19 votes

Was NSA Used to Blackmail Chief Justice Roberts on Obamacare Ruling?

From The Blaze | Jun. 18, 2013 | by Erica Ritz

After Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “ObamaCare,” many wondered if there could be a yet-unknown reason why the Republican-nominated justice made the unexpected decision.

On the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) explained why he believes Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote late in the process, as laid out in his new book Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare.

Lee’s argument is not based on the NSA or its monitoring of the nation’s communication. Rather, Lee said, there are indications that Roberts originally intended to vote against the act, but that a public “campaign of intimidation” made him change his mind.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/18/was-justice-rober...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Isn't it time

we re-examine this episode of Conspiracy Theory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UenplqSBvv4

In light of what's been reported, how much of this is conspiracy "theory?"

Is the NSA using fusion centers? Is the facility in Utah just a much bigger fusion center? In 2010, there were 72 fusion centers. One can only imagine how many there are today.

This episode aired in 2010. Congress critters were sponsoring bills they didn't even read, sound familiar?

What is going on with the T. Don Hutto "residential" center? It's being run by Corrections Corporation of America:

http://www.cca.com/facility/t-don-hutto-residential-center/

In 2004, I was traveling to Savannah. A friend of mine asked me to stop in Madison, Georgia to check out a site with large containers advertised as grave liners. These plastic containers, whatever they are, were large and there was thousands of them. I took pictures.

HR 645:

(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr645/text

Does anyone want to put the future of themselves or their family in the hands of Janet Napolitano, or any other politician for that matter?

Jefferson's picture

Blackmail

and Bribery is and has been S.O.P.. I would imagine SCOTUS is not immune.


http://youtu.be/mqI4LSa60hc

At the time, I thought he was blackmailed.

He has a skeleton somewhere in the closet of his past.

duh........yeowh.

Our govt has zero integrity. Starting with the premise:everything they say is designed to cover the truth...

NSA has a profile on every President, congressman, media pressitute, supreme...

Whatever the NSA doesn't have, they'll just make up. All their "5-4' decisions are not "ideological", as they'd like us to believe.

Every decision starts out with the predictable: "the Conservatives" this..."the Liberals" that...as if there was some heavy-duty, laborious, constitutional mental gymnastics that went on.

The real question to ponder is: Why are we paying for our own demise? Recall the bastards, if nothing else. With the NSA's capabilities, who needs the expense of elections?

The NSA, aka, no-such-agency, is the one who provides our (nonexistent) oversight congressmen with the info they need to destroy some Supreme nominees and pass the ones they want.

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

fireant's picture

Something sure caused a last minute change.

Roberts has to know he turned jurisprudence on it's head by legislating from the bench, which clearly he did. If he found the "penalty" unconstitutional, his duty was to so note and remand back to the legislature. Instead, he declared it a "tax", which would never have passed the legislature. Roberts has to know this, so something outside must have influenced his tortured ruling.

Undo what Wilson did

Have you seen this?

I remembered an article I read about his sudden change of heart. That article made me think then that he was either bribed or blackmailed. Here's part of it:

“I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the court’s deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down…the individual mandate,” said Crawford on CBS’ Face the Nation. “But Roberts, I’m told by my sources, changed his views, deciding to instead join with the liberals. There was a one-month campaign to bring Roberts back into the conservative fold, led, ironically, by Anthony Kennedy.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/01/the-supreme-cour...

That's how everyone in power

That's how everyone in power is controlled. The information agencies have dirt on everyone, even fairly good, honest people, or their family members.

Ok so let's say

that he was blackmailed by gov't who threatened to reveal how he adopted his children (from Ireland or where ever).

Are we saying that the government should rightfully have some power to tell us how we can adopt or where from?

What business is it of theirs?

Do we really think the gov't has the children's best interests in mind when they regulate adoption?

Our family's journey from the Rocket City to the Redoubt: www.suburbiatosimplicity.com

SteveMT's picture

This was the scuttlebutt circulating at the time

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/was-chief-justi...

Jake Baker, writing at a blog called No Compromise offers an interesting new theory: he thinks that the Obama administration may have threatened to take Roberts’ children away from him. You see, they’re not his biological children. Instead, the Chief Justice and his wife adopted them in 2000. Roberts has never talked about the circumstances of their adoption, which is perfectly understandable, given the privacy such a personal transaction deserves. To the extent it’s mentioned, they’ve been said to have been adopted from a Latin American country – something inconsistent with their Nordic coloring.

Baker now posits that it’s entirely possible that the Obama administration finished what The New York Times started in 2005, when Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court –unsealing the private adoption papers for Roberts’ children.

The only information currently known about the adoption, says Baker, is that it was a private adoption, meaning that it was done without an agency. Instead, the birth parents and the adoptive parents arrange it on their own. Despite the vague reference to Latin America, given the children’s Nordic appearance, it’s entirely possible, Baker argues, that they came from Ireland.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/was-chief-justi...

His wife is invested in all

His wife is invested in all kinds of real estate in Ireland.

Southern Agrarian

It's not the "Obama administration"

I don't think he's the one "calling the shots". Obama himself was wiretapped in 2004. Obama is a figurehead for the real PTB

I thought they pressured to

I thought they pressured to expose the illegal means to which he and his wife adopted their sons from Ireland.

Southern Agrarian

You're not

suggesting that black male occurs, are you?

What's the difference?

Is he excused if they did?

meekandmild's picture

Instead of a supreme court

a supreme jury that is replaced with complete new jurors every year

This would imply that he has

This would imply that he has done something criminal because they have those positions for life for the precise purpose that they wont be influenced.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Not necessarily,

he could have made a comment (like Paula Dean) at any time which could potentially cause a national crisis. Personal information can be used to blackmail, whether illegal, or just politically incorrect.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

TwelveOhOne's picture

Any number of other possibilities, as well

He could have friends or relatives with medical (or sexual preference) issues.

He could know people who are in jail, or who could be placed in jail if he does not act accordingly.

He could know people who are in danger, or who could be placed in danger if he does not act accordingly.

There, I think that covers a majority of the bases. :)

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

The danger one doesnt count

The danger one doesnt count because it doesnt take the NSA to make threats.

Knowing someone who is in jail isnt a big deal. Knowing something that would put someone in jail and holding back on telling people I beieve might be a crime in a few cases if its that bad.

The preference issue isnt exactly terrible. This is the only one I can see maybe being real just for embarrasment. Unless they have embarrasing stuff on him like this which wouldnt be out of the question I guess.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.