29 votes

How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare

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.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That may be true, but

I do not see connection with Obamacare. In eyes of USA, such an adoption should be legal. The same NY Times revealed that Roberts had one or two epileptic seizurs and his mind might be not logical at times. His ruling on Obamacare was pathetic.

OK, here's a conspiracy theory-

what if the Roberts went straight to the top in Ireland at the get go, and together they conspired on how to make it look legit...by-passing Ireland's laws...so what if it happened or not...did the Robert's commit a crime if the govt of Ireland allowed the adoptions?

Of course not. Like Pres. Nixon said, "If the President does it, then it is not illegal."

If anyone has a beef with that, take it to the .... give me a minute ...... uh, take it to the ...

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

This is why it's important to vet candidates

@Trip wrote in the post on Liberty Caucus:

"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. "

This is exactly why it's important to vet candidates for high office. I can't stand the NY Times but in this case the intention was to do their job and bring to light any skeletons in the closet belong to a candidate. However, I don't recall the NY Times publishing this information. Maybe they just passed it on to the Obama camp, who knows. If so, that's a problem for another discussion.

I know conservatives were irked to see Drudge posting an article calling out the NY Times for investigating Roberts' background prior to his confirmation. BUT it irks me more knowing that we have a conservative on the supreme court who can be manipulated by outside forces...

So I suppose having a liberal newspaper going after a conservative nominee for high office isn't such a bad thing after all. Assuming they actually publish the information :)

As an afterthought, the NY Times seems to have pulled out all the stops digging up secretive adoption records for Judge Roberts' children. Wonder why they couldn't dig up Barack Obama's real birth certificate & his college transcripts... Too many agenda's in the World...

Everyone has an agenda.

Everyone has an agenda.

Maybe Judge Roberts

ruled that the penalty was a tax, so that someone can sue and have Obamacare ruled unconstitutional based on the fact that the bill originated in the senate. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1. Obamacare can be ruled unconstitutional using this argument.


The Supreme Court (the Judicial branch) cannot change the law (of the legislative branch) in order to rule it constitutional, that's unconstitutional.

The correct procedure is to rule the law unconstitutional, return it to the congress, have congress change "a penalty to a tax" and then have the Supreme Court rule on its constitutionality.


Interesting theory. I agree with previous comments that the judge probably didn't need too much coercion to pass the bill, but perhaps he really didn't want this getting out.

Ultimately I personally can't hate the guy for doing what he did. Although the way he went about it was questionable, I don't think the government should be deciding if we can adopt a child or not. It should be up to the parents and the people looking to adopt. The judge obviously has the means to take care of the child and if the parents didn't want them I see nothing wrong with him adopting them. I DO CONCEDE THE WAY HE WENT ABOUT THINGS WAS ILLEGAL. But since when is everything that is illegal bad.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

It May Be Conspiracy Theory But

when Justices make the sort of irrational out-of-left-field rulings like the one Roberts made, which defies conventional explanation, it invites conspiracy theories.

The purported "originalist" leaning Roberts essentially claimed that the intent of the act was the opposite of what its proponents argued before his court. They argued it was not a tax and he told them that it was. If it is, it is a tax like no other in the history of our former Republic- payable only when one fails to purchase a product and therefore operationally exactly like a penalty or fine, which is what the defendants argued that it was all along.

Irrational rulings from the alleged conservative side of the fake political spectrum cause a jarring effect among those paying attention because they show a crack in the false political reality the public is presented. Many, on getting a glimpse through the crack to a more sinister political reality, simple pretend they did not see the glitch in the matrix and go on as before. Others attempt to fill the cracks with conspiracy theories, and it is these I sympathize with.

The void caused from these cracks in the false reality our ruling class presents are going to be filled with something, in this case theory. But that is not the fault of those attempting to fill the void. The blame lies rather with those who erected the cracking facade.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

SteveMT's picture

A justice serves even longer than a president.

Even more thoroughly than a POTUS, a Supreme Court Justice should be vetted, and therein lies the kicker.

2 X 0 = 0, just like 1 X 0 = 0.

Neither Roberts nor Obama were vetted by our corrupt fascist government.

Michael Nystrom's picture


Still, interesting. But still, speculation.

The blackmail part

is certainly speculation, but I smell some smoke surrounding the adoption of the "latin american" children. Did America's top judge break the law for his own purposes? I think it's a legitimate question.

Maybe they are Irish kids

Maybe they are Irish kids from Central America?


From County Cork Guatemala? LOL


"They hang the petty thieves and send the good ones to higher office" for a reason, like Blackmail. I hope this sees the light of day, but I won't hold my breath.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Interesting. But...

Very interesting conspiracy. But frankly, I don't think Roberts needed to be pressured to bless Obamacare. Roberts is from the establishment. He is a pragmatist. He is not especially "conservative" whatever the hell that means, nowadays. He avoids the "activist" label and he has consistently sided with the State and refused to make rulings that undermine the establishment.

Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 386 F.3d 1148
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

In other words, he is a statist and serves the State at the pleasure of the State.

His Obamacare ruling was no surprise considering his philosophy.

You may be right

It may be a case of more people drown when ice cream sales go up. That said, I don't think we can discount the possibility that this was the tool used to make him swallow this particularly egregious piece of statist malarky.


This would be an earth shattering revelation. Grab your pitchforks.



Southern Agrarian

I can't see him adopting brown children

This needs to be spread around far and wide.