It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama-Roberts -- A Quid Pro Quo?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I am going to go out on a limb here, because I have a sick feeling in my gut as a result of the SCOTUS decision made today regarding Obama Care.

In a 5-4 decision today, where Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative pick for SCOTUS by GW Bush, dissented and voted FOR Obamacare, when the law is considered by most to be unconstitutional.

Justice Roberts is a conservative, and his vote essentially was expected to follow conservative lines.

But he voted liberal today.

This is the same judge who screwed up the swearing in of President Obama in January, 2009.

The same judge, who, in private, re-swore the President again -- without the use of a Bible, and behind closed doors.






The Constitution prescribes the text: The oath of office for the president of the United States.

And President Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer in his time, apparently stood ready to repeat them. Because when Chief Justice John Roberts, administering the oath for his first time, misspoke the order of a few words, Obama took notice.

With the Bible used by Abraham Lincoln at his first inaugural, where the same words were mouthed, Roberts asked Obama: "Are you prepared to take the oath, senator?" Obama, now the 44th president, said he was.

Roberts, one of former President George W. Bush's appointees on the high court, led the way. But, when he reached the phrase, "that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States,'' Roberts at first omitted the word "faithfully'' - he re-inserted it after "president of the United States.''

Obama paused, not taking the miscue at first.

So Roberts repeated the phrase correctly, inserting "faithfully" in the right order: "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States."

Yet Obama then repeated Roberts' original misstatement - "the office of president of the United States faithfully."

Later, shaking hands before a congressional luncheon of pheasant and duck in Statuary Hall of the Capitol, Roberts chatted briefly with Obama - observers reported that the chief justice apparently allowed that he was to the blame for the missteps.


Is it possible, and this is going out on an extreme fringe here, that there is a Quid Pro Quo of some sort, where Roberts is actually a plant by the Communist Party who ultimately would want to see the demise of the USA?

After all, this new law is going to change the face of the USA forever, costing TRILLIONS and aiding in the destruction of medicine, insurance, and trade?

I find it odd, that this conservative judge, who has voted conservatively on 179 decisions, this time, votes against conservatism?

I dont know, ATS. But something smells here.

Thoughts?




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


As you or any of us are entitled to our opinions and/or beliefs....I "faithfully" disagree with you as I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

BTW, what makes you think somethings up...is it just the SCOTUS decision today?
edit on 6/28/12 by hathorschild because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I don't think that I agree that there is a quid pro quo here, but to answer the other poster, yes, today's decision made me question the integrity of the SCOTUS. The reason is because the Federal Government has been given free rein to enforce legislation through taxation, scaring people into getting medical coverage. Mandating that people HAVE to buy something.
We are supposed to be a free country. Free to spend our money on things we need. Instead of looking at insurance companies and what they are doing, questioning why there were/are drastic increases in premiums from one year to the next. Instead, the governments solution is to tax people and force them to buy health insurance, and further tax people that have the really good insurance. Why? Because they can afford it. Meanwhile, no one in Congress or the White house pays for their health coverage. And they have the best plans.
This is a bad road we're going down. I'm not talking "New Deal" type of road, this is a very bad road to go down. Not only the largest tax increase in history, but further deteriorating our freedoms and more deeply rooting the government into our everyday life.
Just my opinion.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


Your suggestion of Roberts being a communist plant sounds like something Lyndon LaRouche would type.

Time to take off the tinfoil hat?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by phantomjack
 


Your suggestion of Roberts being a communist plant sounds like something Lyndon LaRouche would type.

Time to take off the tinfoil hat?



So it doesn't appear at all odd with you?

Nothing this President does surprises me any more. While I realize he is nothing but a puppet, there are darker, hidden agendas with the entire corrupt political system.

I just find it hard to understand how a staunch conservative judge all of a sudden goes against what 70% or more of the population wants or believes.

The odds are just against what I would have thought Roberts, of all of the justices, would vote.

Nothing surprises me anymore. Our country is being lead by corrupt people who have no interest in what is best for the American People.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I have been on the internet too long...I KNEW someone was going to float this theory.

ETA: See here for more details

edit on 6/28/2012 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stinger94
I don't think that I agree that there is a quid pro quo here, but to answer the other poster, yes, today's decision made me question the integrity of the SCOTUS. The reason is because the Federal Government has been given free rein to enforce legislation through taxation, scaring people into getting medical coverage. Mandating that people HAVE to buy something.
We are supposed to be a free country. Free to spend our money on things we need. Instead of looking at insurance companies and what they are doing, questioning why there were/are drastic increases in premiums from one year to the next. Instead, the governments solution is to tax people and force them to buy health insurance, and further tax people that have the really good insurance. Why? Because they can afford it. Meanwhile, no one in Congress or the White house pays for their health coverage. And they have the best plans.
This is a bad road we're going down. I'm not talking "New Deal" type of road, this is a very bad road to go down. Not only the largest tax increase in history, but further deteriorating our freedoms and more deeply rooting the government into our everyday life.
Just my opinion.


What frightens me the most is the 16,000+ new IRS agents that the government hired just to enforce this new law.

Why hire them, 2 years ago, before the SCOTUS even spoke?

Why was Obama so confident three or four weeks ago when he made the statement that he was "sure the SOCTUS would find in his favor?"

Why so confident?

Was someone bribed?

ATS -- Deny Ignorance.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Or, we can consider this:

It’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional.

As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

edit on 28-6-2012 by phantomjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
I have been on the internet too long...I KNEW someone was going to float this theory.

ETA: See here for more details

edit on 6/28/2012 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)


As if it is out of the realm of possibility?

That could NEVER happen in America...



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 

I hope you're right.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join