(We) Are The News

Justice Roberts diggz

Post 9793910 View on 8kun


Chief Justice John Roberts said yay to prostitution and sex trafficking and nay to "First Amendment Rights violation" under the shadow of Open Society's HIV/AIDS argument in 2013

Credit to X22's twatter post for attention to today's Supreme Court conclusion. twitter.com/X22Report/status/1277715467411566593

2013 PDF: supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf

2020 PDF: supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf

2013 PDF: Roberts opinion is on pages 1 (4 on PDF) to 15 (18 on PDF)

Via page 1 (or 4 on PDF)

[June 20, 2013]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the


The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (Leadership Act), 117

Stat. 711, as amended, 22 U. S. C. §7601 et seq., outlined a

comprehensive strategy to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS

around the world. As part of that strategy, Congress

authorized the appropriation of billions of dollars to fund

efforts by nongovernmental organizations to assist in the

fight. The Act imposes two related conditions on that

funding: First, no funds made available by the Act “may be

used to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of

prostitution or sex trafficking.” §7631(e). And second, no

funds may be used by an organization “that does not have

a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”

Via page 13-14 (or 16-17 on PDF)

The Government suggests that the Policy Requirement

is necessary because, without it, the grant of federal funds

could free a recipient’s private funds “to be used to promote prostitution or sex trafficking.” Brief for Petitioners

27 (citing Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S.

1, _–_ (2010) (slip op., at 25–26)). That argument

assumes that federal funding will simply supplant private

funding, rather than pay for new programs or expand

existing ones. The Government offers no support for that

assumption as a general matter, or any reason to believe it

is true here. And if the Government’s argument were

correct, League of Women Voters would have come out

differently, and much of the reasoning of Regan and Rust

would have been beside the point.

2020 PDF: Kavanaugh's opinion is on pages 1 (3 on PDF) to 9 (11 on PDF)

After enactment of the Leadership Act, plaintiffs challenged the Policy Requirement, alleging that it violated the

First Amendment. In 2013, this Court agreed, concluding

that the Policy Requirement ran afoul of the free speech

principle that the Government “may not deny a benefit to a

person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech.” Agency for Int’l Development

v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., 570 U. S. 205, 214

(2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the

Policy Requirement no longer applies to American organizations that receive Leadership Act funds, meaning that

American organizations can obtain Leadership Act funds

even if they do not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.

Post 9793923 View on 8kun



Trump twats about John Roberts


twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1176887998891384837 (RT'd)








Post 9793931 View on 8kun



Chief Justice Roberts is connected to No Name and Graham connects Garland with Roberts.


As the Supreme Court races to issue opinions in more than 30 cases, Chief Justice John Roberts finds himself having to navigate issues as thorny as abortion, health care, affirmative action and immigration with a four-four split of conservative and liberal justices. Since the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the court has been left short-handed, with no obvious tie-breaker in a host of contentious cases. Roberts has made unanimity and collegiality on the court a priority since early in his tenure, and the loss of Scalia has put that to the test. CNN's Ariane de Vogue has the story (cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/john-roberts-supreme-court-tie?sr=nl_pol_051016_robertscourt) .

Straight Up

** "It took 25 years to defeat slavery. That is a lot longer than four years."


Paul Clement (R) argues in front of John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. (Reuters/Art Lien/Handout)


unsigned opinion that Chief Justice John Roberts summarized from the bench, the justices returned the contraception issue to the lower courts to review whether recent movement in the parties’ positions had paved the way to possible compromise.



Chief Justice John Roberts' court has itself to thank for some of the laws enacted after the justices struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013.



Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) heaped praise for Merrick Garland after meeting privately with the Supreme Court nominee on Wednesday, but said he won’t change his mind on not moving his nomination this year. Graham, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he told Garland that despite his credentials, the Senate won’t act on replacing deceased Justice Antonin Scalia until a new president is elected in November. “He’s a very nice man. He’s, I think, an honest, very capable judge,” Graham told reporters after his sit-down with Garland. He noted that Garland “worked well” with current Chief Justice John Roberts when both men were on the D.C. Circuit Court, “so there’s no beef with him. Well-qualified man.” Graham is the latest of several Republican senators who've held courtesy meetings with the Supreme Court nominee, only to reiterate the party line that no one will be confirmed during this election year.



The Supreme Court appeared closely divided along ideological lines during oral arguments Monday in a case that could determine President Barack Obama's legacy on immigration. Conservative justices questioned Obama's authority to use executive actions to shield some 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito seemed particularly concerned with language in the administration's guidance that said the program's recipients would be "lawfully present," which they suggested would contradict immigration law. "How is it possible to lawfully work in the United States without lawfully being in the United States?" Alito asked. Roberts added: "I mean, they're lawfully present, and yet, they're present in violation of the law?"


John Roberts said Sen. Ted Cruz will have a hard time uniting the Republican Party, which has "tremendous divisions" that will likely "grow wider between now and the final day on June 7th."


Abbott, siding with Senate Republicans who have refused to hold hearings on Merrick Garland, also took a shot at Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed to the court by former President George W. Bush.

"Chief Justice John Roberts is the tip of the spear in playing politics," Abbott said. "Chief Justice John Roberts knowingly, clearly and unabashedly re-wrote Obamacare twice. What we are seeing is nothing more than naked politics being played by the United States Supreme Court."

Post 9793938 View on 8kun




The Supreme Court appears divided along partisan lines as to whether “one person, one vote” means all residents in a given area, or just eligible voters, with John Roberts saying voters and Sonia Sotomayor saying it’s not that simple during oral arguments for what could be a landmark case from Texas. Separately, the justices decided unanimously that a Maryland man can challenge that state’s redistricting plan, something lower courts had dismissed. (Robert Barnes)


*John Roberts (6/12/15, 6:52 pm)* - Gov. Walker told me off camera that his

presidential announcement would likely be around the 2nd week of July


*Highlight #4*

*Bash Reports on McCain's Activities while Obama is Away *(FNC 07/22/08


JOHN ROBERTS: McCain says he, not Obama, has had the correct message all

along and as Dana Bash tells us, the message is resonating with voters . . .



Roberts leaves his mark – “Chief Justice favors some when assigning court’s major decisions,” by Robert Barnes: “John Roberts is a stickler for evenly distributing the workload of the Supreme Court, but he plays favorites among his eight colleagues when assigning the court’s most important decisions. Not surprisingly, Roberts calls his own number more than anyone else’s and assigns the second-highest number to Anthony Kennedy, the pivotal justice on the ideologically divided court, according to a new study by Harvard law professor Richard J. Lazarus. On the other hand, Roberts has never assigned Sonia Sotomayor the court’s opinion in a major case in her six terms on the court, Lazarus found, an omission that he wrote ‘could be a bit portentous.’ In looking broadly at the chief justice’s 10 years on the job, Lazarus found that Roberts hesitates in assigning big decisions to the court’s most conservative and liberal members — Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the right, and Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the left.”


DANA BASH: […] The frustration inside the McCain Campaign was really

palpable because they felt like they had finally, yesterday, they had a

message when it comes to energy. The issue they understand that voters care

most about. A headline grabbing idea and it really got muddled big time by

what happened with Charlie Black.

JOHN ROBERTS: Dana, some calls by the opposition for McCain to throw Charlie

Black overboard. I assume he's not going to do that?

BASH: At this point it doesn't look that way at all. I mean Black is

somebody that has been a trusted advisor to McCain for a very very long

time. They've known each other for 30 years. And because, I think they feel

inside the campaign, because he understood very quickly that this is

something that he had to correct fast, and he did so, that they hope that

this can get blown over. Having said that, democrats are not going to let

this go. You saw all of these statements by democrats yesterday calling this

a disgrace. They're going to keep pushing this.

Note: I did NOT finish digging wikileaks under Podesta emails on John Roberts due to X22 Report's drop and I then focused on that, then we focused on…

Post 9793947 View on 8kun


5/5 PDF's hints of connections between HIV/AIDS argument and the impact of that in countries they mention in the PDFs as well as prostitution and sex trafficking levels.

So obviously it makes sense as to why HIV/AIDS ran rampant in Sub-Saharan Africa since we know sex trafficking also is very high if not the highest there. That's why the DS wants to pour billions of dollars into stopping HIV/AIDS so they don't also get HIV/AIDS from their main source (or one of their main sources) of sex trafficking. Now we just need to connect it all and show how dirty John Roberts is, and why it's more likely (but still not proven) that he was the John Roberts on Epstein's flight logs. Regardless if that was him or not, these guys are SICK.



Africa has one of the world's highest rate of sex trafficking.

Africa has one of the world's highest rates of HIV/AIDs infections.

HIV/AIDS health organizations operate in HIV/AIDS heavy areas. Such as Africa.

Kenya for example receives billions of dollars of aid from the US to HIV/AIDS health organizations whose policies do not specify against prostitution and sex trafficking.

Sex traffickers make more money on non-HIV positive persons.


Some HIV/AIDS health organizations could be used to sex traffic.

US aid to HIV/AIDS health organizations could be used to enable sex trafficking.

Supporting evidence is adding the requirement to US funding to HIV/AIDS health organizations.


Sex traffickers in Kenya obviously don't want to move on from countries such as Kenya

Sex traffickers want to make money.

- Sex traffickers make more money with non-HIV positive persons.

- Sex traffickers historically operate in Africa.

- Sex traffickers could be using HIV/AIDS health organizations to sex traffick.


Sex traffickers are using US funding to HIV/AIDS health organizations to sex traffick.


Which of these HIV/AIDS health organizations are a front or being used to sex traffick? Open Society International sure did fight quite hard…