The Liberal Nasties have a lot of shit on Just Robert the rat!
He votes with them on every KEY Progressive Issue as though he was one of them.
Obamacare on down.. so the question is "WHY"
MOST RECENT DECISIONS
AbortionOn Monday, Roberts joined liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in striking down Louisiana’s Act 620. The justices ruled that the law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates the abortion rights the court announced in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
Immigration
On June 18, the court ruled 5-4 against the Trump administration, saying it did not take the proper steps to end the 8-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects some 650,000 young immigrants from deportation. Roberts wrote the court’s opinion, joined by the four liberal justices.
LGBT rights
The court’s immigration ruling came just days after its June 15 ruling that a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment. Roberts joined the Liberals again!
HERE IS AN ANALYSIS!
TIME TO TAKE HIM OUT!
Underneath Their Robes
News, gossip, and colorful commentary about the federal judiciary.
I am convinced that OBAMA made Justice Roberts and "Offer He could not Refuse"...
Well that's what Chicago Union Thugs do!
Here is a post from 2005 worth considering:
August 20, 2005
More Grist for the "John Roberts Is Gay" Mill
Ever since President Bush announced his selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., as his Supreme Court nominee, speculation over whether Judge Roberts might be gay has run rampant throughout the blogosphere. See, e.g., Althouse, Law Dork, and Wonkette. UTR readers have also flooded A3G's inbox with emails citing the following "evidence" that Judge Roberts is gay:
1. Despite being handsome, brilliant, rich, and nice -- in other words, prime marriage material -- Judge Roberts didn't get married until the relatively late age of 41.
2. With all due respect to the perfectly attractive Mrs. Jane Sullivan Roberts, some UTR readers -- not A3G -- have commented that the #5 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary could have "married someone hotter." According to a UTR correspondent who used to work at Hogan & Hartson, Judge Roberts's former law firm, "many of the older [Hogan] attys are married to good-looking 20-somethings after having dumped their first wives."
3. Judge and Mrs. Roberts have adopted rather than biological children. (The "theory" behind this fact, it seems, is that we therefore have no "proof" of the consummation of the Roberts' marriage.)
4. Judge Roberts has associated with gay people in the past:
(a) As everyone knows by now, he did pro bono work on behalf of gay rights activists, helping out colleagues in their preparation of court filings and oral argument in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
(b) While Judge Roberts was at Harvard, his pre-law advisor was William LaPiana, a law professor at New York Law School and an openly gay man.
(c) One UTR reader commented that "Roberts has had at least one gay (male) clerk while sitting on the D.C. Cir. I suspect at least one other clerk as well."
Note: A3G has conducted her own mini-investigation into this claim, and she is uncertain of its accuracy. She has accounted for (almost) all of the nine clerks that Judge Roberts has had during his time on the D.C. Circuit, and the clerks that she knows of are all married to or dating people of the opposite sex, or otherwise not believed to be gay. (But if you have the name, rank and serial number of any Roberts clerk who is openly gay -- A3G isn't interested in outing anyone -- please email her.)
Update: It appears that Judge Roberts may have had one gay clerk. At the request of this clerk, however, A3G has deleted a reader comment referring to this clerk by name. Furthermore, she has disabled comments on this post. She thanks you for your consideration.
5. Finally, in terms of evidence of gayness, let's not leave out the notorious plaid pants.
So there's certainly some grist for the "Judge Roberts is gay" rumor mill in the nominee's past (even if much of it is of dubious value). And now, tomorrow's edition of New York Times will throw more fuel on the fire, in the form of this rather interesting article about Judge Roberts's time at Harvard and what it was like to be a campus conservative there during the 1970's.
There are two noteworthy aspects of this article from the "John Roberts Is Gay" point of view. First, check out the provocative third paragraph -- surprisingly high placement, essentially part of the lede -- of Janny Scott's piece:
"Conservatives were like the queers on campus," said Eric Rofes, a classmate of Judge Roberts who later became an organizer on gay issues. "People made fun of them. They mocked them and saw them as jokers or losers. I don't think in the moment many people realized this was the start of an ascending movement. People felt it was like the last cry of the 1950's."
Second, directly to the left of the foregoing paragraph in the online version of the article is a photograph (courtesy Don Scherer) showing Judge Roberts hanging out on Martha's Vineyard with two handsome male friends, Don Scherer and Richard Lazarus. Call Article Three Groupie crazy -- you wouldn't be the first -- but the picture strikes her as pretty "gay-looking."
If you question A3G's basis for deeming this picture "gay-looking," check out the photo for yourself (below right), and then read this (amusingly unhinged) email from a UTR reader:
John Roberts is gay! Look at those smiling buff friends snuggled next to the next Supreme Court Justice on Martha's Vinyard displaying the groumet meal they just made, and THEY will tell you. Now let's hope Roberts is actually confirmed before he's outed like a certain New Jersey Governor! Some legacy for Christian hero W. -- seating the first GAY Supreme Court Justice!* This is SO GREAT!
Oy gay! Are we perhaps getting a little carried away with all of our rumor-mongering concerning Judge Roberts's sexual orientation? After all, the pic was taken on Martha's Vineyard, not Fire Island. And for the record, Scherer is married, as is Lazarus.
More seriously, all of the "Is John Roberts gay?" speculation strikes A3G as pretty pointless, since it's doubtful that we'll ever get a definitive answer to the question. It's highly unlikely that Judge Roberts will show up in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 6 and declare, "I am a gay American." We can hazard all sorts of guesses about Judge Roberts's tastes and proclivities, but we'll never know for sure.
To sum things up, as A3G previously stated, "Is Judge John Roberts gay? Hmm, who knows?" Unless some new and truly compelling information emerges, let's just leave it at that. As far as A3G is concerned, the question of Judge Roberts's possible homosexuality -- like the matter of his two adopted kids -- should be shoved back into the closet. 'Nuff said!
Update: Professor Althouse, despite being on vacation, had some interesting and funny comments to offer on the Times piece. A3G is inclined to agree with her: a good case can be made that the NYT is deliberately making Judge Roberts look gay. And yet, as Professor Althouse notes, "the deniability is intact as ever. It's just three men with a pie... and a mustache... and a glow."
* Uh, who ever said that Judge Roberts -- if he is in fact gay, and if he is ultimately confirmed to the Court -- would be the first gay justice? Certainly not Wonkette: "Okay, serious now: We don't actually think Roberts is gay. We totally wish he was, though! Someone needs to keep Souter company."
And Wonkette may not be alone in her suspicions concerning the #4 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary. Check out the Oyez biography of Justice Souter, which describes him as "[a] man of unusual and peculiar sensibilities." What exactly does this mean -- is that what they're calling them these days? (It's a bit of a mouthful; A3G prefers the more pithy "friend of Judge Wardlaw.")
Speaking of Justice Souter, A3G is looking forward to the publication next month of David Hackett Souter, an in-depth biography of the justice by the prolific Professor Tinsley E. Yarbrough. The book will reflect Professor Yarbrough's extensive research into Justice Souter's professional and personal background. A3G sincerely hopes that Professor Yarbrough, just because he's a respectable academic, won't shy away from answering the questions that enquiring minds want to know...
The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records
of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE
REPORT has learned.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to
investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young
children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”
Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: “Our reporters made
initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other
aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding
the sensitivity of the issue.”
John Roberts was being blackmailed to
make certain Obamacare never falls in a Supreme Court case. The basis of
this charge surrounds the fact that a series of strange (and probably felonious) acts are attached to the adoption of his two children.
In 2005, when they thought they were doing the Democrats’ bidding,
the New York Times dug into apparently easily accessible records and
found that the children Roberts and his wife adopted in “South America”
started life as Irish citizens. This is a red flag. The laws of Ireland
regarding adoptions are very clear: adoptions by non-citizens are
prohibited, as are private adoptions.
Apparently, when the Democrats realized they could control a Supreme
Court Justice’s vote through blackmail over his having committed a
number of international crimes, the Times pulled back and dropped its
investigation. The Democrat paper of record pulled back because it
didn’t want to “ break the seal of an adoption case” – as if violating
laws ever means anything to Democrats in their quest for power. Keep in
mind Barack Obama’s violation of his opponents’ “sealed” divorce records
propelled him to a US Senate seat.
What does the Roberts problem mean for the average American who looks
to Washington for relief from Democrat oppression? It means we won’t be
getting any relief from the Roberts Court, period.
Roberts’ vote on the side of the leftist justices came as a rude
surprise to Conservatives. By all accounts, Obamacare was set to be
defeated. Five of the conservative justices had even prepared a majority
opinion against Obamacare, until one of them — John Roberts — at the
11th hour, changed his mind, and switched his vote. The formerly
majority opinion had to be quickly re-written as a minority dissent.
Roberts’ 11th-hour abrupt switch confounded everyone. Why would an
alleged “strict constructionist” who ought to favor limiting
governmental power in favor of individual choice, turn into the fifth
and deciding vote for Obamacare, which is already changing the United
States as we’ve known it. And at the last minute?
L to r: John, Jack, Jane, Josie Roberts, Oct. 3, 2005. Do those kids look Latin American to you?
A HuffPo article in 2012 claimed
that “a source close to the Roberts family, who requested anonymity in
order to discuss judicial deliberations, told The Huffington Post that
the justice’s wife, Jane, exercises a ‘heavy influence’ over her
husband.” Jane Sullivan Roberts is described by Lisa McElroy, author of
the biography John Roberts: Chief Justice, as “a very intelligent and high-powered lawyer in her own right.”
Below is an account of what could have led John Roberts to
switchbetray. (Note: The essay is quite long and should be relegated to the realm of unconfirmed rumors.) Briefly, the
contention is that Roberts was blackmailed to switch his vote because
he and his wife had illegally adopted two infants from Ireland. The Roberts children are now 12 to 13 years old.
According to a 2009 article in Irish America,
John and Jane Roberts are part-owners of a little cottage in Knocklong
County Limerick, Ireland, not far from Jane’s mother’s home place in
Charleville on the Limerick/Cork border. John Roberts is also of Irish
stock, as well as Welsh and Czech.
THE PROGRESSIVES CAST THEIR NETS DEEP AND WIDE!!
OUR WHOLE SYSTEM IS SCREWED !!
More Grist for the "John Roberts Is Gay" Mill
Ever since President Bush announced his selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., as his Supreme Court nominee, speculation over whether Judge Roberts might be gay has run rampant throughout the blogosphere. See, e.g., Althouse, Law Dork, and Wonkette. UTR readers have also flooded A3G's inbox with emails citing the following "evidence" that Judge Roberts is gay:1. Despite being handsome, brilliant, rich, and nice -- in other words, prime marriage material -- Judge Roberts didn't get married until the relatively late age of 41.So there's certainly some grist for the "Judge Roberts is gay" rumor mill in the nominee's past (even if much of it is of dubious value). And now, tomorrow's edition of New York Times will throw more fuel on the fire, in the form of this rather interesting article about Judge Roberts's time at Harvard and what it was like to be a campus conservative there during the 1970's.
2. With all due respect to the perfectly attractive Mrs. Jane Sullivan Roberts, some UTR readers -- not A3G -- have commented that the #5 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary could have "married someone hotter." According to a UTR correspondent who used to work at Hogan & Hartson, Judge Roberts's former law firm, "many of the older [Hogan] attys are married to good-looking 20-somethings after having dumped their first wives."
3. Judge and Mrs. Roberts have adopted rather than biological children. (The "theory" behind this fact, it seems, is that we therefore have no "proof" of the consummation of the Roberts' marriage.)
4. Judge Roberts has associated with gay people in the past:
(a) As everyone knows by now, he did pro bono work on behalf of gay rights activists, helping out colleagues in their preparation of court filings and oral argument in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).Note: A3G has conducted her own mini-investigation into this claim, and she is uncertain of its accuracy. She has accounted for (almost) all of the nine clerks that Judge Roberts has had during his time on the D.C. Circuit, and the clerks that she knows of are all married to or dating people of the opposite sex, or otherwise not believed to be gay. (But if you have the name, rank and serial number of any Roberts clerk who is openly gay -- A3G isn't interested in outing anyone -- please email her.)
(b) While Judge Roberts was at Harvard, his pre-law advisor was William LaPiana, a law professor at New York Law School and an openly gay man.
(c) One UTR reader commented that "Roberts has had at least one gay (male) clerk while sitting on the D.C. Cir. I suspect at least one other clerk as well."
Update: It appears that Judge Roberts may have had one gay clerk. At the request of this clerk, however, A3G has deleted a reader comment referring to this clerk by name. Furthermore, she has disabled comments on this post. She thanks you for your consideration.
5. Finally, in terms of evidence of gayness, let's not leave out the notorious plaid pants.
There are two noteworthy aspects of this article from the "John Roberts Is Gay" point of view. First, check out the provocative third paragraph -- surprisingly high placement, essentially part of the lede -- of Janny Scott's piece:
"Conservatives were like the queers on campus," said Eric Rofes, a classmate of Judge Roberts who later became an organizer on gay issues. "People made fun of them. They mocked them and saw them as jokers or losers. I don't think in the moment many people realized this was the start of an ascending movement. People felt it was like the last cry of the 1950's."Second, directly to the left of the foregoing paragraph in the online version of the article is a photograph (courtesy Don Scherer) showing Judge Roberts hanging out on Martha's Vineyard with two handsome male friends, Don Scherer and Richard Lazarus. Call Article Three Groupie crazy -- you wouldn't be the first -- but the picture strikes her as pretty "gay-looking."
If you question A3G's basis for deeming this picture "gay-looking," check out the photo for yourself (below right), and then read this (amusingly unhinged) email from a UTR reader:
Oy gay! Are we perhaps getting a little carried away with all of our rumor-mongering concerning Judge Roberts's sexual orientation? After all, the pic was taken on Martha's Vineyard, not Fire Island. And for the record, Scherer is married, as is Lazarus.
More seriously, all of the "Is John Roberts gay?" speculation strikes A3G as pretty pointless, since it's doubtful that we'll ever get a definitive answer to the question. It's highly unlikely that Judge Roberts will show up in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 6 and declare, "I am a gay American." We can hazard all sorts of guesses about Judge Roberts's tastes and proclivities, but we'll never know for sure.
To sum things up, as A3G previously stated, "Is Judge John Roberts gay? Hmm, who knows?" Unless some new and truly compelling information emerges, let's just leave it at that. As far as A3G is concerned, the question of Judge Roberts's possible homosexuality -- like the matter of his two adopted kids -- should be shoved back into the closet. 'Nuff said!
Update: Professor Althouse, despite being on vacation, had some interesting and funny comments to offer on the Times piece. A3G is inclined to agree with her: a good case can be made that the NYT is deliberately making Judge Roberts look gay. And yet, as Professor Althouse notes, "the deniability is intact as ever. It's just three men with a pie... and a mustache... and a glow."
* Uh, who ever said that Judge Roberts -- if he is in fact gay, and if he is ultimately confirmed to the Court -- would be the first gay justice? Certainly not Wonkette: "Okay, serious now: We don't actually think Roberts is gay. We totally wish he was, though! Someone needs to keep Souter company."
And Wonkette may not be alone in her suspicions concerning the #4 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary. Check out the Oyez biography of Justice Souter, which describes him as "[a] man of unusual and peculiar sensibilities." What exactly does this mean -- is that what they're calling them these days? (It's a bit of a mouthful; A3G prefers the more pithy "friend of Judge Wardlaw.")
The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”
Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: “Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.”
John Roberts was being blackmailed to make certain Obamacare never falls in a Supreme Court case. The basis of this charge surrounds the fact that a series of strange (and probably felonious) acts are attached to the adoption of his two children.
In 2005, when they thought they were doing the Democrats’ bidding, the New York Times dug into apparently easily accessible records and found that the children Roberts and his wife adopted in “South America” started life as Irish citizens. This is a red flag. The laws of Ireland regarding adoptions are very clear: adoptions by non-citizens are prohibited, as are private adoptions.
Apparently, when the Democrats realized they could control a Supreme Court Justice’s vote through blackmail over his having committed a number of international crimes, the Times pulled back and dropped its investigation. The Democrat paper of record pulled back because it didn’t want to “ break the seal of an adoption case” – as if violating laws ever means anything to Democrats in their quest for power. Keep in mind Barack Obama’s violation of his opponents’ “sealed” divorce records propelled him to a US Senate seat.
What does the Roberts problem mean for the average American who looks to Washington for relief from Democrat oppression? It means we won’t be getting any relief from the Roberts Court, period.
Roberts’ vote on the side of the leftist justices came as a rude surprise to Conservatives. By all accounts, Obamacare was set to be defeated. Five of the conservative justices had even prepared a majority opinion against Obamacare, until one of them — John Roberts — at the 11th hour, changed his mind, and switched his vote. The formerly majority opinion had to be quickly re-written as a minority dissent.
Roberts’ 11th-hour abrupt switch confounded everyone. Why would an alleged “strict constructionist” who ought to favor limiting governmental power in favor of individual choice, turn into the fifth and deciding vote for Obamacare, which is already changing the United States as we’ve known it. And at the last minute?
A HuffPo article in 2012 claimed that “a source close to the Roberts family, who requested anonymity in order to discuss judicial deliberations, told The Huffington Post that the justice’s wife, Jane, exercises a ‘heavy influence’ over her husband.” Jane Sullivan Roberts is described by Lisa McElroy, author of the biography John Roberts: Chief Justice, as “a very intelligent and high-powered lawyer in her own right.”
Below is an account of what could have led John Roberts to
switchbetray. (Note: The essay is quite long and should be relegated to the realm of unconfirmed rumors.) Briefly, the contention is that Roberts was blackmailed to switch his vote because he and his wife had illegally adopted two infants from Ireland. The Roberts children are now 12 to 13 years old.
According to a 2009 article in Irish America, John and Jane Roberts are part-owners of a little cottage in Knocklong County Limerick, Ireland, not far from Jane’s mother’s home place in Charleville on the Limerick/Cork border. John Roberts is also of Irish stock, as well as Welsh and Czech.
THE PROGRESSIVES CAST THEIR NETS DEEP AND WIDE!!
OUR WHOLE SYSTEM IS SCREWED !!
