Wayne Root, ferreting out the real story behind the Obamacare ruling

Speaking of classic literature … A gentleman by the name of Wayne Root writes in The Blaze:

It’s time to start asking the question. It’s time to be cynical. It’s time to assume the worst of this government.

Has Supreme Court Justice John Roberts been blackmailed or intimidated?

Doubt me? On the same day that Justice Roberts and the Supremes upheld Obamacare – again – the key IRS watchdog reported to Congress that the IRS purposely destroyed evidence of a crime.

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?…

This doesn’t seem odd to you? This doesn’t smell rotten?

This piece of intellectual profundity — titled "Was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Blackmailed?" — has garnered 18,700 "shares," whatever that means. It could mean that Mr. Root's readership is, in scope, only 42 percent of that of some "progressive" blowhards who are similarly fond of parataxis. But it could also mean something more, and that something is directly related to the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 Trutherism: the utter inability of thousands, even millions of Americans to accept any straightforward explanation of a historic event and jump instead to a conspiratorial finding; Oswald was in cohoots with, well, everyone of evil; George W. Bush and Dick Cheney wired the Twin Towers for implosion; and Justice Roberts upheld Obamacare because he was being blackmailed by, as Mr. Root calls it, the "Obama Crime Family." The least acceptable explanation to such folks is that Justice Roberts upheld Obamacare because Justice Roberts believed it was the right thing for the Court to do.

The Internet is an odd little place, is it not?

 

Comments

[Bob]

Ha! Those idiots over at The Blaze don't know secret plots from Shinola. Has anyone seen Roberts' birth certificate? I thought not. W was under direct orders from Skull and Crossbones to put him at the top of the court, and they're under the control of the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. The ruling was a message to aliens from the future that the time to strike is now. Enjoy the New World Order everyone. I'll be hiding out with the Freemasons.

While looking up "parataxis" I ran across this definition and explanation:

"Jiggery-pokery (meaning "dishonest or suspicious activity") is a fine example of what is referred to as rhyming reduplication, and Scalia appears to have more of a fondness for this type of language than do most of his fellow justices (he used the phrase argle-bargle several years ago in another decision). There are many such examples in English; razzle-dazzle, teeny-weeny, nitty-gritty, and perhaps the most applicable of all for use in a Supreme Court decision: phony-baloney." http://www.merriam-webster.com/blog/jiggery-pokery-one-interpretation.htm

[Peter G]

If you were looking for an image that would capture the weird essence of the Internet then search Google for images of paintings by Hieronymous Bosch. That man knew what an Id was before Sigmund Freud's great great grandfather was a gleam in the eye of his great great great grandfather.

[Turgidson]

I noted yesterday, I think, how I'm actually surprised at how sincerely disgusted the Right seems to be with the King decision. I thought even THEY knew it was substantively ridiculous, but that there was no harm in trying if it would bring down Obamacare. So I was expecting the reactions to most fall into the "disappointing result, but it was always a longshot."

But they seem to genuinely believe the case was meritorious and that they should have won. To the point where they think Justice Roberts was blackmailed into making his vote. Truly dumbfounding. I was surprised that they were high on their own supply, all the way to the top of the Romney campaign and Karl Rove, in fall 2012 with the "unskewed polls" stupidity, but I'm even a little more surprised by their reaction to King v. Burwell. It was a preposterous case, and the fact that it even got this far shows how tenuous the judiciary's impartiality can be when a case is touched by politics. I thought most of the Righties cheering it on knew it and were winking and nodding at each other, even as they lustily cheered the prospect of millions losing health care. Again, they surprised me.

[Bob]

Hieronymous would have been a hoot to have a few draughts with. Maybe not to turn your back on though.

[Bob]

Dare we hope sensible people have left the party with nothing but the kooks?

[Peter G]

They knew in their hearts that fix was in. They just thought it was their fix.