Chief Roberts

[Guest slackersam]

Which one?

[Guest fountainhall]

I think Chief Justice Roberts is an impressive guy despite presidential oath gaffe. He's an intelligent, articulate guy.

 

Any English scholars around? Isn't Robert's version more grammatically correct than the officiial oath - with the adverb coming after the verb?

[Gaybutton]

I'm no fan of Roberts, but it had to be a deeply embarrassing moment for his first public flub to end up happening during one of the USA's most historic moments. I suppose it's a good thing that former presidents don't swear in the next one. Bush would probably still be standing there trying to get it right.

 

I'm surprised, however, when it was decided on the very same day that Obama signed an executive order for more transparency that television was not invited in to witness the second swearing in ceremony. Is it just me or does that seem a little bit ironic to anyone else? If they wanted to do a second swearing in, which legal experts are saying wasn't necessary, then why wasn't television invited in so the world could witness? They televise just about everything else short of the president taking a dump, so why not televise the second swearing in?

 

I don't get it.

[Guest slackersam]

My understanding is that the Secret Service restricts access to Obama much more than they have any other president.

[Guest fountainhall]

I'm no fan of Roberts, but it had to be a deeply embarrassing moment for his first public flub to end up happening during one of the USA's most historic moments.

 

Frankly, I think it was an appalling gaffe - and would say that whoever had made the mistake. It's an old rule that when you are taking part in an historic moment and you have to say even just a few words, you have them written out in front of you - just in case!

[Guest slackersam]

The oath is written in the constitution and the dude is supposed to be a constitutional scholar.

[Guest MonkeySee]

The oath is written in the constitution and the dude is supposed to be a constitutional scholar.

Maybe Roberts had a little "stage fright." Half the world watching and he blew it.

[Guest Astrrro]

I think it was the right decision not to televise the secret 2nd swearing in. That would set a bad precedent that a one word flub would mean Obama was not president.

 

It could be argued then why do the second one at all but I think the backup was a good idea though not nescesary. It could prempt some friviulous challenges.

[Guest GaySacGuy]

I think it was the right decision not to televise the secret 2nd swearing in. That would set a bad precedent that a one word flub would mean Obama was not president.

 

It could be argued then why do the second one at all but I think the backup was a good idea though not nescesary. It could prempt some friviulous challenges.

 

It was probably done because Chris Wallace on FOX news was saying he wasn't sure we had a new president. It is in the Constitution that the new president takes office at 12 noon on Jan 20, and that is oath or no oath. They did have photos by the White House photographer.

[Guest fountainhall]

I think it was the right decision not to televise the secret 2nd swearing in. That would set a bad precedent that a one word flub would mean Obama was not president.

 

Is that factually correct? Several TV channels made the point that the constitution is clear that Obama became president at exactly noon on that date, even though the oath was not administered until sdeveral minutes later.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

The report I heard was that they wanted to be certain there would be no question as to the legality.

[Guest slackersam]

Everything I've read has said the oath is nothing but symbolic.

 

But, if he wanted to do it twice, that's fine. Heck, he's the president, if he wants to take the oath 100 times it's fine with me.