Share
QR Code
November 01 12:30
flag image
  • Jail ballots
  • Jail thanks cook speciale

Does Chief Justice John Roberts have something to hide that could impact his judicial rulings?



roberts
shadow
January 16, 2014

We have no doubt that when the history of American Jurisprudence in the 21st century is written the 5-4 decision of the U. S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of ObamaCare will go down as one of the most important, and at the same time equally intriguing decisions of any Supreme Court.



By any reasonable interpretation of the U. S. Constitution the regulation of health care is not in the list of powers and duties given the Federal government.  If one stretches the Commerce Clause to allow health care being regulated as interstate commerce then there is virtually no meaning to Article I, Section 8.  But that is precisely what a “conservative” Supreme Court Chief Justice ruled in upholding the constitutionality of the law. 



Scholars will argue for years about why John Roberts sided with the liberal block on the court.  But beyond the legal nuances of his position we suspect that history will record another dimension to his decision—did his personal, private situation impact his decision.  Put crudely, was he blackmailed?



How could that have happened?  Well, one theory is that he was trying to protect his family.  Here’s the story:



The Roberts have two children, both adopted.  But the way they adopted them is rather unusual and shrouded in secrecy.  In 2005, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush.  A number of Elite Media outlets investigated how the Roberts’ adopted their two children.  But for some reason the investigations died by the wayside.  But in light of his “peculiar” ruling on ObamaCare those circumstances are being resurrected to connect the dots to see if he was perhaps “influenced” in his legal position by the threat his personal life.  Here’s the story:



August 04, 2005



The Roberts' Adoptions: What We Do Know



Earlier today, Article III Groupie noticed a dramatic upward spike in traffic to her blog, fueled largely by Google searches like "John Roberts" adoption, john roberts children, "judge roberts" adopted children, etc. She also noticed a number of odd searches that combined the topics of the New York Times, adoption, and our fabulous Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. (such as "new york times" roberts adoption).*

A3G was somewhat puzzled by these searches. But then she came across this Wonkette post, which in turn directed her to this Drudge Report item, which indicated that the New York Times is investigating the adoption records of Judge and Mrs. Roberts's two absolutely adorable, adopted children: Josephine Roberts, age 5, and dancing Jack Roberts, age 4.

Now, an apparent digression. In his excellent essay "Bad News," which appeared this past Sunday in the New York Times Book Review, Judge Richard A. Posner conducted a penetrating, endlessly interesting analysis of the predicament of the mainstream news media.** He noted the competition that the media now face from bloggers, observing that "bloggers are parasitical on the conventional media. They copy the news and opinion generated by the conventional media, often at considerable expense, without picking up any of the tab."***

So back to our SCOTUS nominee, Judge John Roberts; his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts; and their two kids, Josie Roberts and Jack Roberts. The topic of the Roberts adoptions is obviously a sensitive one that should be handled with care. Accordingly, in order to avoid crossing any lines or violating the privacy of the Roberts family, A3G will demonstrate Judge Posner's point: she will function parasitically with respect to prior news media coverage of the Roberts adoption, by bringing to your attention various facts that legitimate news organizations have already unearthed and reported. Thus, if you have a problem with any of the information appearing below, you should take it up not with A3G, but with the professional news publication that originally broadcasted it (to an audience vastly larger than A3G's).

Without further ado, here are a few facts about the Roberts' adoptions, as previously reported by the mainstream media (which A3G has merely collected and reshaped into an easy-to-follow, question-and-answer format):

1. Why did Judge and Mrs. Roberts decide to adopt?

The Washington Post offers this account:

In 1996 [Jane Sullivan Roberts] married John Roberts, whom she had met once years earlier through mutual friends. (One of the groomsmen was Michael Luttig, an appeals court judge who was also on the short list for the Supreme Court nomination.) By then she was 42, and Catholic doctrine prohibits most forms of fertility treatment. She and her husband went though an "uncertain difficult period where she wanted badly to have children," says [Pillsbury Winthrop partner] Tina Kearns.

For a long time the adoption process didn't work out, but Roberts never lost hope, Kearns says. Five years ago they adopted a daughter, Josephine, and in less than a year a son, John, and Roberts was suddenly a 45-year-old mother of two infants.

2. Where are the Roberts children from originally?

According to Time magazine, they were born in Ireland:

Jack McCay, law partner of Roberts' wife Jane and a friend, speaks of the couple's adoption of John (Jack) and Josephine, born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart. "As frequently happens when you go through the adoption process, some of the efforts weren't successful, and it continued for a time ... But when the opportunity came along to have not just one but two kids, they took both babies without blinking."

As the foregoing indicates, because the children are so close in age -- less than 9 months apart -- Josie and Jack are not siblings (even though they look like they could be related). Their being Irish-born is not entirely surprising, in light of the fact that Mrs. Roberts's family "held onto its ties to Ireland, keeping a family home in the small town of Knocklong in the County of Limerick, where they still gather at least every two years" (as reported by the New York Times).

3. So were the children adopted from Ireland?

This is not clear -- the Associated Press reports that they were "adopted from Latin America." This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American. Perhaps the children were born in Ireland, but were in Latin America immediately prior to their adoption.

4. How were the children adopted?

According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts's sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption. As explained by Families for Private Adoption, "[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency."

Apparently the process of adopting Jack involved some stress for John Roberts. According to Dan Klaidman of Newsweek, during the contested 2000 election, Roberts "spent a few days in Florida advising lawyers [for George W. Bush] on their legal strategy," but "he did not play a central role," because " at the time, Roberts was preoccupied with the adoption of his son."

 Click here to go to the source which contains links to the original sources.

printPrint
emailEmail
CommentComment
shareShare
  1. reply print email
    Roberts was spineless and knuckled under to Obama
    January 16, 2014 | 06:46 PM

    This may well have been an area that added to the pressure on Roberts, and he definitely demonstrated that he is spineless and will cave to pressure.

    Of course, the public statements by Obama and by Senate Democrats claiming a decision against Obamacare would be ''political'' which bordered on threats were also very intimidating to someone of such weak
    character as Roberts apparently has.

    This is at least the third case of political intimidation of the Supreme Court by out of control presidents. The most famous is FDR's threat to pack the courts if he did not get rulings like he wanted (and of course, that did produce such rulings). Less known is Lincoln's issuance of an order for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney in 1861 to prevent Taney from issuing a writ of habeas corpus for a number of Maryland legislators whom Lincoln had imprisoned without formal charges as political prisoners. Though it was never actually served on Taney by the federal marshals, it did serve to intimidate Taney exactly as Lincoln wanted.

    Raphael
  2. reply print email
    Roberts is a pathetic weakling
    January 16, 2014 | 11:58 PM

    Roberts couldn't find the courage for honorable service and can't find the character to resign.

    J.P. Jones
  3. reply print email
    NSA
    January 21, 2014 | 05:16 PM

    I had wondered when this topic might come up. It is my belief that the current administration has used the NSA to spy not only on the American people but also on those that they wish to influence in their favor. Undoubtedly, Justice Roberts and many Rinos have something to hide and will twist themselves into pretzels to avoid the truth coming out. Remember J. Edgar Hoover's famous file cabinet. It's just more of the same.

    John W. LaCava
Reader Feedback Submission
Please do not use ALL CAPS or tabs.
* required value
Your Name*

Email (not shown on website)*

Subject*

Comment*


Waters
Jail MIA
CARE
GOP Box
ConPAC ballot
Mattie box 11-14
CFJ-2 Sleaze
Site Search


Saturday
11 - 01 - 14
12:30
Tayloe
beaufort mobile
Venture
Arnolds 1-2014
Richardson PA
Farm Bureau

Copyright 2008-2013, Beaufort Observer Online, Inc. No part of this website may be used without permission