Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The BBC reported today that Obama "flubbed" his oath.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
applejuice Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:23 AM
Original message
The BBC reported today that Obama "flubbed" his oath.
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 11:25 AM by applejuice
I tuned into the BBC lunchtime news today (BBC 1, at 1.00pm) and they had a recap of the events yesterday. As they went through it all in order they showed Justice Roberts eff up and then said that Obama "appeared to flubb his lines". There was no further explanation.

I was mad as hell! But I guess it is understandable, they don't have the knowledge of the Constitution...but still! It's the BBC! Do they not pay attention to the US Media too?

I wonder if Obama is getting blamed for the screw up else where in the world as well?

**Edited to say that is 1.00pm UK time, so about four and a half hours ago. Just getting home now to write about it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. I thought Roberts did that on purpose
he is the one who f*ed the thing up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
20. No, he didn't
it makes him look really, really stupid.

Who does that on purpose?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. because he hates who (what) he was swearing in
maybe not personally, but the idea. It gave Obama a misstep in the first moment of his presidency. It doesn't hurt Roberts either. The international press said it was an Obama error. And he still gets to keep his job. He and his friends get to laugh about how he could make Obama look bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueCaliDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. BBC knows better than that. I watched it again on Washingtonpost.com
where they have the video and it was clear that Chief Justice Roberts made the mistake.

Obama must've memorized it, and frowned a little when the Chief Justice recited that part wrong. It appeared as if Pres. Obama didn't want to embarrass Roberts, and recited the oath the way Roberts brought it forward, but it was by no means a flub of his making, so BBC needs to do their homework better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Constitutional lawyer vs someone who is in charge of upholding the Constitution ...
guess which one actually read the Constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueCaliDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Apparently the Constitutional lawyer and scholar. That's why he looked so taken aback
when Chief Justice Roberts recited the Oath of Office incorrectly.

It seemed as if Pres. Obama thought there could've been a problem had he recited the Oath of Office the right way, different than Roberts had given it to him.

Perhaps conflict in oath? Would that disqualify his oath? I don't know. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but understanding that the law is to the 't', I'd need to know if the traditional Oath holds more sway than the highest judge in the land ultimately reciting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Says something about Roberts as a Bush appointee.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. write into the BBC to complain
they probably didn't know
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
4. It did appear that way to people who wouldn't know differently. :^(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. Because Drudgereport had that lie up for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. Yeah he did, but it's not the end of the world. He stumbled over lines in the primaries...
the GE, speeches. People want Barack to be the most perfect, seamless president the world will ever know, but I think even he knows better than that. I wish people would stop reporting on all this stupid shit and move the fuck on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanTheGOP Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
7. In 2011 we will fire Roberts...
...along with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, once we get our "ultra"-majority in the senate. In addition, we will put Kennedy and Souter on notice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Wiki: "As federal judges, the Justices serve during "good behavior," meaning they essentially...
"...serve for life and can be removed only by resignation, or by impeachment and subsequent conviction.<2> The Supreme Court is the only court established by the United States Constitution (in Article III); all other federal courts are created by Congress."

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Supreme_Court_of_the_Un...


Roberts can't be "fired". Having an opinion contrary to yours or even mine is not 'bad behavior' enough to trigger their removal as codified. If you think these dudes aren't cagey, or cunning enough to understand that then think again. What you are advocating runs counter to well, long-established American themes & practices as addressed in the Constitution, isn't that correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanTheGOP Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Oh, sorry...
...I have written about this in other threads. In 2010, there are 13 GOP senators up for election whom are vulnerable, compared to only 3 whom are vulnerable for the Democrats. That means we can pick up 9 or 10 new senators, bringing our total caucus in the senate to 68, 69, or 70 senators.

To impeach a justice one needs 67 votes. While it may still be challenging, we will be in position to impeach at that point. Sorry I wasn't clear on that in my original post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Oh it will be challenging; to impeach a lifetime appointment requires an impeachable offense
To conjure-up impeachable offenses even from within a mega, 67 vote, Iron Man majority for the purpose of removing individuals who's lifetime appointments we disagreed with at the outset seems not only challenging but a very very sticky business at least as the matter is laid out in the Constitution and I think that is part of the reason why it was laid out the way it is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanTheGOP Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I am puzzled by your ambiguity...
...but I can certainly understand such waffling. For years we've been indoctrinated into thinking that "we must tread lightly" when it comes to the constitution. But when the situation gets so out of whack, as the republican party has clearly demonstrated for at least 40 years, culminating in the last 8 years of criminal representation, then I would submit to you that "treading lightly" in this situation is not only allowable, but practically DECREED by the very Constitution you want to protect, to follow through with our actions!

Now, if you are afraid of "repercussions", I for one and NOT worried about what the criminal republicanist fucks threaten us with. THEY are out of office, they are out of touch, and they in fact are having their entire organization investigated from the top down for crimes against humanity.

The bottom line: we get 67 or more, I EXPECT to see an impeachment against 4 justices. Anything less would be a complete subjugation to the republicanist agenda. I GUARANTEE that if the REPUBLICANS had 67 senators (hell, if they had 60!), they would change the Constitution so fast it would turn this country into a fascist state. WE must use OUR majority for GOOD... NOT for evil!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. You "EXPECT" to see impeachment proceedings against "4 justices"...
What are the allegations you personally foresee that would initiate impeachment hearings. I remain unconvinced that you appreciate the process that surrounds any "changing" of the Constitution. I am less convinced that you have sufficiently recognized the downsides to doing so; changing the Constitution, with an all too real probability that in time others, after having gained office via recognizable, accepted Democratic means (unless it is your intent to eliminate Democracy in America as well; even such as it is) would seize upon such process as you've tattered and would eventually turn what seems to me your romanticized relationship to heavy-handed governance into the very Fascist state you seek to avoid; and it would all be right there in a Constitution that no one is able to recognize any longer let alone respect, negative...

The Constitution has enshrined within it, at least to my thinking and it is my sense many more; the requisite safeguards necessary to protect the rights of all Americans. It is incumbent upon us to see that that is the product of our efforts, but of course you are invited to disagree as even that is America ~

"WE must use OUR majority for GOOD...NOT for evil!" There is nothing to preclude us from doing just that, however, by willfully tinkering with the creative, long-term viability of a document already designed to circumvent tyranny...we, imo, invite tyranny from within.

In the end this is Democratic Underground, and not per se Let's-Slap-A-Smiley-Face-On-Neo-Fascism-By-Default-And-Call-It-Even Underground, but...even that is imo. Though if you think *I* am being 'ambiguous', not to suggest as to which or whether any or all would prevail; wait till you see the smoke & mirrors thrown up by a bevy of lawyered-up supreme court justices undergoing impeachment process'

All the best to you & good luck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
8. It's like they already had the talking points, expecting Obama to mess up worse than he did.
I guess they just ran with what they had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. He did Flub the oath. Roberts flubbed first, Obama knew it and waited...
Roberts corrected himself, and then Obama said the flubbed line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Correct. Obama paused because he knew the correct words and waited for Roberts to say them again.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Yes, but then Obama said it the wrong way after he waited for Roberts to correct himself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. It was all over American news that Roberts Flubbed.
Always gotta be a controversary with something like this..they can't all get it.

Maybe the BBC will get it some day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clear Blue Sky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
17. Most "journalists" are dumb shits.
No investigation. No research. Just repeat what they think they heard, like parrots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
19. I think President Obama did flub a bit and here is why


Roberts was to say I, Barrack Hussein Obama, do solemonly swear. And then Obama was to repeat that statement. However, when Roberts said, "I Barrack Hussein Obama" then Obama repeated that part without waiting for the "do solemnly swear" --- but then Roberts really flub - and I think it was because he was thrown off guard by the little slip Obama made.

I was there and that is what I heard.

If you listen to Biden's swearing in, he waits for Stevens to say, I, Joseph Biden, do solemnly swear and then repeats that.


I must say, I thought Roberts was a little testy beforehand, when he said are you ready or words to that effect. I didn't hear Stevens say that to Biden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
21. I love the smell of bullshit in the morning
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ksoze Donating Member (635 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
24. "If it wasn't for us, they'd all be speaking *German!* Singing "Deutschland"
Otto: Well, would you like to know what you'd be without us, the good ol' U.S. of A. to protect you? I'll tell you. The smallest fucking province in the Russian Empire, that's what! So don't call me stupid, lady. Just thank me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sohndrsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
25. he did, actually... (the first time, not the second) they both did. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sohndrsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
26. It was because Obama didn't say it exactly right that they decided to go with
an abundance of caution and have him re-take it, even though he was already President as of noon, a few minutes earlier.

There would be no concern if Roberts had messed up if Obama had said the oath exactly as it reads. He's the one being sworn in as president, and his saying the oath is the part that matters.

Roberts goofed up, and, perhaps as a result, Obama did too. They didn't need to re-do the oath, but they did so people wouldn't keep trying to work it up into a perpetual froth. I think they were both a little nervous, I sure would have been!

They both messed up, simple mistake, it's been corrected for the sake of the gossipy frenzy, not really because it was Constitutionally required. He could have taken the oath this Saturday - he was still President at noon on Jan 20, 2009. Officially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
28. I watched the BBC LIVE coverage of the event, and their on-air people
Edited on Thu Jan-22-09 04:50 PM by SoCalDem
said that the CJ blew his lines and created an unnatural cadence.. They knew it was not Obama's "fault"..

From this point on, there should be a laminated card, from which they READ the oath..just like career cops read the Miranda.. They know it by heart, but the reading of it, reinforces the words and the intent.

It's no slam at anyone, to read and repeat.. Ministers do it all the time when they perform marriages.. They wing it for parts of the service, but when they get to the "legal" parts, they often read it verbatim, and do so in small, logical chunks of text, so the person swearing the oath has NO problem repeating it perfectly..nerves or no nerves..

This flub was ALL on Roberts.. The fact that Obama stopped & smiled a little, when he heard the words incorrectly proves that HE knew they were out of order.. He was generous to not stop the CJ and have him start over..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
europegirl4jfk Donating Member (734 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
29. Unfortunately they said that on German TV too
First they got it right but yesterday in a special report about the inauguration they said the same thing. Their correspondents often aren't very accurate when they report. I guess it's just laziness and the German viewers don't have the knowledge to get the errors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC