Was Chief Justice Roberts Blackmailed Into Supporting Obamacare? Maybe.

We at Godfather Politics try to steer clear of conspiracy theories, but this one was too intriguing to pass up. How did an ostensibly conservative Supreme Court Justice go rogue?

I have to continually remind myself that Supreme Court Justices are people, too. They have the same sinful traits. They are not perfect or incorruptible. They carry with themselves a bag full of operating assumptions as well as all the traits that make all of us human.

It’s not impossible to believe that a Supreme Court justice could have done something illegal and is now paying the consequences for it.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Republicans Physically Assaulted in MN, Blame for Maxine Waters, Hillary, Holder

Look what happened to Denny Hastert? Actually, we don’t know everything, and that’s the problem. But it was enough for the former Speaker of the House to pay out more than $3 million to keep the whole thing quiet.

Blackmail is all too real of a political tactic.

The following is from Mr.Conservative.com:


In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote for the Supreme Court’s ruling that ObamaCare was a legal tax. Conservatives were beyond stunned. Roberts’ decision was a narrow, weaving, legal mess, unlike the clear, assured opinions he usually wrote. What the heck happened? Some people posited that he had brain damage from a fall he’d taken some years before. Others sourly said that he’d fallen prey to what’s called Greenhouse Syndrome – the Supreme Court justices’ desperate need to feel the love from The New York Times’ former Supreme Court reporter, Linda Greenhouse.

There were also some subterranean murmurings that the Obama administration was blackmailing Chief Justice Roberts. This was a bit far-fetched. We all knew that Obama habitually practiced a Chicago-approach to politics, one that saw him digging up secret dirt on his opponents, releasing it, and forcing them out of the election. For example, when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent was the popular Jack Ryan.

As the campaign progressed badly for Obama, secret court filings from Ryan’s divorce “miraculously” appeared with unproven allegations from his former wife about his sexual practices. The scandal hit the fan, Ryan dropped out of the race, and Obama ran essentially unopposed against Ryan’s replacement, Alan Keyes.

But what in the world could Obama have on Chief Justice Roberts? The man is pure as driven snow, for goodness sakes. He has a lovely wife, two picture-perfect little blond children, and universal adulation from anyone who had ever associated with him, either personally or professionally.

But about those picture-perfect little blond children. . . .

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.

Read the rest of the article at MrConservative.com

Previous Meanwhile at the IRS, Lois Lerner's Emails Have 'Accident'
Next Why the Confederate Flag Could be Bigger than Ever


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.