Duh! Presidents named George can do whatever they want. Everyone knows that.

You know, when linking to a 194-page document to support a statement like "George Washington was president for seven weeks before he'd taken the oath", a page number would be helpful. And, as I've said before, it'd be really really keen if you could give some indication of the source you're linking to before one has to click through.

I hate to be critical but things like that (and the incredibly crazy way that one can't stay logged in) make this world-class blog a lot less user-friendly.

This demonstrates what a classy guy Barack Obama is. He used subtle humor to set everyone at ease and minimize the embarassment to Chief Justice Roberts. Imagine a GWB doing this with a justice appointed by a demoncratic predecessor...you can safely bet it would be filled with sarcasm and derogatory nicknames. This is the difference being frat boy humor and self-assurance coupled with real leadership attributes.

The office of the president is transferred at noon - the enactments of the president are legit when the oath has been properly sworn and acknowledged. It was acknowledged, but it wasn't properly sworn.

One can argue until doomsday whether there is a difference between "faithfully execute" and "execute ... faithfully." But it was not as prescribed in the Constitution.

The reenactment happened without a bible, giving the Dingnuts something else to complain about: "They don't have a bible in the WH?"

Obama wanted to be sworn in on the Lincoln bible, and one can understand why he didn't want to use another one for round two.
The Dingnuts are already saying the whole thing was a ploy to avoid swearing in properly on a bible at all - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean.

Having the Chief Justice on the forecourt of the legislative branch affirm the president's executive powers is a pretty powerful and necessary ritual.
The fact that Chief Justice Roberts managed to screw it up speaks volumes, particularly as one is given to understand that he actually rehearsed it, which it was also obvious that Obama had done.

A pity. Personally, I worry more about Biden the somnambulant. At the swearing in of chief officers he goes "I have to do it again?" "Which chief officers are we swearing in now."

Clearly, the swearing in thing is something that needs to be practised more - or rather, the upholding of that which one swears to do. Obama seems on track there.

Anyone else wondering if this screw-up by Roberts could be related to his previous two--well, two is all we know about--"benign idiopathic seizures"?

h

"Doing a Roberts": Flubbing something very simple that you've prepared long and hard for, leading to public embarrassment.

Fitting that the final act of a Bush appointee in the last moment of the Bush administration should have been so spectacularly cocked-up. Helluva job.

My Gawd, do you mean that for 8 years, 7 hours and 35 minutes, our Nation did not have a legitimate President?

NBC aired the Do-Over, but said nothing about it being John Roberts who pooched the 35 word oath.

Oddly... my friend says FOX did set the record straight. Kudos, Fox. I hope the taste of truth appeals to you enough to try it more often.

Screw the oath. Did the flag in the Oval Office have gold fringe?

That's the real question.

But, Roberts did, once again, fail to include that much needed phrase, "I will faithfully keep my jacket on, while in the Oval Office".

Great editorial in the Grey Lady from Steven Pinker relative to Roberts' flub. It is no secret that the Chief Justice is a stickler for grammer. Pinker blames the mistatement on the "split verb" or "split infinitive" myth adopted by the The Texas Law Review Manual of Style. Its a holdover from Latin. Good stuff if you like that sort of thing, which I do. Best explanation yet for what happened. What I didn't realize is that Roberts correction was also wrong and worse than the original, which is why (I guess) Obama chose to play along with the first version. As for the do-over, lawyers hate ambiguity and the Constitution is technically ambiguous (internally contradictory) on this point (for example the Constitution says "take" not "say" so a signature could be sufficient, and makee the oath mandatory, yet the amendment provides for transfer of power automatically, etc.). If you want the brief, I am happy to write the wingnuters' points seriatim. Now about the absence of a Bible at the second swearing in. Que Mr. Drudge.

And afterward did they have an oath meal?

Yet another example of how the media chase empty fluffballs like schizophrenic kittens, and how good the Republicans are at stirring up this sort of trouble.

I don't see the media changing -- they're just too dumb. And I don't see the Republicans changing -- they're just too evil. So the only thing to do is fight fire with fire.

E.g., why are Republicans blocking a vote for AG when we're at war against terrorism? Why are Republicans taking the side of terrorists? Why does John Cornyn support terrorists? Does he receive money from them? Or is it the oil companies, which we know have him in their pocket? Who are his donors? Who gives money to the oil companies? Why are they all helping out the terrorists? Republicans, oil, terror. It's an axis of evil!

But, Roberts did, once again, fail to include that much needed phrase, "I will faithfully keep my jacket on, while in the Oval Office".

Nixon refused to work in his shirt sleeves, too. What is it with Republicans who slaughter the Constitution and subvert the justice process but insist on being formally dressed? Are they like our trolls here who answer remarks about the war dead, shattered economy and Bushco lawlessness with remonstrances about our F bombs?

In the grand scheme of things it is probably unimportant, but I like that, along with all of the other things Obama has already brought to the Office, he has an appropriate and well executed humor.

It's such a contrast to the malignant and mistimed 'heh heh,' that has grated against our ears and sensibilities for the last decade.

Fuck ya, what shortstop said!

It's definitely a positive that Obama and Roberts, who had an uncomfortable relationship at best, are now bound together by Roberts' flub and the humorous redo. Both behaved graciously, but more important was that respect was shown by both -- to each other, to all of us. It's going to take a while to get out of the paranoid mood dominating the past 8 years. But we're on our way.

'..."split infinitive" myth adopted by the The Texas Law Review Manual of Style. Its a holdover from Latin.'

No it isn't. Latin infinitives (present active and passive ones) are single words, therefore unsplittable. But the notion that English should have such a rule is a holdover from the days when grammarians thought Latin grammar should be the model for English grammar, so if Latin infinitives couldn't be split, English ones shouldn't be.

For uber-right, the oath is still illegitimate. Why, you ask? There was no Bible at the do-over.

My powers of prognostication remain intact:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb113/clytemnestras_photos/drudge.jpg

Fucking around with weird jacket rules is a WASP predilection, ignore at will.

I like how Steve says "There was widespread agreement that Chief Justice John Roberts' flub of the presidential oath of office was insignificant..." and then points us to an article where 1) a grand total of three experts are quoted, 2) one of the three disagrees that it was insignificant, says that fixing the gaffe is mandatory, and 3) the other two says the do-over is probably a good idea.

What would the article have looked like if there was dis-agreement about the significance?

In vino - You pompous ass. Read the fucking article. Prof. Pinker is well aware of your litte factoid and nothing I said suggested that infinitives in Latin consisted of more than one word.

So according to these experts, we cannot have a legitimate president who has lost his right arm, or who cannot talk.

The Oath does not make him president, it is more important than that, it restrains his powers as president: he must defend the constitution.

Obama became president as soon as Bush's term expired, about the time YoYo Ma was sawing through his cello.

But I think that if he had refused to recite the required oath, he could have set up an impeachment case.

"In vino - You pompous ass. Read the fucking article. Prof. Pinker is well aware of your litte factoid and nothing I said suggested that infinitives in Latin consisted of more than one word." Posted by: Scott F. on January 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Pompous ass I may be, but you're as nuttily out of control as a South Carolina Republican.

The Romans would have demanded a readministration of the oath -- when a public official was installed in office, all the rituals had to go perfectly otherwise they were redone. And since the founders of America was venerated the Roman Republic, a redo of the oath would not be out of place.

I just want to know... what does the joke about 12 more balls to go mean? It's honestly bewildering me.