TheBlaze.com: Was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Blackmailed?

[240 is Back]

Is the idea implausible that this same Obama administration that orders IRS attacks, then orders destruction of key evidence, would stop at nothing to save Obama’s signature achievement? Is it impossible to believe that Obama and his socialist cabal that learned from Saul Alinsky that “the ends justify the means” would hold something over a Supreme Court justice’s head?

It’s time to ask the question loudly and boldly because something is clearly wrong in Washington, D.C.

Is that the purpose of government agencies like the IRS and the NSA that are abusing our rights – to listen to us, to watch us, to find something we’ve done wrong, and then use it to intimidate, harass, threaten or extort key political figures so that Obama can “fundamentally change America”?

Because something clearly smells rotten in Washington, D.C. Like “the mafia delivering a dead fish to your door” rotten. Conservatives just won national elections in a massive wave, a historic landslide. We control both houses of Congress; we control the Supreme Court, yet we continue to lose every key vote in Congress and every key Supreme Court ruling.

Suddenly when Republicans win elections, elections have no consequences. Doesn’t this seem odd? Doesn’t something smell rotten, like the fix is in?

Justice Roberts voting for Obamacare twice is as likely as me voting to save Obamacare.

Like me, Justice Roberts is a lifelong dedicated conservative warrior. He was appointed by President George W. Bush to become the key conservative vote in important decisions that effect “the fundamental transformation of America.” Justice Roberts was born, raised and groomed for one job in this life – to join that Supreme Court, strike down Obamacare, protect the Constitution and end big government overreach.

Yet he is the man responsible for saving Obamacare – twice.

[240 is Back]

How John Roberts abandoned conservatives

On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered another major victory to ObamaCare, voting 6-3 in King v. Burwell to uphold the subsidies at the heart of the sweeping health care reform law. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts — appointed by George W. Bush, and once a beloved figure on the right — wrote the majority opinion, joined by the court's liberal wing and swing Justice Anthony Kennedy.

This isn't the first time Roberts has sided with the left on ObamaCare. And as a result, my fellow conservatives are comparing Roberts quite ignominiously to David Souter.

Souter, of course, was appointed by Bush 41, and turned out to be a huge disappointment to conservatives who were already tired of being let down by Republican SCOTUS appointments. (Looking at you, Earl Warren.)

But here's the thing: In the wake of Roe v. Wade, and after bitter fights over the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas nominations, conservatives thought they had figured it out. The right created an impressive infrastructure and network to identify and promote conservative lawyers, clerks, and would-be judges. And along the way, conservatives settled on a judicial criteria that went something like this: Judges should interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. John Roberts was supposed to be the perfect example of someone who had come up through the ranks, and would render decisions accordingly.

The irony here isn't that a Republican-appointed Supreme Court chief justice has twice preserved the landmark legislation of Barack Obama. The irony — and heartache, for conservatives — is that on both occasions, Roberts has had to employ judicial gymnastics to rationalize his decision. In the King v. Burwell decision, Roberts chose to ignore the letter of the law — no matter how specious or unintentional the letter may have been — and instead, divine the law's intent.

[240 is Back]

Scalia Slams Roberts as Biased In Obamacare Cases
National Review

I​n a blistering dissent from the majority in King v. Burwell this morning, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said President Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement should be called “SCOTUScare” rather than Obamacare, in light of how many times Chief Justice John Roberts has intervened to protect the law from a crippling legal defeat.

Scalia argued that Roberts rewrote the law twice in 2012, and has now done so a third time in his King decision, which allows the IRS to continue providing subsidies to people who purchase insurance in the federal government’s health-care exchange.

“The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax, ‘further [Medicaid] payments to the State’ means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence,” Scalia wrote in his dissent. “And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

[LurkerNoMore]

Scalia is just being a little bitch because he didn't get his way.