This explains some things

We have speculated court rulings have been influenced by blackmail and others have claimed to have evidence of it. And while I haven’t seen hard evidence of it yet there is proof some politicians have no qualms about applying political pressure on judges:

Remember back in 2012 when the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the Obamacare mandate with a 5-4 decision but only after Judge Roberts, a Bush appointee, seemingly parted with his conservative counterparts on the bench to effectively, single-handedly preserve perhaps the most destructive piece of legislation in American history (if not, we wrote about it here)?  Many people were shocked by Judge Roberts’ decision and subsequently alleged that it was driven more by politics than his interpretation of the Constitution. 

Turns out those people were proven right today as a new Podesta email confirms that the Obama administration applied political pressure on Roberts to sway his decision:  “it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court…that was vital to scaring Roberts off.”

While it’s fairly disturbing that the Clinton team would flippantly admit such things, what’s even worse is that they plotted to use Obama’s same strategy of applying political pressure on the Supreme Court in 2015 to overturn “King v Burwell” which also threatened Obamacare’s future.

The email below from Neera Tanden, clearly shows Clinton staffers colluding with the President of the Center for American Progress on a scheme to apply political pressure on the Supreme Court to overturn the challenge.

When some decisions just don’t make any sense, this might be the reason.

Drain the swamp.

14 thoughts on “This explains some things

  1. Interesting, but I wonder what sort of pressure would be (potentially) effective against someone with a lifetime appointment.

    • Same as the sort of pressure that any gangster will put on anyone; the carrot and the stick.
      “You can have my silver or my lead.”
      “Plata o plomo.”
      “We can be friends or we can be…enemies. I prefer being friends, don’t you?”

      It’s as old as the hills. Why would you ask? You know this already. You’re just not willing to accept what’s in front of you. You’d rather believe that there is something noble and respectable in politics, or something that isn’t so dark as the evidence suggests, and so you choose to be confused when you’re not. In asking the question you’re employing a form of self-protection mechanism, like the mother who refuses to believe that her new boyfriend is raping her daughter. If it’s truly that bad, then we have an obligation to do something about it, to make it stop, and we’re not willing to go there just yet. We feel we can put it off just a little bit longer and that somehow things will work out anyway. In the meantime, the darkness spreads.

  2. friends:

    why drain the swamp?

    it is a useful metaphor. it is, for instance, a useful place for things when the yardarms get cluttered.

    nuff said.

    john jay

  3. p.s. and, re: justice roberts. once bought, always paid for. once intimidated, always intimidated. simple as that. nothing substitutes for resolve and backbone.

    • Sure there is a substitute. It’s called “a replacement.” But we’ll see how he does, and not impeach the low-life if he doesn’t change his easily-pressured ways until Trump’s second term.

  4. The look on Justice Roberts face was clear. He was exhausted, probably up all night, and afraid.

  5. I can’t find the article now, but a couple years ago I read that Boehner and Roberts were both connected to a Chicago ‘pizza’ joint and being blackmailed.

  6. Pingback: Podesta email confirms Obama's influence on Roberts' Obamacare decision

  7. Pingback: SayUncle » Pressuring Roberts

  8. My Constitutional Law Professor mentioned that the Justices were in fact sensitive to political opinion, and in 1972 were aware of the protesters outside when Roe v Wade was on the docket.
    It may not have taken much to pressure Roberts etc. when they already have their fingers in the political wind.

  9. The Scalia comment about words no longer having meaning is very fine, but a bit behind the times. The Supreme Court has been making up bizarre meanings since as early as 1800 or so. See the 1802 book on the Constitution by St. George Tucker.

Comments are closed.