the date of the order."[Page 4]
Adoption Authorities:
- "The adoption process in Ireland is regulated by the Adoption Board -- the An Bord Uchtala -- which consists of a Chairman and eight members. THe Adoption Board is an independent, quasi-judicial statutory body appointed by the Irish Government. It has the sole right to grant or refuse to grant adoption orders. The Board is also responsible for granting the declarations of eligibility and suitability to prospective adopters in advance of their adopting abroad and for maintaining the Register of Foreign Adoptions in which the details of intercountry adoptions are entered." [Page 4]
- "Before an adoption agency can accept a child for adoption, the person proposing to give the child up must be furnished with a statement explaining the effect of adoption order upon his or her rights and the provisions of the adoption acts relating to consents. An agreement to place the child with prospective adopters must be signed prior to the signing of consent. The agreement to place must have been made freely, with full knowledge of the consequences, and under circumstances where neither the advice of persons engaged in the transaction nor the surrounding circumstances deprive the mother of the capacity to make a fully informed free decision. In particular an agreement to place is "not valid if motivated by fear, stress or anxiety or dictated by parents or deprivations."[Page 7]
There are no private adoptions.All adoptions go through the government board, An Bord Uchtala.John Roberts was not ordinarily resident in Ireland, and was not resident there for the year ending on the date of an order that never passed through the Uchtala Board!Furthermore, it is doubtful that Robert's adoption afforded the adopting mothers (two) an environment that fully informed each of them of their rights, and was free of stress, anxiety, coercion and "deprivations". In fact it is virtually certain that the process involved removing two children and their respective mothers from Ireland, and any support structure they might have had there, not to mention removing them from the purview of Irish law!
This whole thing is highly illegal and unethical, and undeniably exposes Roberts to blackmail!
The below image is taken at the White House Tuesday July 22, 2005, when G. W. Bush introduced John Roberts as his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court. Appearing with Roberts and Bush, to the right, are Robert's wife Jane, and their two adopted children, Josie (Josephine) and Jack.
The four J's: John, Jane, Josie and Jack.
The Washington Post covered the story with an article titled, "An Image a Little Too Carefully Coordinated" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102347.html), in which the author engages in a rather unsavory vivisection of the Roberts family conservative attire.
Perhaps the Post's article title was even more apropos than they knew!
(Pool Photo By Shawn Thew)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia3.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Fphoto%2F2005%2F07%2F21%2FPH2005072102348.jpg&hash=700f9344800eaed9aac23ff099533236878dec0d)
Playing Devil's Advocate; the reality is, assertion is not proof.
If true, did Roberts break Gaelic Law (not Irish) or instead ignore a precedent of a foreign country???
If this was impeachable then, why is it not impeachable now???
Wouldn't Roberts, as a sitting Federal Justice, have enough gravitas w/the Dublin Bar and in their
Dail (Parliament) to adopt in the normal course w/o all this chicanery???
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 14, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
Playing Devil's Advocate; the reality is, assertion is not proof.
If true, did Roberts break Gaelic Law (not Irish) or instead ignore a precedent of a foreign country???
If this was impeachable then, why is it not impeachable now???
Wouldn't Roberts, as a sitting Federal Justice, have enough gravitas w/the Dublin Bar and in their
Dail (Parliament) to adopt in the normal course w/o all this chicanery???
The indication that the births occurred in Ireland came from the Roberts family and sources close thereto in various different statements, as well as the indication the adoptions occurred from "latin Americna countries". The only thing that "assertion" applies to is a de facto proof of blackmail.
The phrase "Gaelic law" applies to common tradition passed down orally, not in statute manner, and represents the ancient civil "common law" tradition of the Irish people, applied only as late as the early 17th century. That is clearly not what is described in the second post in the "Overview of Ireland Adoption Law", which is not any sort of Gaelic oral tradiont at all, but rather Irish civil law, with references applicable to as recent as 2010.
It is impeachable now, and nowhere was it indicated not to be. And all that would be required to thoroughly discredit Roberts as a Justice of the Supreme Court, would be some 2nd hand leak, not even directly coming from the administration, with any piece(s) of concrete evidence about the adoptions, such as birth certificate, and adoption papers. It is pretty clear that the New York Times was not just nosing into the Roberts adoptions for a back story to the nomination, and that reporters there were onto something concrete, as merely "two adopted children" is not cause for any inquiry normally.
That's just it, Roberts was not a sitting Federal justice" at the time of the adoptions, and if Roberts was going through the Irish government he most certainly would certainly would not have to go through obscure channels of avoiding that Irish law, by adopting not one, but two Irish children through Latin American countries. You're not suggesting that Roberts should have received legitimate Irish government approval, and still would have gone through a Latin American country, are you?
Prior to the adoptions in 2000, John Roberts was working in private practice as a partner in Hogan & Hartson, as well as serving as an adjunct faculty member at the Georgetown University Law Center. As noted in previous comments, Roberts adoptions occurred in the midst of the contested 2000 election between George BUsh and Gore, in which Roberts consulted both George Bush, as well as governor Jeb Bush, on legal strategy, but was recognized to be distracted by the adoptions.
It seems that Roberts having adopted two newly Irish-born children through Latin American countries, strongly indicates what is clearly and substantially engaging in far more than mere "chicanery", and was bypassing Irish law by engaging in black market human trafficking thorough foreign countries to contravene that law, something entirely inappropriate for any citizen to do, not to mention cause to impeach a Justice.
However it is no small wonder with such willingness of Americans white-wash this clearly unethical and illegal behavior, why our own government officials feel so secure in so grossly violating our own Constitution, laws, and ethics with ObamaCare and other actions.
You spiraled off-axis. Roberts knew the Affordable Care Act was a flop and his yes-vote gave it the space to flop spectacularly in front of the entire Nation, which is what it's doing. We're watching a key Dem artillery-stockpile blow sky-high. They can never resurrect it to anything resembling this scale again. Plus his vote 'rescued' the integrity of the Court from its dangling-chad hangover.
Quote from: kit saginaw on July 14, 2013, 06:01:11 PM
You spiraled off-axis. Roberts knew the Affordable Care Act was a flop and his yes-vote gave it the space to flop spectacularly in front of the entire Nation, which is what it's doing. We're watching a key Dem artillery-stockpile blow sky-high. They can never resurrect it to anything resembling this scale again. Plus his vote 'rescued' the integrity of the Court from its dangling-chad hangover.
So Roberts had some ingenious long-term plan, to first write 70% of what later became the minority opinion, entirely rejecting ObamaCare, and instead chose single-handedly to be the deciding vote to validate it, when it cold have been entirely denied?
And in the meantime the country's economy is collapsing, jobs are being killed in the midst of the worst recession, people made unemployed, insurance companies going out of business, doctors leaving the profession, health care costs are escalating, and far more. All to watch a "key key Dem artillery stockpile" blow sky high?
And this is a good plan, some sort of brilliant idea, and not even greater cause to hang Roberts from the highest yardarm. along with the other four? This has all the 'brilliance' of amputating the rest of the body to save a hand.
This attempt to salvage Roberts' reputation, to protect some misplaced adulation for Roberts at evidently any cost, even the cost of the Truth and the facts, not to mention real outcome, while his opinion on the ObamaCare case is one of the most appalling pieces of judicial corruption and nonsense, is why we're losing this nation and our freedoms.
And as far as that "dangling chad hangover", the Court made the proper decision by not actually making the decision itself, but ruling that the if the vote count was going to be made by entirely different standards, then those standards had to be applied throughout the state of Florida, and the state was obligated to have the results by a date established by law. This was entirely the proper decision! The only "hangover" was the Democrats continuing to make excuses for their own failed attempt to alter the outcome of the election by entirely illegitimate means - selective sampling bias.
Quote from: kit saginaw on July 14, 2013, 06:01:11 PM
You spiraled off-axis. Roberts knew the Affordable Care Act was a flop and his yes-vote gave it the space to flop spectacularly in front of the entire Nation, which is what it's doing. We're watching a key Dem artillery-stockpile blow sky-high. They can never resurrect it to anything resembling this scale again. Plus his vote 'rescued' the integrity of the Court from its dangling-chad hangover.
You give him way too much credit.
He's just a traitor to Conservative principals, that's all.
Quote from: Solar on July 14, 2013, 06:51:40 PM
He's just a traitor to Conservative principals, that's all.
I dunno... sorta. He's basically stuck, without much Dem doomagoggery to shoot-down. So he'll probably serve-out his 'term' as a barely consequential figurehead.
If everything about the adoption was known in 2005, why would blackmail work in 2010?
Robert's decision doesn't matter. Obamacare will collapse on itself before it gets off the ground. Even the unions are going nuts.
The closer it gets to saying goodbye to Obama, the more democrats are going to turn on him. Honor among thieves only goes so far. Democrats aren't the type to jump on a grenade to save a comrade...especially when the comrade is almost finished.
One early concept of the SC / Roberts Obamacare ruling was the theory that Roberts was somehow trying to give the GOP a chance to defund it as a tax and budget concept.
I've always held out a little hope that there was a little patriotic nuance in his ruling, and not just pure treasonous RINO.
Otherwise, this adoption things is ridiculous.
Not enough there for blackmail to even be an option. Arcane thousand-year-old laws of pre-history; a professional political blackmailer wouldn't even bother.
Quote from: kramarat on July 15, 2013, 04:10:20 PM
If everything about the adoption was known in 2005, why would blackmail work in 2010?
Robert's decision doesn't matter. Obamacare will collapse on itself before it gets off the ground. Even the unions are going nuts.
The closer it gets to saying goodbye to Obama, the more democrats are going to turn on him. Honor among thieves only goes so far. Democrats aren't the type to jump on a grenade to save a comrade...especially when the comrade is almost finished.
The blackmail would work now, as opposed to 2005, because then Roberts was not a sitting justice of the Supreme Court.
In 2005 when the New York Times first stumbled upon this story, and obviously knew something was up, there was public dismay about the NYT having dug into something as personal as private adoptions, and it was publicly dropped. However we can be quite certain that the focus of the NYT was lost on many at the time, and particularly since Roberts own bio on even wikipedia points out the adoption concerns.
While most people would not find fault with the average person having made use of illegal adoption methods involving use of black market human trafficking, particularly since there is no claim of anyone being wronged, the same is not true for a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
As Chief Justice, no longer just a private citizen, and no longer just engaging in private law practice, Roberts is in fact obligated to have demonstrate a respect for the law. The clear evidence that Roberts has not just disregarded the law, but violated the law, and been involved him human trafficking to bypass that law, is in fact real cause for his impeachment.
It's not human trafficking....that's a concept generally reserved for slavery, sex slaves, coyotes and mass illegal smuggling, etc.......
This is adopting children and giving them a better life. Nobody can get a rise out of anybody for this.
If you can't get any interest in Obama's many felonies, repeated treason, and fake BC........nobody's gonna care about Roberts adopting 2 kids and giving them a good life.
Pure folly and fantasy.
Quote from: AndyJackson on July 15, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
One early concept of the SC / Roberts Obamacare ruling was the theory that Roberts was somehow trying to give the GOP a chance to defund it as a tax and budget concept.
I've always held out a little hope that there was a little patriotic nuance in his ruling, and not just pure treasonous RINO.
One has to be blind and ignorant to imagine that a reasonable course of action is to allow a law to be passed, when Roberts own vote, and original intention, was to entirely nullify ObamaCare and rule it unconstitutional, with Roberts himself having written 70% of what became the minority opinion to reject ObamaCare.
Why DEFUND something that is so flagrantly and thoroughy a violation of the Constitution, and to quote the founders, null and void on face value? ObamaCare is not just a law, but fundamentally and grossly changes the relationship between citizen and government established by the Constitution, putting the government in a position of de facto ownership of each and every citizen.
This cannot possibly be validated by any sort of contortions and interpretations of lelgal minds, and is not changed by considering the individual mandate to be a tax, rather than a penalty, which even Roberts could not present with any sort of veracity in the majority opinion! The distinction between it being a Tax or a Penalty is entirely irrelevant to it being Constitutional, and the founders would have been fools if they only had defined one thing to be unconstitutional, but by a mere change of its description, it might be constitutional. Such is the tool of tyrants, but fortunately those Founders were not fools, and both the Tax and the Penalty are prohibited by the Constitution. (If you doubt this, challenge me and I'd be happy to prove it.)
You're bending over backwards to try and validate Roberts actions, when they are entirely unsupportable and unconscionable.
Quote from: AndyJackson on July 15, 2013, 05:28:08 PM
Otherwise, this adoption things is ridiculous.
Not enough there for blackmail to even be an option. Arcane thousand-year-old laws of pre-history; a professional political blackmailer wouldn't even bother.
The Irish adoption law is not "arcane", is not "thousand-year-old", and sure as hell has nothing to do with "pre-history". These are in fact contemporary laws, accurate into the 21st century.
Apparently you didn't read the linked PDF of Irish adoption law.
Apparently you didn't read my response to the "Walter Josh" and adddress his misconception that this was somehow "Gaelic Law" and some archaic laws no longer really applicable. This is contemporary law from the Republic of Ireland, and real modern-day Irish Law, and it is entirely applicable.
Quote from: AndyJackson on July 15, 2013, 05:43:56 PM
It's not human trafficking....that's a concept generally reserved for slavery, sex slaves, coyotes and mass illegal smuggling, etc.......
This is adopting children and giving them a better life. Nobody can get a rise out of anybody for this.
If you can't get any interest in Obama's many felonies, repeated treason, and fake BC........nobody's gonna care about Roberts adopting 2 kids and giving them a good life.
Pure folly and fantasy.
It is human trafficking and it is a for-PROFIT market that entirely is against the law.
Ireland has so much demand for adoptive children that Irish families are having to adopt children from Eastern European countries. However those adoptions, to good Irish families, and under the terms of the Irish government, has no opportunity for profit by the Mothers.
This profit is the motivation for the motivation for the mothers in need to give up their children to foreigners in a foreign country, and it is the means used by John Roberts to acquire two children within a few months time, when they were only 4 1/2 months apart in age.
And engaging in black market human trafficking is entirely unacceptable activity for a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and real cause for his impeachment, without any hesitation.
lol, your personal umbrage does not a scandal make.
I mean......you CAN repeat yourself 150 times, it's still a free country in that way.....you just can't make anybody else embrace it.
Almost nobody cares about Obama wrecking America and the constitution.....fewer care about a minor adoption kerfuffle 8-10 years back.
Quote from: AndyJackson on July 15, 2013, 06:07:14 PM
lol, your personal umbrage does not a scandal make.
I mean......you CAN repeat yourself 150 times, it's still a free country in that way.....you just can't make anybody else embrace it.
Almost nobody cares about Obama wrecking America and the constitution.....fewer care about a minor adoption kerfuffle 8-10 years back.
This is not about my "personal umbrage". The rejection of ObamaCare as being flagrantly unconstitutional has nothing whatsoever to do with "like" or "dislike".
And the recognition that John Roberts undeniably engaged in illegal and unethical human trafficking, which should result in his impeachment, and very likely served as cause for blackmail, is not personal, and every American that gives a damn about the Constitution, and the legitimate rule of law, should care. This is the 2nd time in roughly a year that we've seen the Supreme Court of the United States make decisions flagrantly in conflict with the rule of law, the most recent being the decision on DOMA (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/doma-case-was-corrupt-dog-pony-show-that-scotus-had-no-authority-to-hear/),
Frankly, I don't really give a damn about what most Americans care about, and if many of them demonstrate your superficial understanding and failed grasp of simple facts, then they deserve whatever lies ahead. The rest of American have been arming themselves in record numbers, and paying attention to the deliberate collapse of the economy and government that is in our very near future.
We got to this point precisely because of people not watching their government, being entirely ignorant of what the Constitution says, and why, not protecting their freedoms, and doing nothing but fish for navel lint.
I wish you the best of luck with your fishing endeavor.
Quote from: Trip on July 15, 2013, 06:19:52 PM
This is not about my "personal umbrage". The rejection of ObamaCare as being flagrantly unconstitutional has nothing whatsoever to do with "like" or "dislike".
And the recognition that John Roberts undeniably engaged in illegal and unethical human trafficking, which should result in his impeachment, and very likely served as cause for blackmail, is not personal, and every American that gives a damn about the Constitution, and the legitimate rule of law, should care. This is the 2nd time in roughly a year that we've seen the Supreme Court of the United States make decisions flagrantly in conflict with the rule of law, the most recent being the decision on DOMA (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/doma-case-was-corrupt-dog-pony-show-that-scotus-had-no-authority-to-hear/),
Frankly, I don't really give a damn about what most Americans care about, and if many of them demonstrate your superficial understanding and failed grasp of simple facts, then they deserve whatever lies ahead. The rest of American have been arming themselves in record numbers, and paying attention to the deliberate collapse of the economy and government that is in our very near future.
We got to this point precisely because of people not watching their government, being entirely ignorant of what the Constitution says, and why, not protecting their freedoms, and doing nothing but fish for navel lint.
I wish you the best of luck with your fishing endeavor.
Your opening thread was a piece of great writing; well thought out, well researched, and linked to sources.
Here's the problem...
There's no way to prove that Roberts was blackmailed, and there's no way to prove that his decision was influenced by blackmail.
Were the other justices in the majority blackmailed as well, or do we have a supreme court that has either lost it's way, or simply doesn't believe in the constitution as it is written?
From what I've been seeing over the past 6 years, Rand Paul seems to be the only person in Washington that even has an inkling of what the constitution means. That includes many on the supreme court and most of the GOP.
Our founding documents, (in their entirety), are at extreme risk of being lost forever.
Quote from: kramarat on July 16, 2013, 03:55:34 AM
Your opening thread was a piece of great writing; well thought out, well researched, and linked to sources.
Here's the problem...
There's no way to prove that Roberts was blackmailed, and there's no way to prove that his decision was influenced by blackmail.
Were the other justices in the majority blackmailed as well, or do we have a supreme court that has either lost it's way, or simply doesn't believe in the constitution as it is written?
From what I've been seeing over the past 6 years, Rand Paul seems to be the only person in Washington that even has an inkling of what the constitution means. That includes many on the supreme court and most of the GOP.
Our founding documents, (in their entirety), are at extreme risk of being lost forever.
I appreciate the opening compliment; thank you. However I really feel that the recognition of what occurred with Roberts adoptions happened back in 2005, largely by the NYT and others, and it only hit me over the head as I was doing research into Roberts decisions for a book I'm writing. I cannot take full credit for it.
And you're correct, there is no absolute proof that Roberts was blackmailed. Although we do have motive, method, and opportunity, and perhaps even a "body" (given Roberts flip-flop on the vote and having written 70% of the minority opinion), but what we're lacking is an actual witness to the fact of the blackmail occurring. However as I've noted, such underhanded tactics do fit with the repeated modus operandi of this administration.
However I'm not so sure that the likes of Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, really needed to be blackmailed. Ginsburg is even on record (more than once) as stating that the U.S. Constitution is not the most advanced constitution out there, actually lauding the South African constitution. I truly believe she should have been impeached for this, and other comments she's made over the years, as they show a particular disdain for the Constitution, and disregard for the terms that this country was founded upon.
And we recently saw this same disregard for Constitution and legitimate practice of the Court with the DOMA decision (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/doma-case-was-corrupt-dog-pony-show-that-scotus-had-no-authority-to-hear/).
Ginsburg pissed me off to no end when she said that about our constitution. And of course the others didn't need to be blackmailed. They see the constitution as a living, breathing document that is to change over time, to fit leftist ideology.
If we lose the supreme court, there is no place else to turn. I don't think most people are aware of how close we are to the monumental remaking that Obama promised. :sad:
Roberts, like most Rinos, ruled in favor of Big Government. This is no big surprise if you ask me.
As for the adoption thing, it's really none of my business as long as they were done legally. Unfortunately, this is not always the case (which is why a growing number of countries are cracking down on private "out of country" adoptions). Meanwhile, some prospective U.S. parents are either unwilling, or unable, to follow our adoption laws and, as such, turn to private adoption agencies.
If you can prove blackmail, fine. That would actually be awesome. If not, you're tilting at windmills based on your exaggeration of the "crimes" committed.
Don't get me totally wrong, obviously political favors, shortcuts, and other inside baseball were done to help a highly connected "important person".
But it's still just giving a couple kids a good life. Not financial fraud, theft, etc.
Nobody could ever be mad enough about adoptions to chase this one.
I do agree about Ginsburg....the most rotten, fetid, stinking POS traitor to ever grace the court.
How the f*** a loud & proud constitution hater gets on the SC, I do not know. Aren't these idiots sworn in to protect and obey the constitution ? She refers to destroying and avoiding it daily. WTF ?
Quote from: AndyJackson on July 17, 2013, 08:05:14 AM
Don't get me totally wrong, obviously political favors, shortcuts, and other inside baseball were done to help a highly connected "important person".
But it's still just giving a couple kids a good life. Not financial fraud, theft, etc.
Nobody could ever be mad enough about adoptions to chase this one.
THIS sort of blind ignorance is why we have such a corrupt government.
There were no "political favors" done regarding this. There was utilization of a black market human trafficking ring outside of this country, to get those children into a country that would turn a blind eye and pretend that the children were legit, and the the children were brought into this country as if the were legitimate adoptions, allowing a whole host of other criminal activity and human trafficking to go on at the same time from these "adopting Latin American countries".
And we have a man with such a gross desire for self-gratification, and disregard of law, sitting as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Your own opening post in this thread first sought to validate Roberts by whatever means, even indicating a hope for a "patriot" in him, and this after he so egregiously misrepresented Constitutional law and fact in his opinion for the case.
Your follow up was a post pronouncing the adoption thing as ridiculous, without reason provided. You then try to dismiss the undeniably human trafficking as not human trafficking because ... there are not "slaves involved"., and what Roberts did "its for the Chilllllllllllllldren!" ignoring the disregard of law and ethic by Roberts, and that the Irish laws were instituted to protect those children and prevent the mothers from being taken advantage of, and to prohibit just such child trafficking. You simultaneously claim that the Irish laws are "arcane" when they are no such thing, and that the B.C is fake, showing that you are consistently unable discern and follow simple fact.
Your next response is to claim my response nothing but "personal umbrage".
I gotta tell ya, in one thread you've not only established your mentality on this one issue but your political view on a whole range of issues, and viewing yourself as some sort of Republican", most likely professing himself to be conservative, but really no conservative at all, just a glad-hander and validater for the status quo. This is why I and others have left the Republican Party, why they have no hope of changing to ever reflect any sort of ethic and principle, much less constitutional principle that actually prohibits them, why they are never held to account, as well as why we can never hope to save this country, much less restore our freedoms, while the GOP still draws breath.
This isn't actually just "about adoptions", but you're still trying to figure out that the BC wasn't possibly forged, and that that nailing the criminality going on isn't going to be had by doing an impression of Where's Waldo trying to find a Hanging Chad.
lol, buddy, every reply from you is a rambling, breathless, grandstanding magnum opus.
This should tell you something.
Yes, it was unethical. So is taking a lobster lunch from a lobbyist. Nobody's screeching for impeachment but you.
It's not "black market people smuggling" either. It's a variant, a sleazy variant, of adopting 2 children who were helped and loved through it.
327,539,411 Americans aren't joining you in the cause.
Once again, it's a rock and a hard place argument.
My disdain for the republican party runs deep; on the other hand, if Roberts was impeached for his criminal behavior, Obama would get to pick another justice, and I just don't see how we could ever allow that to happen. I'm not sure if the country would survive.
So... we're left with a choice of Roberts, or a radical left wing extremist. Hell, a Holder nomination wouldn't surprise me.
Without a third party, conservatives, libertarians, and even democrats that believe in freedom and the constitution, are left with nothing but crappy choices. :sad:
Yeah, the only thing standing between us and basically becoming Cuba.....is Obama winning the house and flipping one more conservative SC justice to a Ginsburg / Kagan / Sotomayor type. Obama becomes a fully functioning Chavez at that point.
Luckily, Ginsburg's the one closest to keeling over, so we shouldn't just wake up and be totally surprised one morning, by that flip.
Quote from: AndyJackson on July 17, 2013, 12:38:41 PM
lol, buddy, every reply from you is a rambling, breathless, grandstanding magnum opus.
This should tell you something.
Yes, it was unethical. So is taking a lobster lunch from a lobbyist. Nobody's screeching for impeachment but you.
It's not "black market people smuggling" either. It's a variant, a sleazy variant, of adopting 2 children who were helped and loved through it.
327,539,411 Americans aren't joining you in the cause.
What it all tells me is when I did not validate the shallow breaths of your sprinting intellect, and fleeting vision, which only exceeds your reach, and all of is well beyond your grasp, you engaged in ad hominem attacks.
And somehow this expansive yet un-trumpeted intellect can neither recognize why its a bad idea to have the Chief Justice disregard laws and flagrantly engage in the trafficking of human beings, in a country that allegedly is the most free in the world, nor why the Hawaiian Dept of Health might be entitled to produce a birth certificate in whatever form, with however many layers, without it being any sort of fraud!
Yet even when called on this, your Pavlovian need to validate the GOP is compelled to put human trafficking on the same level as a lobbyist lobster lunch! But we have great faith that lobster bib will protect from all the drool obviously going on there.
No, it's black market trafficking, not just smuggling, not just open, free market capitalism, not just a variant of adopting two children, "who are helped and loved through it" despite being reduced to an international commodity, engaged in outside the laws of sovereign nations, in disregard of the mothers having no support system whatsoever, and being subject to whatever coercion, and hidden from the American people under the guise of false protection for those children in the anonymity of adoption!
You got so much desperate white-washing going on there you make Tom Sawyer look like a rank amateur, and a devout nun!
But it must be me who's engaging in ""personal umbrage". while you leap to personal attacks and more sycophant-ish praise for Roberts than was offered Stalin in the USSR.
But don't worry, boys and girls, there's nothing going on here and everything's fine under Roberts discriminating discernment and honed judgment without the debilitating constraint of law. All hail Roberts!
We now return you to the Government Arts Channel, sponsored by the joint efforts of the GOP and DNC demonstrating the height of ethical bipartisanship, and the letters, "U" and "O", and the number 13 trillion, but first another message from Uncle Same saying why its wrong to put your cell phone in the refrigerator so we cannot find you. "Remember, even Uncle Fridge sees and knows all that you're doing!"
Quote from: AndyJackson on July 17, 2013, 01:31:11 PM
Yeah, the only thing standing between us and basically becoming Cuba.....is Obama winning the house and flipping one more conservative SC justice to a Ginsburg / Kagan / Sotomayor type. Obama becomes a fully functioning Chavez at that point.
Luckily, Ginsburg's the one closest to keeling over, so we shouldn't just wake up and be totally surprised one morning, by that flip.
YEAH, because Roberts has made such a difference, and we could rely on him and his ethical concerns in the clinch.
I've got no problem having Roberts removed from office, even with the chance of Obama appointing another justice. The funny thing about doing things for the right reasons, is that things actually start working properly.
Amazing, that. Whodda thunk it!
Quote from: Trip on July 17, 2013, 01:45:32 PM
YEAH, because Roberts has made such a difference, and we could rely on him and his ethical concerns in the clinch.
I've got no problem having Roberts removed from office, even with the chance of Obama appointing another justice. The funny thing about doing things for the right reasons, is that things actually start working properly.
Amazing, that. Whodda thunk it!
I understand the outrage, but who is going to get rid of him?
Both sides can hold these adoptions over his head.
The GOP has a solid RINO in place, that will blow whichever way the wind is blowing.
And....
He cast the vote that gave us, (illegal), Obamacare. The dems owe him.
The republicans won't go after him; mostly because they don't care, and I would assume that they are gearing up to get their worthless asses reelected.
The democrats won't go after him; because he gave them Obamacare, and they are also gearing up to get their worthless asses reelected.
...and Holder runs the criminal enforcement arm of the Obama administration. He has no time to go after criminal behavior; he's too busy practicing it.
Quote from: Trip on July 17, 2013, 01:45:32 PM
YEAH, because Roberts has made such a difference, and we could rely on him and his ethical concerns in the clinch.
I've got no problem having Roberts removed from office, even with the chance of Obama appointing another justice. The funny thing about doing things for the right reasons, is that things actually start working properly.
Amazing, that. Whodda thunk it!
Trip, I appreciate you posting about this. I think there is something there....
Quote from: taxed on July 17, 2013, 03:24:09 PM
Trip, I appreciate you posting about this. I think there is something there....
Taxed, thanks.
I think it's important that we all keep our eyes open nowadays, and really recognize that what is going on all around us does not even have pretend to be legitimate government anymore, and in the meantime we see the "method" repeatedly shown in the news, with government gathering information on everyone, everything available, and listening in to even our own "representatives".
"I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."
Trip, w/respect.
I posed several questions earlier and you responded tactfully. Fair enough but insufficient.
When conspiracies are afoot, my lodestone will always gravitate to the Great Ockham
and his Principle of Efficient Reasoning (Razor) ie. the explanation w/the fewest plausible
causes and variables will invariably be the correct explanation. By the way, when people
disagree w/you; it doesn't imply that they disrespect you.
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 17, 2013, 09:01:14 PM
Trip, w/respect.
I posed several questions earlier and you responded tactfully. Fair enough but insufficient.
When conspiracies are afoot, my lodestone will always gravitate to the Great Ockham
and his Principle of Efficient Reasoning (Razor) ie. the explanation w/the fewest plausible
causes and variables will invariably be the correct explanation. By the way, when people
disagree w/you; it doesn't imply that they disrespect you.
I understand the comment about disrespect, and I, uh, agree.
That said, part of ockham's razor isn't just presupposing normalcy, but judging all the available data, and then reaching a conclusion. And that is actually what I was in the process of doing when I ran across the adoption information. I was researching Roberts past decisions and his legal involvements.
One thing I knew for certain is that his rationalization of the governments taxing authority was not accurate as represented, along with other rationales in what became the majority opinion that weren't congruent with constitutional principle, or even precedent. Coupled with the very strange tenor of the minority opinion, that did not read at all like any sort of minority opinion, as is noted in the intro, and that became my motivation to search for answers.
When my research ran across the adoption information and I read about two Irish children "born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart", and "adopted through Latin American countries" (plural), it hit me like a ton of bricks.
The point of applying Ockham's blade to the facts and incongruity of a Chief Justice actually flipping his allegedly deeply held view not long before the decision was made public, just did not yield any sort of straight line. It's not as if Supreme Court Justices are isolated from society, and the facts of ObamaCare had not long been in the media beforehand. This was not some convoluted case hinging on some obscure fact, or point of law. There's little doubt that every one of the Justices knew their position before the hearing, and their questions and comments during that hearing often only served as cover for their resolve - except for Roberts.
A Chief Justice does not reasonably write 46 pages, and some 13,000 words all with the undeniable intent of rejecting the entirety of ObamaCare, and then suddenly slap himself in the forehead exclaiming, "oh damn, I forgot about the federal authority to tax!"
Overall, the Supreme Court ruling that the legislature, and one mere statute, not even an amendment, might profoundly and extremely change the relationship between the citizen and government, is not made any more reasonable by framing the individual mandate as a tax.
Not even Sir William Ockham himself could divine a straight line between the facts and outcome without recognizing that some critical consideration was being overlooked.
The adoptions represent that consideration.
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 17, 2013, 09:01:14 PM
When conspiracies are afoot, my lodestone will always gravitate to the Great Ockham
and his Principle of Efficient Reasoning (Razor) ie. the explanation w/the fewest plausible causes and variables will invariably be the correct explanation.
By the way, when people
disagree w/you; it doesn't imply that they disrespect you.
Incidentally, when I responded to your post, the first reply in this thread, it had nothing to do with "respect", or any knee-jerk defense of the the evidence and argument I've put forth.
What I responded to was you manipulating facts to affirm a preordained conclusion, which does not demonstrate any sort of employ of Ockham's razor at all.
You indicated that this was concerning "Gaelic Law (not Irish)" which is entirely untrue, and was demonstrated by my address of the "Overview of Ireland Adoption Law", only two posts prior to yours.
You then assumed for some undisclosed reason, that this somehow necessitated that Roberts was impeachable then, but not so now, which was actually entirely the opposite of what I had indicated.
And finally you surmised that Roberts might have enough influence "w/the Dublin Bar and in their Dail (Parliament)" to adopt the children by normal means, without any sort of "chicanery". In this surmise, you're ignoring the previous referenced Ireland Adoption Law, as well as the facts of the adoption confirmed by different sources, that the children were adopted through Latin American countries. If Roberts were actually adopting with the blessing of the Irish government, and within Irish law, he most certainly would not have to go through Latin America for one adoption, much less two.
This deliberate disregard for the facts does not demonstrate any actual regard for Ockham's "efficient reasoning" at all, but rather the employ of "convenient rationalizations" to get to a preordained conclusion.
And I don't indicate this with any disrespect for you at all, but rather regard for the facts themselves.
Now you've got me poking around. This is off topic, but more fuel for the fire.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-john-roberts-lesbian-cousin-20130626,0,2259194.story (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-john-roberts-lesbian-cousin-20130626,0,2259194.story)
There are lots of things on the adoptions:
http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html)
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-wonders-if-john-roberts-was-blackmailed-uphold-health-care-reform (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-wonders-if-john-roberts-was-blackmailed-uphold-health-care-reform)
I'm still at odds with the blackmail theory, since the fact that the kids were Irish and adopted through Latin America, was an open secret back in 2005.
What's the search on his previous rulings and decisions showing? Is it possible that he's just a closet leftist?
If that were the case, it would also explain his disregard for the law, in the adoptions; the ends always justify the means.
If Roberts was indeed involved in human trafficking, one would think that the democrats would have hammered him with it during the confirmation process...I mean, consider the embarrassing public spectacle they created over Clarence Thomas supposedly saying that a hair on a Coke can looked like a pubic hair.
The one thing I've heard about Roberts is that he somehow builds his votes / rulings / opinions on how it will affect the legacy of "his SC".
Just another 75% conservative. Apparently he wants "his SC" to be remembered as compassionate and socially nice, kind, fair, decent.
As opposed to simply refereeing how existing law has been used or misused.
Quote from: AndyJackson on July 18, 2013, 04:17:58 AM
The one thing I've heard about Roberts is that he somehow builds his votes / rulings / opinions on how it will affect the legacy of "his SC".
Just another 75% conservative. Apparently he wants "his SC" to be remembered as compassionate and socially nice, kind, fair, decent.
As opposed to simply refereeing how existing law has been used or misused.
There's too much of that going on. Their job is to apply the constitution, "as it is written", to each and every case. Period. Feelings don't matter.
Trying to understand why he screwed us leads to conspiracy theory.
Maybe there is no conspiracy at all, he's just a damn lib at heart.
I don't buy the conspiracy crap one bit.
My belief is Roberts isn't a Conservative in the sense we think he is, he's no Scalia or Thomas, he's a damn kid that interpreted the Constitution the way he wanted to, capitalism and culture be damned.
Lets face it, he screwed us along with the other commies on the court, remember, he wasn't the only one.
Quote from: kramarat on July 18, 2013, 02:33:28 AM
I'm still at odds with the blackmail theory, since the fact that the kids were Irish and adopted through Latin America, was an open secret back in 2005.
What's the search on his previous rulings and decisions showing? Is it possible that he's just a closet leftist?
If that were the case, it would also explain his disregard for the law, in the adoptions; the ends always justify the means.
If Roberts was indeed involved in human trafficking, one would think that the democrats would have hammered him with it during the confirmation process...I mean, consider the embarrassing public spectacle they created over Clarence Thomas supposedly saying that a hair on a Coke can looked like a pubic hair.
True, the adoptions was a sort of open secret in 2005, however at that time it was one were it was never really phrased publicly that the adoptions were had through a means deliberately contravening the law. The New York Times research and story was squelched by the assertion they were violating the anonymity of the adoption process and harming at least the future well-being of the children, and to many of leftist intent (and rightist as well), this would be enough to discourage further probing into the issue.
At that time in 2005 Roberts had no actual position on the Court, and much less longevity in that position to warrant the research. However an enormous transition has occurred in this country since 2005.
Since then, radical leftists have come out of the closet, and assumed open control of the Democratic party. In the 2008 primaries when Hillary Clinton was asked to define Liberal, she dismissed the term "liberal" and engaged an enormous head-fake, instead indicating she was a "proud Progressive." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc) Most Americans really didn't know what that was, and certainly didn't recognize it as a repackaging of another ideology, a neo-Marxism. Since then, both the Executive administration, and Congress itself have openly praised redistributive goals and fomented race and class strife. I never thought I'd see these ideologies exercised in this country, much less openly voiced as if they were legit under the Constitution, along with the claim it is anywhere legitimately government's job to engage in the dictate of social engineering.
My point here is that there is now far greater impulse to undermine Roberts than there was in 2005, particularly when a major Socialist goal is in sight, as well as the overall validation of the belief that the end justifies virtually whatever means.
Perhaps Roberts was acting to preserve, or create, his "legacy" in the Court. And perhaps he had some intent to promote conservatism overall as more 'kindly" and "caring". We certainly heard this from the pundits after the decision, but all of this was claimed as a way to rationalize Roberts decision, and explain the unexplainable with that vote-flip. And the rumblings from the likes of Scalia and Thomas, both growing since that decision, as well as what they wrote in the remaining pages of the dissent itself, show a dismay, and even disgust, at Robert's action, and the attempt to stop his flipped vote from happening are said to have continued to the twelfth hour.
Nothing particular in Roberts past decisions or legal involvements really sends up any red flags. It's pretty much a uniform conservative ideology, generally competent in its representation of historic and legal perspective, and sometimes even straying into originalism.
Roberts is not a great historian in the writings of his decisions, and not known for profound constitutional thought, particularly in comparison to some justices, but this is entirely different than the rationalization we saw regarding the "Tax vs penalty" distinction, with the misrepresentation of the "authority to tax" being a deliberate distortion of fact, precedent, and history on Roberts part.
I've been poking around these forums to try and find an area to post this historic reference of the power to tax, i.e. "Tax vs Pentalty". There is no real "Constitutional" area on this forum, ...<edit>
Ive decided to post this information to a separate thread in this forum. I will follow with a link to that thread The overall point of these posts, to follow, is that this nation's founders were not idiots. THey didn't write a constitution that would create a check to Congress writing penalties into law, prohibiting things like Bills of Attainder, and Ex Post Facto laws, and then entirely ignore the penchant of tyrants to re-define words, renaming a penalty as a tax, and thereby skirt previous prohibitions. There are repeated checks and counter checks to prohibit this sort of thing.
- "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words."
~ Samuel Adams
One final observation.
Solar is on a Trifecta on this board today!
His comment nails it." I don't buy the conspiracy
crap one bit. My belief is that Roberts isn't a
conservative in the sense we think he is..."
Indeed and I'll bet Ockham is smiling over that.
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 18, 2013, 11:39:16 AM
One final observation.
Solar is on a Trifecta on this board today!
His comment nails it." I don't buy the conspiracy
crap one bit. My belief is that Roberts isn't a
conservative in the sense we think he is..."
Indeed and I'll bet Ockham is smiling over that.
That tears it.
Last time somebody said that he wore the purple ermine robe for DAYS around here...
:lol:
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 18, 2013, 11:39:16 AM
One final observation.
Solar is on a Trifecta on this board today!
His comment nails it." I don't buy the conspiracy
crap one bit. My belief is that Roberts isn't a
conservative in the sense we think he is..."
Indeed and I'll bet Ockham is smiling over that.
Thank you sir.
Roberts was, after all a Bush appointment, a family friend, so there can be no doubt he is in the image of Bush, a RINO, a big Govt advocate.
Reference: ObamaCare: "Tax vs Penalty" Is Irrelevant (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/obamacare-%27tax-vs-penalty%27-is-irrelevant/)
The point of the above discussion, is that Roberts' indication of some broad, unfettered federal authority to tax is really not accurate.
The authority to tax deliberately prohibits direct taxation to the individual, which must be enumerated according to the census, even after the 16th Amendment, as the ObamaCare tax is not based on "income".
The claim that the individual mandate is a penalty, not a tax, allows it to bypass the barriers still in place even after the 16th Amendment.
However Congress, and the described it to be a "Tax", and this is how Roberts justified it, because of need to bypass bills of attainder, which it clearly is.
Roberts claimed it was a tax, and claimed some broad power of Congress to tax virtually anything, despite the fact that the authority to tax in Article 1, Section 8, is specifically applied to the enumerated powers that follow it.
Nowhere among those enumerated powers is any authority over health care.
"Property and capitation" are not the only two types of direct tax. The Hylton vs United States (1796) case, often cited in support of an authority to tax, was concerning a tax on carriages, with carriages being argued in that case to be the equivalent of property, like land, which the government rejected, and relegated to being an excise tax in the decision. However, as shown by the discussion of Direct tax, which I provide in the second post at the above reference, the consideration of such "property" to be direct taxation, is only the secondary recognition of what constitutes direct taxation. Direct taxation is quite literally applied directly "to the individual". Capitation is only one form of direct taxation.
Furthermore, in conflict with Roberts' implication in the majority opinion regarding "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance", the fact that such a capitation tax is only payed under ObamaCare by individuals without insurance, does not remove the consideration of it being capitation or direct tax, as those who do not pay that tax are already paying it by compliance, having acceptable dictated health care insurance.
"Direct" tax involves "to the person", and the reason it was prohibited is that allowing such taxation enables the government to exercise agendas against individuals or groups, something that Leftists want to enable, yet is in gross conflict with the founder's intent.
Roberts totally ignored these applicable facts of taxation, and deliberately misrepresented them, instead claiming some broad plenary power to tax, that does not exist and deliberately did not exist at this country's founding on to today.
This isn't just bad jurisprudence, it is deliberate malfeasance to a corrupt end, which once again has us questioning how Roberts might write 13,000 words and 46 pages rejecting ObamaCare, and then suddenly flip, ostensibly having just then discovered this overriding power to tax, that really doesn't exist.
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 18, 2013, 11:39:16 AM
One final observation.
Solar is on a Trifecta on this board today!
His comment nails it." I don't buy the conspiracy
crap one bit. My belief is that Roberts isn't a
conservative in the sense we think he is..."
Indeed and I'll bet Ockham is smiling over that.
The only conspiracy here occurred more than 200 years ago, where a handful of brave men took action to institute a form of limited government so as to protect indivdual freedoms, and you don't seem to "buy" what ensured from that either.
You also don't actually subscribe to Ockham's Razor as well, instead taking the most direct route, the "straight line", to support your convenient preconception, ignoring the facts, which is not actually what Sir William of Ockham promoted.
Mitt Romney wasn't "a conservative" in the sense that some tried to claim he was either, but that in no way validates Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" allowing the the State to take over de facto ownership of each citizen's body, and reducing citizens to being refugees in their own country, fleeing from state to state in hope that one might still recognize those "unalienable" individual rights.
What is being conserved under "Conservative" are the terms of the Constitution, and not some constantly expanding authority of government to dictate every aspect of our lives.
Trip, Lord have Mercy. You can have the last word, ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, Ockham was a Franciscan Monk and Scholastic Theologian of the stature
of Aquinas and Duns Scotus. He was not a noble, so no need for the appellation, Sir.
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 18, 2013, 12:41:01 PM
Trip, Lord have Mercy. You can have the last word, ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, Ockham was a Franciscan Monk and Scholastic Theologian of the stature
of Aquinas and Duns Scotus. He was not a noble, so no need for the appellation, Sir.
Once a king is always a king, but once a knight is never enough.
Quote from: kramarat on July 18, 2013, 02:33:28 AM
Now you've got me poking around. This is off topic, but more fuel for the fire.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-john-roberts-lesbian-cousin-20130626,0,2259194.story (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-john-roberts-lesbian-cousin-20130626,0,2259194.story)
There are lots of things on the adoptions:
http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html)
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-wonders-if-john-roberts-was-blackmailed-uphold-health-care-reform (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-wonders-if-john-roberts-was-blackmailed-uphold-health-care-reform)
I'm still at odds with the blackmail theory, since the fact that the kids were Irish and adopted through Latin America, was an open secret back in 2005.
What's the search on his previous rulings and decisions showing? Is it possible that he's just a closet leftist?
If that were the case, it would also explain his disregard for the law, in the adoptions; the ends always justify the means.
If Roberts was indeed involved in human trafficking, one would think that the democrats would have hammered him with it during the confirmation process...I mean, consider the embarrassing public spectacle they created over Clarence Thomas supposedly saying that a hair on a Coke can looked like a pubic hair.
Interesting.
Your last link, Right Wing Watch (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-wonders-if-john-roberts-was-blackmailed-uphold-health-care-reform), actually provides a portion of my story, and calls the source "tea party message board" and in the title "A Tea Party Nation", but it does actually link to my original story.
The original site is not associated with "Tea Party Nation", at least not directly.
And the site hosting the story, Right Wing Watch, is another Orwellian organization with its description being,
"A project of People For the American Way dedicated to monitoring and exposing the activities of the right-wing movement."Their story starts out with the lead-in, "Tea Party Nation president Judson Phillips sent members an email this morning entitled: 'Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare?' "
Evidently Tea Part Nation has had its mailing list infiltrated by those in this RWW organization wanting to keep track of what's going on. The left, they're always better at creating more stuff, more organizations and more government!
Yes, the right wing movement, wanting accountability and integrity from our Courts. We're exposed!
Quote from: Trip on July 19, 2013, 05:40:40 AM
Interesting.
Your last link, Right Wing Watch (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-wonders-if-john-roberts-was-blackmailed-uphold-health-care-reform), actually provides a portion of my story, and calls the source "tea party message board" and in the title "A Tea Party Nation", but it does actually link to my original story.
The original site is not associated with "Tea Party Nation", at least not directly.
Yeah. I found your screen name in at least one other place.
I really don't think that anyone is going after Roberts, for anything. There's just not enough interest from the people that could actually do something.
I don't know if he was blackmailed, but at the very least, we have a man that either doesn't understand, or is willing to ignore the constitution. That's not good.
And the site hosting the story, Right Wing Watch, is another Orwellian organization with its description being, "A project of People For the American Way dedicated to monitoring and exposing the activities of the right-wing movement."
Their story starts out with the lead-in, "Tea Party Nation president Judson Phillips sent members an email this morning entitled: 'Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare?' "
Evidently Tea Part Nation has had its mailing list infiltrated by those in this RWW organization wanting to keep track of what's going on. The left, they're always better at creating more stuff, more organizations and more government!
Yes, the right wing movement, wanting accountability and integrity from our Courts. We're exposed!