Roberts's Rules
Just wanted to highlight something I wrote yesterday about Chief Justice John Roberts and his inauguration flub. President Obama (!) was gracious enough to exonerate him and even credit Roberts for helping him out. But it sure seemed like Roberts flubbed it and had no notes at hand to help him out. Vice President Joe Biden was not so forgiving. Yesterday I noted in a TPMDC world exclusive--theme music, please--that I had talked with someone who works with Roberts. This person noted to me about ten days ago that Roberts was studying hard for the inaugural and was taking his preparation very seriously. At the time I didn't give it much thought. But I should have asked myself why he'd need to study at all. The oath is short enough that one might easily memorize it and you could always bring notes if you didn't but it doesn't seem like the latter occurred to the chief justice.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Dupe? The same story is posted at 2:28 PM and 2:42 PM.
BTW, My counter to the WingNuts who say Obama isn't president is that Roberts can now be impeached for not properly executing his Constitutional duties.
But just in case, I agree with some others who have said he should re-take the oath in private with another Federal judge.
January 21, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
All because "faithfully" was put at the end of the sentence instead of before "execute" earlier in the sentence? Folks, adverbs are flexible and you can move them around a sentence in the English language anyway. All this bruhaha over such a trivial thing (ok, the oath isn't exactly trivial, but we are talking semantics here) is a bit laughable.
Besides, as CT says below, it doesn't even matter anyway.
January 21, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still, it would be nice for Roberts to hold a presser and declare unequivocally that Obama is president of the United States.
January 21, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or at least just say, "Look it: I goofed, and Obama was trying to help me out....and P.S. to you nutjobs out there: he's really and truly the president. Please get a life, ok?"
Hey, a cat can dream, right?
January 21, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, a cat can dream. I still think (dream) that this election was a referendum for rationality in politics, and, in that mindset, getting hung up in adverbs is a waste of time...
January 21, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rationality.
I'm sorry, what's that? It seems to have been AWOL in political discussions for over 10 years at this point...
I heard Jonathan Alter on "On Point" this morning (I loathe the host, but there's nothing else on at that point in the morning--if you want to listen to an interviewer who's only slightly more effective than Larry King, Tom Ashbrook's your guy)--and he said, of rightwing talk radio "They can talk about hounding Obama, but they're really fringe at this point", more or less.
They want to make this an issue? I don't think it's a good tactic for Republicans.
January 21, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny take on Ashbrook, CT...I sometimes listen to his podcast while cooking at night (depending on the topic) and I laugh out loud at him...he jams so much into the questions that it stupefies the guests. Or when he takes a call and says, "Dave from Boise, whattaya know?"
January 22, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ashbrook is just awful. He interrupts, paraphrases things into complete drivel, and overstates just about everything.
I loathe him.
January 22, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is awful -- and full of himself.
And note that for just over the first half hour of his show, he repeatedly talks about taking calls -- but doesn't.
And his paraphrases: they always manage to MISstate what the listener just HEARD said.
AWFUL. And yet he replaced Christopher Lyons. Must be connections, because it isn't about competence and the listeners.
January 23, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing how hypocritical you folks are.
Ther wasn't a day went buy without you folks getting all outraged that the Bushit criminal enterprise didn't obey the law -- or, more obviously, tortured the actual language of the law into a distortion which would suit their ends, by such as moving words around to change the meaning.
But when the language of the law as written concerns a Democrat -- well, we can slough that off; who cares but lunatic fringers?
Be consistent, and never put it past a far-right lunatic fringer such as Roberts to have some arcane America-hating/anti-Constitutional theory up his sleeve. Did he STUDY for the oath-giving? Though one obviously needn't "study" the text of the oath in the Constitution -- one need only read it, copy it down word-for-word, verbatim -- one CAN "study" other materials related to it in effort to find ways around it.
Keep in mind that Scalia and Roberts are "originalists" or "textualists" (take your pick as to which is which), therefore do not -- unlike "Liberals" -- "interpret" the Constitution; rather, they read the plain text that is there for its obvious -- read- in/interpreted -- meaning. It is by such bullshit means that those two far-right lunatic fringers arrive at wholly "original" -- out-of-thin-air/unfounded in law -- opinions that fly in the face of reason, and everything known to sane and free men.
Did Roberts deliberately set out to estatblish a controvery -- a means by which to attack Obama? Roberts is (as is Scalia), as you might recall (he couldn't during confirmation) a member of the "states' rights" (code-speak for white segregation/supremacism) "Federalist Society". And Scott Horton recently linked to a video about the extent of the prosecution of Democrats for being Democrats by the DOJ -- in which it is revealed that in addition to Rove it was directed by a named member of "The Federalist Society".
"A system of laws, not of [excuse-makers]." -- John Adams.
January 23, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We were talking adverb placement in a sentence, which doesn't alter the meaning of a sentence at all, not the "Clear Skies" or "Healthy Forests" initiatives, which were Orwellian.
And seriously, if flubbing the oath was a Roberts ploy to make Obama's presidency invalid, it was a pretty pathetic attempt. Roberts may be a extreme version of a Conservative judge, but to purposefully botch the read would be against all that he supposedly stands for.
January 23, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand by my critique. If you read through this thread, you'll see numerous instances which make my point.
January 26, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine Karl Rove allowing George W. Bush to subject himself to taking the oath again, just in case, because some left wingnuts MIGHT insist he wasn't really the President?
Me, neither. Especially after the 'irregularities' of Election 2000. Rove and Bush would have told anyone attempting this to take a hike.
This is the most extreme case of IOKIYAR I've ever seen, and it happens in the first SECONDS of Obama's administration. Now, the entire blowback and aftermath of this debacle is nothing but GOOD for Obama. Roberts looks like the fool he is; Obama looks like a good guy, forgiving, jovial, all cool.
But it just pissed me off. And, if Obama is that worried about somebody claiming he's not really the President, he sure did play it cool when that birth certificate lawsuit went all the way to the SCOTUS...I'm sick and tired of living in fear of the Limbaughs and Savages and O'Reillys of this country. Fuck 'em, once and for all!
Grrr...
January 22, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grounds for Robert's impeachment? Of course!
January 21, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Roberts was being appointed I recall reading how he was an uber-stickler for grammar, and that often aids and underlings received back from him memo’s that they had sent to him marked up in red ink correcting their grammatical mistakes.
So here you have a stickler for detail, in front of an audience of billions of people, screwing up perhaps the easiest, most basic of things - reciting a very short, very basic, oath.
That’s irony.
I'm sure all those who were on the receiving end of his grammatical condescension are having a quiet but satisfying chuckle now at his expenses.
January 22, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, my response to the "Obama isn't President because the oath didn't precisely match the one in the Constitution" whack jobs is that of course it didn't: Roberts added "So help you God" at the end, which absolutely and incontrovertibly isn't in the oath as it's given in the Constitution. That's a much more profound alteration than moving "faithfully" from one end of the sentence to the other. So anyone who thinks that Obama isn't really President because of the "faithfully" thing needs to acknowledge that nobody has really been President since the tradition of dragging God into inaugurations got started.
January 21, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And "So help me, God" goes back to George Washington, who tacked it onto the end of his oath!
January 22, 2009 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right after Washington apologized for chopping down the cherry tree.
Both myths long since debunked in the reality-based world.
January 22, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seapration of church and state began long before the 18th century. But it can also be said to have been established by the Founders/Framers when the rejected "Divine Right of Kings" -- at which point the spearated "God-given right to rule" from ruling, and replaced "King" with "elected".
It is also established with the language in the Constitution which prohibits "religious tests" of those running for public office -- one cannot prohibit anyone running for and being elected to and actually occupying a public office because of their "religion".
And that separation is expresssly established in the quintessential expression of Liberalism that is the First Amendment.
"So help me God" is an arrogant supremacism over the express terms of the Constitution.
January 23, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush was never elected president, and the wingos were happy to have him for eight freaking years.
I think Obama should take the oath again in public, but in spanish and arabic. That'd get them going.
January 21, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems as if the magnitude of the moment suddenly dawned on Roberts.
I thought, according to the 20th Amendment, that Obama's and Biden's terms began at 12:01, with or without the oath, so why is there any question about whether Obama really is president?
January 21, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't surprise me if Roberts crapped his pants when he stepped out and saw that crowd. Such a loud and celebratory crowd would probably throw most people off.
January 21, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're precisely right. Whether Obama had taken the oath or not, he was technically and officially President of the United States at 12:01pm ET yesterday.
January 21, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re-do your math. He was president at 12:00+ pm.
January 21, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, if you want to have a stick in your ass about specificity and technicality. =)
January 21, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Idjit: the Amendment says the current president's term ENDS at 12:00; it DOES NOT say that the new president's term BEGINGS at 12:00 noon.
Also, fool: all the critics of the Bushit criminal enterprise -- and mine goes back to at latest 12/12/2000, both here and elesewhere -- make huge issue of the relevant: the rule of law. The oath of office.
The OATH is about getting the oath-taker ON THE RECORD. Nixon's violation of the very same oath was an impeachable offense. Is your concern with honesty and truth only partisan/anti-Bushit/Republican? Do you really believe that oaths, and honesty and truth don't actually matter, except when you want to make POLITICAL issue of it?
"A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams.
John Adams undertook the highly unpopular defense of the British troops involved in the so-called "Boston Massacre". He did so despite the fact that he destested the British (he drove the Continental Congress to declaring independence) because, as he said, justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics.
Try applying that principle not only to the Bushit criminal enterprise, and such as Guantanamo, but to ALL in politics. But apply it first to YOURSELF.
January 23, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Twentieth Amendment did not repeal the requirement for an oath contain in Article II.
January 21, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely correct.
EVERY part of the Constitution is in operation AT THE SAME TIME -- even those which are or appear to be in contradiction.
Our system of laws is based upon a BALANCING of interests -- you have rights, and it is my responsibility not to violate them/I have rights, and you have responsibility not to violate them.
And "responsibility" implies "constraint" and "limitation".
January 23, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry...I looked it up. Bush ceased to be President at 12:00pm on the 20th. It says nothing about the President-Elect automatically becoming President.
Hey, I think this whole thing is ridiculous but that's what the 20th Amendment says, folks.
January 22, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look it up again.
Better, read this:
January 22, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It most certainly does. See above, bolded portion.
January 22, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does it say that the oath is IRRELEVANT? No, it does not: it is a separate requirement: it puts the oath-taker ON THE RECORD as accepting the rule of law, and its constraints and limitations on his actions and the exercise of the powers of the office.
I'm "shocked" that those opposed to Republican/public official dishonesty couldn't care less about it when the office holder isn't a Republican.
The ISSUE is RULE OF LAW, NOT POLITICS.
January 23, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lighten up, ok? My comment was in response to the individual who said that the 20th amendment said nothing about when the president and vice-president would take office.
I'm not saying that the oath shouldn't have been re-done, although I do find the whole thing a tempest in a teapot, because I find it impossible to believe that in all the times the oath has been administered there hasn't been one screw-up like this.
As for people thinking it's ok for Dems to "break laws" (even though it's entirely not clear to me that this was an instance of law-breaking...) but not for Republicans? I don't agree with that, either, but I most certainly don't agree with fanning the flames of a non-issue that has rightwing nut jobs having fantasies about suing the president.
January 23, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the rejection of the oath as a requirement by appealing to the 20th amendment that's the problem. BOTH apply, and the oath is stipulated as REQUIRED.
January 26, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he had to study and practice hard - to make sure he deliberately fucked it up just enough to make Obama look bad.
Yeah, yeah, paranoid cynic, whatever. In your heart, you know I'm right.
January 21, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chief Justice whose confirmation Obama voted against intentionally trying to make him look foolish . . . NAAAAAHH.
January 21, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cardinal rule for public speaking: Never try to memorize it (or at least: always have the text handy). Obama was being very magnanimous towards Roberts.
January 21, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I post this yesterday: Roberts is the best the Federalist Society has to offer. Their closed little incestuous club is akin to the Nazi nuclear bomb scientists before them. It's so exclusionary it defeats it's own purpose. Roberts, like the man who appointed him is under the delusion he's not only better than everyone else but also better than he really is.
January 21, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roberts, like the man who appointed him is under the delusion he's not only better than everyone else but also better than he really is.
Superb point. And it's not just the Federalist Society. I see that attitude among non-lawyer repugs everywhere. They literally do not understand what is going on and why they're not getting their way in everything any more.
January 21, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"[Non-lawyer Republicans] literally do not understand what is going on and why they're not getting their way in everything any more."
I agree with that one, and my handle makes roughly the same point. I read some clown Republican columnist "advising" Obama not to touch such sacred cows as *stem cell research!* That's right, reversing Bush's Luddite, bible-thumping and heartless research restrictions to save lives would be too troubling to the sensibilities of the rural, Talibangelical, Bush knuckleheads out there to be considered. Agree with you, many literally do not understand that there was election held and they were just handed their ass.
January 21, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have posted this on a couple of other threads, but I was late to those parties (I guess because I have a job...).
Anyway, IMPEACH ROBERTS NOW!!
As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he is supposed to be an expert on the Constitution. The oath is included, word-for-word, in the Constitution. He clearly demonstrated that he does NOT know the Constitution.
One of the duties of the Chief Justice, explicitly described in the Constitution, is to administer the presidential oath. Roberts demonstrated that he cannot perform his Constitutional duties.
So I think it makes sense to impeach him.
-- ARG
January 21, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where in the Constitution?
In fact, the Constitution didn't even establish the position of Chief Justice, which was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Nor is there a Constitutional or statutory requirement that the oath be administered by the Chief Justice or that the oath be sworn on a bible.
January 21, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, the Constitution didn't even establish the position of Chief Justice, which was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
That is incorrect, see the section on impeachment:
Nor is there a Constitutional or statutory requirement that the oath be administered by the Chief Justice or that the oath be sworn on a bible.
On that I have to agree, Washington, for example, was sworn in by a NY state official, and of course most Vice-Presidents who have assumed the Presidency upon the death of their predecessor are sworn in by the first judge they can find. However, Roberts himself is sworn to uphold the Constitution and if he agrees to administer the oath, he his bound by his oath to administer it correctly.
January 21, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the correction. It's curious that the position of Chief Justice is not mentioned in Article III.
I would be curious to hear what judges might have to say on the subject. You're not suggesting that Robert's misstatement is grounds fro impeachment, as others have, are you?
January 21, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Wikipedia:
From the Judiciary Act of 1789:
January 21, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I don't believe that the text of the oath in the Constitution allows for the president to insert his name, so I'm guessing that almost all the presidents were not properly sworn in--I think this is more significant than anything they tack on at the end ("so help me Buddha" or whatever), because I believe you can add whatever you want after you've already taken the oath.
Also, our first ten or so presidents didn't have their oaths televised, recorded, or even photographed--so their legitimacy will be forever in question. Let the conspiracy theories begin!
The only good thing to come of this is that Roberts will always be remembered primarily as the Chief Justice who couldn't properly administer the oath of office. My hope is that after two terms, Obama will have appointed a majority of the justices and Roberts and Alito will quickly become irrelevant.
January 22, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully Roberts will now have been taken down a peg PUBLICLY. THE Chief Justice who boasted of being the greatest Constitutional expert in the room -- and, unlike all them "Leftists," the only one concerned with preserving and protecting it -- has shown himself to be, without anyone's help in doing so, to be much less than the scholar he has presented himself as being.
January 23, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected on the issue of this being an explicity Constitutional duty of the Chief Justice. And, of course, I posted this with tounge firmly implanted in cheek.
Look, my whole point is that an argument for Roberts' impeachment is at least as sound as any argument that Obama is not really the president.
I formulated this arguement over lunch, less than an hour after viewing the swearing in. At that time I (figuratively) bet a paycheck that we'd be hearing from the right wing echo chamber that Obama wasn't really the president. And I was right about that. (Chris Wallace was questioning his legitimacy on Fox News that afternoon.)
And mark me, you'll still hear some of the followers spouting this notion six months from now (despite the "do-over" oath). Once planted, these ideas never go away.
So I believe the only proper response to that arguement is, "Oh yeah, well the right thing to do is to impeach Chief Justice Roberts", for the aforementioned reason(s). (And BTW, the "Oh yeah" is a critical piece of the counter arguement.)
-- ARG
January 22, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe that you, Matt Cooper, and the rest of the commenters here are wasting your time and effort trying make some big hullabaloo over an extremely trivial, irrelevant little blip. Don't you guys have anything more important to talk about? Biden made some kind of nasty comment and Obama looked uncomfortable, as well he should. Sheeesh........
January 21, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I should have asked myself why he'd need to study at all. The oath is short enough that one might easily memorize it...
Yeah, try doing it with 95 million people watching.
January 21, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope someone sues over the matter and that the case is taken all the way to the Supreme Court so that Roberts may write the majority opinion.
Besides remembering the oath, Roberts also had to remember to stand up, face Obama, and to raise his hand, not that any of such is required.
January 21, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was the facing Obama that discombobulated him: he never thought he'd see the day when a man who is exactly fifty per cent black, and fifty per cent white, but insistently called black, would be standing in front of him as president-elect by a comfortable and incontestible margin.
That reality is the apoplectic's anathema to that "states' rights" founding "principles" of "The Federalist Society" -- of which, of course, Roberts can't remember being a member.
January 23, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roberts Re-Administered the oath today:
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2150579120090122
January 21, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt: did you find out from your source whether the Chief Justice and President Obama met in advance for a run-through? Seems to me that it would make sense for the two men, busy schedules notwithstanding, to have met up or talked on the phone about where the pauses would come.
(AP reports that the president -- and presumably Roberts, though the C.J. isn't required -- took a mulligan this morning for the sake of having it done to the letter.)
Now, onto more important things...
January 21, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe turned 8 shades of red when the Boss went to the elbow
January 21, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still find it weird that people are jumping over themselves here to defend Obama.
I watched the oath, Obama jumped ahead with a few more words than Roberts had given, and later, Roberts gave a line and Obama couldn't remember the whole line and waited for a repeat. It's not a big deal except the huge "Obama can do no wrong" feeling in the denial. Will this be going on for the whole 8 years? Obama took a mulligan today just in case, a wise move considering the wingnuts who hate trial lawyers but love litigation.
January 21, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Obama knew the line, and waited for Roberts to say it correctly, which Roberts totally flubbed. Watch the video again carefully.
January 21, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And then Obama, in effort to be gracious, attempted to repeat the line as incorrectly given by Roberts.
The screw-up was wholly on Roberts.
January 23, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. That's not what happened.
January 21, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But none of that matters, because he can't be President anyway because he was born in Kenya, right?
That's absolutely not what happened, though I have no doubt whatsoever that that's what Limbaugh and Hannity are saying happened, and there are obviously people who will just blindly believe whatever Limbaugh and Hannity tell them to believe. If you're actually interested in, you know, facts, you can find the video in about a jillion places on the Internet. If you just want to believe bad stuff about Obama, we can't stop you.
But just in case it matters, here's the actual oath, as it appears in the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
And here's the exact transcript of what happened at the inauguration:
ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...
OBAMA: I, Barack...
ROBERTS: ... do solemnly swear...
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...
ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully...
OBAMA: ... that I will execute...
ROBERTS: ... faithfully the office of president of the United States...
OBAMA: ... the office of president of the United States faithfully...
ROBERTS: ... and will to the best of my ability...
OBAMA: ... and will to the best of my ability...
ROBERTS: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.
The problem was that Obama expected Roberts to pause after "I, Barack Hussein Obama," and Roberts thought he'd go all the way through
"do solemnly swear" before he paused. So Obama started repeating before Roberts was done with the first line. This clearly shook Roberts up, which is why he came up with an obvious mistake like "president to the United States," which nobody ever says. Obama said "that I will execute," and then looked quizzically at Roberts, obviously offering him a chance to repeat the line and get it right.
January 22, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly right LegalCat. That is exactly what happened.
Roberts is a nerd. A graceful and present man would have let Obama finish his name once he had begun. It was a moment of great meaning to the world and I wanted to hear it loud and clear and let it sink in to everyone everywhere. Preppie pants quickly shit it and stepped on the big man's toes. Ugh ..... but Obama picked up the ball and lobbed it to Roberts right on beat to save his ass ..... and Roberts lost his mind and flubbed his line. Ugh ....
What saved it was Obama being cool and present.
He is the Man~
January 22, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Charlie, but IIRC, Roberts initially stumbled on Obama's middle name.
I would expect nothing less from a Federalist Society member. It was Freudian, not intentional.
January 22, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is no different than a stage performance, and I'm sure both of them massively over prepared, being young (Washington standards) overachievers.
They both knew the oath inside and out. A dress rehearsal would have helped, or if at least one of them had been an old hand at it, he could have slowed it down comfortably.
There is big pressure to get things right at big public events. I have read for instance about the coronation ceremonies for the british crown. There are so many elements and it happens so infrequently that there is always a great deal of bungling and after the fact bemoaning the lack of preparation. I'm sure no onlookers notice, they move slowly and keep moving.
My one suggestion to Roberts would have been keep a text. Your memory may be excellent, but any crutch is invaluable support.
January 21, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
as my daughter reported from uva law school the joke is how many presidents of the harvard law review does it take to screw up an oath?
with the self evident answer of 2
January 21, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roberts wasn't president of the "Harvard LawReveiw," but Obama was. Therefore the correct answer is:
0.
The screw-up was wholly Roberts'.
January 23, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, why can't they just tape that shit to the top of the Lincoln Bible? It's what, 37 words? We used to recite it in 8th grade civics class.
January 22, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was an Obama moment, really. Roberts screwed up, but Obama knew Roberts was a screw up and that was why he did not agree he should be Chief Justice. This validates Obama's decision. It's a good sign of good decisions to come.
January 22, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny that Roberts, a so-called constitutional strict constructionist, can't even get the correct syntax out when called upon to repeat it.
January 22, 2009 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The kicker to this farcical farrago is that Justice Alito,
GWB's other SCOTUS appointment, refused to attend.
According to CNN's Blitzer it was because Biden & Obama
had voted against his appointment as well.
In terms of judgement of a judge, and by a judge - on inaugural day,
GWB's teamsters were playing true to form
- and once again proving to be woefully inadequate.
Just imagine if it had been Harriet Myers!!
January 22, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice point. They show their true partisan and thus anti-justice colors loud and clear.
January 22, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
False. Alito DID attend. He was not only announced by name, as he arrived, but it was pointed out that he was wearing his favorite -- oddball -- hat.
January 23, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incompetence is a kind word here.
I'm ready to forgive the decades of whining from the self-proclaimed victims in the GOP, as soon as they shut up, roll up their sleeves, and get back to the serious work of being American citizens again.
It's going to take years to remove the stench Republicans have left behind for the rest of us to clean up.
January 22, 2009 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will be great to see Drudge, or one of these other right wing tools try to challenge the Obama presidency as being legitimate. Where do you think the case is going to go? THE JOHN ROBERTS COURT!
January 22, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And now htat he's established that he's a "stirct constructionist" screw up, his decision will only arouse more controversy.
Maybe, though, he'll remember ethical requirements and recuse himself.
January 23, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it interesting that the guy who is most entrusted in interpreting the Constitution (and who practiced all day), rewrites the ONLY constitutionally mandated oath?
January 22, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'd think it were an incantation! And I heard he practiced for weeks. Clearly he and Obama had a clash.
January 22, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly one-half of a clash:
"The Federalist Society" was confronted by the exactly fifty per cent black half of a person who is also exactly fifty per cent white.
January 23, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink