Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Craig Crawford: Impeach John Roberts

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:22 AM
Original message
Craig Crawford: Impeach John Roberts
Craig Crawford: Impeach John Roberts

There is simply no excuse for United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts bungling the presidential oath of office to such an extent that Barack Obama might need to do it again, at least in private, to ensure the legality of his inauguration.

Roberts should be impeached and removed from office for this unforgivable error. The Constitution requires certain language for a presidential oath of office. Roberts blew it. And if he doesn't understand such things he should be fired for misfeasance of the first order...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/impeach-jo...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Democratic discussion forum
   Replies to this thread
  - first recommendation here  orleans   Jan-21-09 03:26 AM   #1 
  - Some people don't 'get' CC.  laststeamtrain   Jan-21-09 03:41 AM   #6 
     - of course i know what you mean. and i think scalia should resign for  orleans   Jan-21-09 03:58 AM   #11 
     - My sources tell me  nichomachus   Jan-21-09 09:54 AM   #42 
     - Scalia SHOULD be impeached.  Usrename   Jan-21-09 04:57 PM   #108 
        - Any Pretext to Get this Corporate Puppet off  Riverman   Jan-21-09 06:21 PM   #127 
           - I'm telling you, this is a fight worth fighting.  Usrename   Jan-21-09 06:46 PM   #133 
     - IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE, IT WAS INTENDED TO CAUSE AN INTENTIONAL ERROR  YEBBA   Jan-22-09 01:33 AM   #168 
     - And don't forget Thomas  WatchWhatISay   Jan-22-09 03:06 AM   #172 
     - Actually, yes. : ) Very well said. Thanks for the laugh.... : ) n/t  sohndrsmith   Jan-22-09 12:16 AM   #164 
  - Seriously 35 words, and the dimwit can't memorize it?  48percenter   Jan-21-09 03:26 AM   #2 
  - how about a cheat sheet  barbtries   Jan-21-09 05:43 AM   #17 
  - He's too busy getting his orders from Rove to bother with book learning  Suji to Seoul   Jan-21-09 05:43 AM   #18 
     - Not once we get 2/3 of the Senate  asksam   Jan-21-09 11:49 AM   #61 
        - Now there's what I like to hear. nt  sam kane   Jan-21-09 10:09 PM   #155 
  - thank god  SpartanDem   Jan-21-09 03:30 AM   #3 
  - sure it is. hey, scotus? he should be impeached when he jay walks! n/t  orleans   Jan-21-09 03:55 AM   #10 
  - Not the point  leftynyc   Jan-21-09 07:11 AM   #25 
     - Simple?  verges   Jan-21-09 10:17 AM   #48 
        - How long has he been Chief?  leftynyc   Jan-21-09 03:59 PM   #92 
        - My theory: He practiced the words, but did not practice pausing  JDPriestly   Jan-22-09 02:15 AM   #169 
           - Great way of putting it (lost the beat)  leftynyc   Jan-22-09 07:14 AM   #174 
        - He should have had the oath on paper in his hands- this is unforgivable.  stlsaxman   Jan-21-09 06:39 PM   #131 
        - speaking prepared lines in front of a live audience of 2 million;  AlbertCat   Jan-21-09 08:15 PM   #145 
  - Obama does not need to take the Oath again, Craig should try reading the Constitution before  MiltonF   Jan-21-09 03:34 AM   #4 
  - Ding ding  malaise   Jan-21-09 05:48 AM   #19 
  - And the nice little smile on the president's face as he waited nt  usnret88   Jan-21-09 07:30 AM   #27 
  - smiles all around ..........  resnah   Jan-21-09 06:04 PM   #126 
  - Roberts was choking  madamesilverspurs   Jan-21-09 10:04 AM   #45 
     - Roberts wasn't on the SC until 2005. But I'm sure you knew that.  India3   Jan-21-09 01:31 PM   #75 
     - I didn't imply otherwise.  madamesilverspurs   Jan-21-09 01:45 PM   #77 
        - I don't remember Roberts doing anything in 2000 wasn't he in private practice? n/t  Sanctified   Jan-21-09 03:14 PM   #88 
        - he might be referring to this..  unapatriciated   Jan-21-09 05:59 PM   #125 
        - He was managing partner at a major law firm.  India3   Jan-21-09 05:08 PM   #115 
           - You asked for it.  Ikonoklast   Jan-21-09 05:28 PM   #120 
              - Damn. I apologize for my snark.  INDIA   Jan-21-09 10:00 PM   #151 
     - Roberts worked for some law firm in 2000. Don't think he had much to do with the recount.  Clear Blue Sky   Jan-21-09 06:34 PM   #129 
  - +1  No Surrender   Jan-21-09 06:54 AM   #20 
  - You might want to read it yourself. The office transmits at noon. But before Obama can do anything.  Wizard777   Jan-21-09 07:42 AM   #28 
  - To think Roberts went through his confirmation hearing without using any notes.  Wizard777   Jan-21-09 07:47 AM   #30 
  - Article II Section 1 of the Constitution states only the President has to say the Oath.  MiltonF   Jan-21-09 10:54 AM   #54 
  - Yes but the interpretation of the 20th infers the oath is somewhat optional.  Wizard777   Jan-21-09 01:57 PM   #81 
     - The oath is required but it is only required to be said by the President. n/t  Sanctified   Jan-21-09 03:15 PM   #89 
        - I agree with that.  Wizard777   Jan-21-09 05:22 PM   #118 
        - Nina Totenberg of NPR says that several presidents  uberllama42   Jan-21-09 06:45 PM   #132 
  - The actual language of Article I, Section 1[8] is  JDPriestly   Jan-22-09 02:43 AM   #170 
  - +1. The stupidity is staggering.  Midlodemocrat   Jan-21-09 02:25 PM   #86 
  - Obama took the oath in front of 2 million onsite witnesses - that's good enough for me- I was there  wordpix   Jan-21-09 04:44 PM   #104 
  - Article II Section 1  LSK   Jan-21-09 08:31 PM   #147 
     - You are correct and from Article II Section 1 only Obama needs to say that not Roberts. n/t  Sanctified   Jan-21-09 08:47 PM   #149 
        - And Obama didn't say it verbatim, apparently, which is the reason for the re-do.  sohndrsmith   Jan-22-09 12:27 AM   #165 
  - oh jeesus lighten up.  Radical Activist   Jan-21-09 03:40 AM   #5 
  - I admire your handle. But I was wondering...  laststeamtrain   Jan-21-09 03:47 AM   #8 
     - Do you think that because  Radical Activist   Jan-21-09 03:59 AM   #12 
        - "...standard lines"... "lie, exaggerate and (be) full of shit when attacking Obama..."  laststeamtrain   Jan-21-09 04:46 AM   #14 
           - He got his avatar at "hot topic". nt  Romulox   Jan-21-09 07:10 AM   #24 
           - read my response below.  Radical Activist   Jan-21-09 11:37 AM   #60 
              - ""I believe in the Free Market. I believe in Capitalism. I believe in Free Trade." - B. Obama  Romulox   Jan-21-09 02:17 PM   #84 
                 - Pretty lame response.  Radical Activist   Jan-21-09 02:24 PM   #85 
                    - Che and Obama are very similar (if you ignore the fact that their views are diametrically opposed)  Romulox   Jan-21-09 02:37 PM   #87 
           - "Everyday's historic"  cherokeeprogressive   Jan-21-09 09:33 AM   #40 
           - Yeah, cause Che never encouraged people to serve others,  Radical Activist   Jan-21-09 11:26 AM   #58 
           - Here's the exchange I wrote about  Radical Activist   Jan-21-09 11:56 AM   #64 
              - question  Two Americas   Jan-21-09 05:55 PM   #123 
                 - Absolutely.  Radical Activist   Jan-21-09 07:09 PM   #137 
                    - thanks  Two Americas   Jan-21-09 07:28 PM   #138 
                       - It could be  Radical Activist   Jan-22-09 02:33 PM   #177 
  - Roberts is a buffoon  Horse with no Name   Jan-21-09 03:44 AM   #7 
  - Apparently he tried to do it from memory and screwed it up.  mwb970   Jan-21-09 04:40 AM   #13 
  - I think standing in front of millions of people scared the shit out of him!  B Calm   Jan-21-09 05:15 AM   #15 
     - As I recall, Obama voted against his appointment to the SCOTUS  whathehell   Jan-21-09 06:56 AM   #21 
     - With his bald spot recorded for all of history....  Hepburn   Jan-21-09 10:03 AM   #44 
     - I DID notice that! :D  BrklynLiberal   Jan-21-09 01:01 PM   #70 
     - Well, there's that. /nt  mwb970   Jan-21-09 11:36 AM   #59 
  - so, i wasn't the only one who thought it might have been on purpose.  tomp   Jan-21-09 10:15 AM   #47 
     - I beg to differ on that  Oak2004   Jan-21-09 10:28 AM   #51 
        - i didn't mean to offend, but i think it is safe to say....  tomp   Jan-22-09 08:24 AM   #176 
  - In the spirit of reconciliation, I think we should just offer to send the five SCOTUS conservatives  struggle4progress   Jan-21-09 03:52 AM   #9 
  - How About 2 or 3 Years?  ProfessorGAC   Jan-21-09 05:29 AM   #16 
  - "Unforgivable error"?  Orsino   Jan-21-09 07:01 AM   #22 
  - It was a huge event and he flubbed up, but I don't think it's that big of a deal  gollygee   Jan-21-09 07:07 AM   #23 
  - Roberts is a good judge. He was an ideological choice, to be sure, but who wouldn't have been?  Romulox   Jan-21-09 07:12 AM   #26 
  - You really think Roberts is a good judge?  Paint It Black   Jan-21-09 08:48 AM   #36 
     - Yes I do. A Supreme Court Justices' job is to argue for his own ideological position.  Romulox   Jan-21-09 02:09 PM   #83 
        - The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution  Bette Noir   Jan-21-09 05:44 PM   #122 
           - If you don't think that SCOTUS Justices decide cases based on ideology...  Romulox   Jan-22-09 04:59 PM   #179 
  - Am I missing a sarcasm tag??  Saboburns   Jan-21-09 07:44 AM   #29 
  - Teh stupid is still burning.  BlooInBloo   Jan-21-09 07:49 AM   #31 
  - It was reported later on MSNBC  Iwillnevergiveup   Jan-21-09 07:51 AM   #32 
  - I was watching the video of the luncheon on C-SPAN last night  rvablue   Jan-21-09 12:00 PM   #66 
  - Heckuva Job Johnny...  Hubert Flottz   Jan-21-09 08:34 AM   #33 
  - Wow  newtothegame   Jan-21-09 08:43 AM   #34 
  - I am totally opposed to Supreme Court Justices being appointed for life.  olegramps   Jan-21-09 08:44 AM   #35 
  - My wife flubbed a line of our marriage vows at the altar.  MathGuy   Jan-21-09 09:22 AM   #37 
  - Of course not. You were never married in the first place, according to these geniuses.  BlooInBloo   Jan-21-09 09:25 AM   #39 
  - I would consult Freud  Freddie Stubbs   Jan-21-09 11:06 AM   #57 
  - K & R  tom_paine   Jan-21-09 09:22 AM   #38 
  - This is the kind of crap I hope Obama can put an end to  nini   Jan-21-09 09:40 AM   #41 
  - I am absolutely certain  nichomachus   Jan-21-09 09:56 AM   #43 
  - and yet he has no problem with Bush...  stillcool47   Jan-21-09 10:12 AM   #46 
  - Train is leaving the station  BeFree   Jan-21-09 10:19 AM   #49 
  - Drama queen much?  tritsofme   Jan-21-09 10:24 AM   #50 
  - Heh  BeFree   Jan-21-09 10:51 AM   #53 
  - Hey I thought Roberts was the drama queen  stumblnrose   Jan-21-09 11:43 PM   #163 
  - Now, I do think Bush should have been impeached for not saying "nuclear" correctly.  nytemare   Jan-21-09 08:56 PM   #150 
  - This pretty much sums it up  nichomachus   Jan-21-09 10:28 AM   #52 
  - He should be fired anyway becuase Bush was not our legally elcted pres when he appointed  robinlynne   Jan-21-09 10:57 AM   #55 
  - One Of The Most Stupid Things I've Ever Seen In All The YEars Of DU.  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Jan-21-09 11:00 AM   #56 
  - I dont think he should be impeached because he screwed up the oath.  asksam   Jan-21-09 11:53 AM   #62 
  - That tears it. I believe you know stupid when you see it. Avoid mirrors. n/t  laststeamtrain   Jan-21-09 12:11 PM   #67 
     - Why, You Standin Behind Me?  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Jan-21-09 12:19 PM   #68 
        - So, you agree  BeFree   Jan-21-09 03:45 PM   #90 
           - Calling For Impeachment Due To The Innocent Stumbing Of Yesterday Is One Of The Damn Dumbest Things  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Jan-21-09 04:04 PM   #93 
              - Actually you are wrong  BeFree   Jan-21-09 04:10 PM   #96 
                 - Actually, No Part Of What I Said Was Wrong. You Look Really Silly.  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Jan-21-09 04:34 PM   #101 
                 - You do?  BeFree   Jan-21-09 04:41 PM   #103 
                    - Guarantee You:  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Jan-21-09 04:52 PM   #106 
                    - Heh  BeFree   Jan-21-09 04:58 PM   #109 
                       - ROFLMAO!  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Jan-21-09 05:13 PM   #116 
                       - Thanks for keeping this kicked  BeFree   Jan-21-09 05:21 PM   #117 
                          - ...  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Jan-21-09 05:25 PM   #119 
                       - Are you seriously suggesting that because he doesn't  liberalhistorian   Jan-21-09 10:47 PM   #161 
                    - Even if it wasn't innocent, it doesn't warrant impeachment. I'd like to see the guy  grace0418   Jan-22-09 12:58 AM   #167 
                 - Even if it was intentional...it does NOT matter...  cynatnite   Jan-21-09 05:02 PM   #111 
  - I wish that Roberts would be removed from office, but Obama is the legal president  WI_DEM   Jan-21-09 11:53 AM   #63 
  - Justice Roberts has had at least 2 'seizures'  alittlelark   Jan-21-09 11:58 AM   #65 
  - He's a dumbass  toymachines   Jan-21-09 12:59 PM   #69 
  - I like Craig Crawford. I always enjoy him on Countdown...  BrklynLiberal   Jan-21-09 01:03 PM   #71 
  - If we can impeach for Grammar, * would have been gone in 2001  Neo   Jan-21-09 01:12 PM   #72 
  - What the...?  Stuckinthebush   Jan-21-09 01:17 PM   #73 
  - There might be reasons to impeach John Roberts, but this isn't one of them...  calipendence   Jan-21-09 01:30 PM   #74 
  - he should be impeached for helping Shrub steal Florida  librechik   Jan-21-09 01:34 PM   #76 
  - ensure legality? He was President yesterday noon Eastern time regardless of whether he'd taken the  helderheid   Jan-21-09 01:47 PM   #78 
  - Of all the ignorant, silly, ludicrous and jackass junior highish shit to show up, this is tops.  Rabrrrrrr   Jan-21-09 01:50 PM   #79 
  - Well  BeFree   Jan-21-09 03:48 PM   #91 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Jan-21-09 04:05 PM   #94 
     - And I'm sure that never, in the entirety of your lifetime, have you made a mistake.  Rabrrrrrr   Jan-21-09 04:08 PM   #95 
        - One  BeFree   Jan-21-09 04:14 PM   #97 
           - Ah, then, no wonder you can position yourself on such a fucking assholish high horse  Rabrrrrrr   Jan-21-09 04:21 PM   #98 
              - Easy sport  BeFree   Jan-21-09 04:24 PM   #100 
                 - I'd love to see him gone. But not for some ludicrously childish reason of fucking up a few words.  Rabrrrrrr   Jan-21-09 04:39 PM   #102 
                    - Well  BeFree   Jan-21-09 04:44 PM   #105 
                       - If you think impeaching someone for a simple mistake that we all make, you're the foamer.  Rabrrrrrr   Jan-21-09 04:55 PM   #107 
                          - Back to the foam, eh? Crazy.  BeFree   Jan-21-09 05:03 PM   #112 
                             - Deleted message  Name removed   Jan-21-09 05:07 PM   #114 
                             - The charge against Clinton was perjury  Thothmes   Jan-21-09 07:40 PM   #140 
  - As I recall he has no qualifications for the position  MartyL   Jan-21-09 01:53 PM   #80 
  - He was highly qualified just did not care for his political views and lack of compassion  kiranon   Jan-21-09 02:07 PM   #82 
  - What Roberts did shows partisan attitude, which has no place on the Supreme Court  8_year_nightmare   Jan-21-09 04:21 PM   #99 
  - By those standards, no one should hold office when they bungle lines...  cynatnite   Jan-21-09 04:59 PM   #110 
  - Agreed. We should fire anyone that EVER appears nervous. Off with his Head!!!  sfam   Jan-21-09 05:06 PM   #113 
  - Rec #56  Blaze Diem   Jan-21-09 05:32 PM   #121 
  - If he's like me in front of an adult crowd...  childslibrarian   Jan-21-09 05:56 PM   #124 
  - It gave right talk shows something to talk about...  AthiestLeader   Jan-21-09 06:23 PM   #128 
  - Troll extraordinaire? Yeah, that's the focus we want!!  L. Coyote   Jan-21-09 06:35 PM   #130 
  - I SO second this! He should be ashamed of himself!!! There is NO excuse.  calimary   Jan-21-09 06:52 PM   #134 
  - what a fucking joke  harmonicon   Jan-21-09 06:54 PM   #135 
  - Activist Judge on Supreme Court Re-Writes Constitution (Roberts)  NAO   Jan-21-09 06:54 PM   #136 
  - First Impeach Scalia. Then Thomas. Then Roberts.  Piewhacket   Jan-21-09 07:32 PM   #139 
  - Mark me down as 1 person to NOT recommend this thread.  rep the dems   Jan-21-09 07:42 PM   #141 
  - That's Too Extreme  DallasNE   Jan-21-09 07:44 PM   #142 
  - Roberts readministered oath a while ago at the White House in front of reporters.  kristopher   Jan-21-09 07:48 PM   #143 
  - Whether Roberts re-administered the oath or not he blew it when it counted  bobd0   Jan-21-09 08:02 PM   #144 
  - Obama had to retake the oath of office due to this mashing by Roberts  whistle   Jan-21-09 08:26 PM   #146 
  - Not enough a big fish to fry, pardon the pun  fortyfeetunder   Jan-21-09 08:38 PM   #148 
  - First order of business.  Octafish   Jan-21-09 10:03 PM   #152 
  - Roberts is an asshat, but it's not an impeachable offense.  TexasObserver   Jan-21-09 10:07 PM   #153 
  - Tired of pretending this is "incompetence"  sam kane   Jan-21-09 10:08 PM   #154 
  - What? Did he get a blow job? nt  bemildred   Jan-21-09 10:10 PM   #156 
  - Beyond Stupid  NeedleCast   Jan-21-09 10:11 PM   #157 
  - This is my 2 cents when it comes to Chief Justices of the Supreme Court  LynneSin   Jan-21-09 10:21 PM   #158 
  - Actually, I don't think ANY President should have any say as to who the Chief Justice will be  Harry Monroe   Jan-21-09 10:47 PM   #160 
  - Too bad the POTUS can't appoint another Associate as the CJ..  Historic NY   Jan-21-09 10:25 PM   #159 
  - John Roberts, while I disagree with him most of the time, is an honest and brilliant justice.  Infinite Hope   Jan-21-09 11:37 PM   #162 
  - could we please prioritize?  snot   Jan-22-09 12:39 AM   #166 
  - Have No Fear, People...  BanTheGOP   Jan-22-09 02:47 AM   #171 
  - How did this BS get on the front page?  iconicgnom   Jan-22-09 03:31 AM   #173 
  - This is silly.  dorkulon   Jan-22-09 07:21 AM   #175 
  - I think you're missing the point of it all...  MrMickeysMom   Jan-22-09 02:42 PM   #178 
  - That's just ridiculous. It's like the word "impeach" now sets off a Pavlovian "K&R" reaction here.  Occam Bandage   Jan-22-09 05:01 PM   #180 
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. first recommendation here
i don't know if you could impeach him for that--but hey--i'm all for it! he should, at the very least, resign. what a dickhead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Some people don't 'get' CC.
You have to just let it wash over you, not think too hard, then revisit it in a few minutes, then it's pretty funny.

Know what I mean?

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. of course i know what you mean. and i think scalia should resign for
wearing that weird hat.

it's a new era, and the least they can do (oh, and take alito down with them!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
42. My sources tell me
that he wants to. He would really like to get off the court. He has a serious fascist agenda and he's feeling that he can't do as much damage as he'd like to sitting on the court. He feels he could be more effective writing and teaching, neither of which he can do as a justice. We shall see.

(Yes, I have sources.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #42
108. Scalia SHOULD be impeached.
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 04:58 PM by Usrename
He had an overnighter with the defendant in a case and he still refused to recuse himself.

He needs to be impeached because it's good politics. Let him try and publicly defend himself.

A sleepover with the DEFENDANT. During the trial. He refused to recuse himself.

He should be forced to resign over it. It's hideous behavior for ANY judge. He thinks it's the same as going to a state function.

The guy needs to go. And it's good politics. Let the shrieking heads explode for a while trying to come up with a good story justify a sleepover with the defendant in a case. I'd love to see them squirm.

Win or lose, it can only be good theater for our side.

Impeach Scalia now.


(P.S. Here are some articles that explain what I'm ranting about.)

SCALIA'S EXPLANATION FOR RECUSAL REFUSAL IS UNCONVINCING
Professor William G. Ross
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/ross1.php

A Closer Look At The Case From Which Justice Scalia Has Refused To Recuse Himself:
The Momentous Stakes, and the Larger Political Context
By JOHN W. DEAN
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040326.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riverman Donating Member (759 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #108
127. Any Pretext to Get this Corporate Puppet off
the Supreme Court will be good for the country! Facism is when Corporations and Government collude - conspire to enforce their greed and misery on the citizenry! He must go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #127
133. I'm telling you, this is a fight worth fighting.
It would be politically correct.

I would just love to hear Rush and Hannity fumble around trying to come up with a justification for a judge to spend the night with the defendant in a case he is hearing.

Let the shrieking begin. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HowHasItComeToThis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
168. IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE, IT WAS INTENDED TO CAUSE AN INTENTIONAL ERROR
SO SOME SLIMEY REPUB LAWYERS COULD DENY OBAMA THE OFFICE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatchWhatISay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
172. And don't forget Thomas
With the three of them gone, he wouldn't even know what to do or think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sohndrsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
164. Actually, yes. : ) Very well said. Thanks for the laugh.... : ) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. Seriously 35 words, and the dimwit can't memorize it?
That was appalling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. how about a cheat sheet
did he rehearse at all? i'm not willing to make it a national issue but it was pretty wack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Suji to Seoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. He's too busy getting his orders from Rove to bother with book learning
And we're stuck with him and the Fish for at least 25 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asksam Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
61. Not once we get 2/3 of the Senate
Then we can get him out... along with Thomas, Scalia and Alito.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam kane Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #61
155. Now there's what I like to hear. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. thank god
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 03:45 AM by SpartanDem
our President isn't such a self righteous asshole. It's an honest mistake if the "offened" party could take it stride so should he. There are plenty of legititmate reasons to hate Roberts, this isn't one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. sure it is. hey, scotus? he should be impeached when he jay walks! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
25. Not the point
We're talking about a man who decides the law of the land. A LIFETIME appointment. He had one simple job - 35 words - and he screwed it up. I don't think impeachment is the answer but the Obama's and everyone who waiting so long for yesterday deserve a very public apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
verges Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #25
48. Simple?
Believe it or not, speaking prepared lines in front of a live audience of 2 million; and a televised audience of billions, is not so simple. Trained actor's drop or muff lines all the time. It goes with the job. Pressure makes it worse. And I'm willing to bet that he felt a wee bit of pressure yesterday morning. Cut him some slack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #48
92. How long has he been Chief?
A couple of years at least. He knew there was an election coming and a man that bright should have just practiced. He also could have written it down. I know it's a small, picyune thing but it was a distraction that was not necessary or needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #92
169. My theory: He practiced the words, but did not practice pausing
for Obama to speak. He had all the words memorized but did not have the pauses memorized. It's as if a pianist trying to memorize a sonata practiced all the notes but left out all the rests. It would be difficult for the pianist to remember what was next if he suddenly had to start inserting the rests. He could probably do it if he had the notes in front of him, but only if he had the notes in front of him. Even then it would be difficult.

I think this, because Roberts was starting to run the whole thing together. He said, "I, Barack Obama do solemnly swear" and finally took a breath to let Obama speak. Obama started to repeat the words "I, Barack Obama." Obama was parsing the sentence in the normal rhythm that is used in repeating the oath.

Roberts tripped up because he sort of lost the rhythm of the language of the oath.

Roberts lost the beat, so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #169
174. Great way of putting it (lost the beat)
I can't help the nagging feeling that if mccain had been up there, this wouldn't have happened. I think roberts couldn't let it go that President Obama did not vote to confirm him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
131. He should have had the oath on paper in his hands- this is unforgivable.
Roberts wanted to be a hot shit and he blew it.

No slack. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #48
145. speaking prepared lines in front of a live audience of 2 million;
Uh....he's not Joe the Plumber, y'know. He is a judge, after all. He should have no problem reading something familiar in public.

But let it go. Obama became president at noon on Tues. oath or no oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. Obama does not need to take the Oath again, Craig should try reading the Constitution before
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 03:34 AM by MiltonF
he has another dumbass attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
19. Ding ding
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 05:49 AM by malaise
Perhaps he just wanted to find a way to spread the official 'right wing' talking point re the legality of the inauguration.

I found it hilarious that President Obama paused and made the Chief Justice correct himself. The CJ simply exposed himself as one more Bush incompetent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. And the nice little smile on the president's face as he waited nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dothemath Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
126. smiles all around ..........
Pardon my language, but that is known as a 'bitch slap'.
And Roberts smiled back. Everything is copacetic.

My work is done here. Time to move on, people - right after
Scalia is impeached and jailed, along with Hannity and Rush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madamesilverspurs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #19
45. Roberts was choking
on the reality that all the hard work he had done engineering the Florida 2000 debacle, work for which he was handsomely recompensed, might come around to bite him in the ass. Had it not been for John Roberts and his minions, we wouldn't have had W. Some of us would simply love to see him busted for election fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INDIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
75. Roberts wasn't on the SC until 2005. But I'm sure you knew that.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madamesilverspurs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. I didn't imply otherwise.
Roberts 'drove the train,' so to speak, behind all the media drama associated with events in Florida in 2000. Among other things, he assembled the so-called 'outraged Florida voters' who famously screamed and hollered and pounded on doors objecting to the ballot recount. When the position of Chief Justice became available upon Rhenquist's death, THEN Roberts was rewarded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #77
88. I don't remember Roberts doing anything in 2000 wasn't he in private practice? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unapatriciated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #88
125. he might be referring to this..
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21florida.ht...
Nominee Gave Quiet Advice on Recount
By ABBY GOODNOUGH
Published: July 21, 2005
MIAMI, July 20 - John G. Roberts advised Gov. Jeb Bush during Florida's presidential recount in 2000, even traveling to Tallahassee from Washington to help him navigate those frenzied 36 days.
But neither Governor Bush nor other Republicans involved in the recount would say on Wednesday just what advice Judge Roberts, then a lawyer at Hogan & Hartson in Washington, shared.
Governor Bush at first kept a low profile in Florida's election dispute, recusing himself from the board responsible for certifying the vote. But he later emerged as a significant player, announcing that he would support special legislation intended to award Florida's electoral votes to his brother George W. Bush.

or this...
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/21/nation/na-recou...
Confirmation Path May Run Through Florida
By Peter Wallsten
July 21, 2005 in print edition A-22
As the 2000 presidential recount battle raged in Florida, a Washington lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr. traveled to Tallahassee, the state capital, to dispense legal advice.

He operated in the shadows at least some of those 37 days, never signing a legal brief and rarely making an appearance at the makeshift headquarters for George W. Bushs legal team.

But now Roberts has been selected for the very Supreme Court that put Bush into office by settling the recount, chosen by the president to replace the swing vote in that 5-4 decision. And his work in Florida during that time is coming into focus, giving critics some ammunition to paint a respected jurist with an apparently unblemished legal career as an ideological partisan.

Republican lawyers who worked on the recount said Wednesday that Roberts advised Gov. Jeb Bush on the role that the governor and the Florida Legislature might play in the recount battle. At the time, when GOP officials feared that Democrat Al Gore might win a recount battle in court, Republican state lawmakers were devising a plan to use their constitutional power to assign the states electoral votes to George W. Bush a proposal criticized by Democrats.

Responding to questions Wednesday about Roberts role in Florida, a spokesman for Gov. Bushs office said that Roberts had been recommended to the governor, although the spokesman gave no further specifics, and that the two had not known each other until the recount. Miami trial lawyer Dean Colson, who met Roberts when both were law clerks for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and who was best man at Roberts wedding, is also close personally with Gov. Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INDIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #77
115. He was managing partner at a major law firm.
How did he "drive the train"? As far as I know, he had nothing to do with the 2000 election.

LINK????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #115
120. You asked for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INDIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #120
151. Damn. I apologize for my snark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clear Blue Sky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #45
129. Roberts worked for some law firm in 2000. Don't think he had much to do with the recount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
20. +1
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
28. You might want to read it yourself. The office transmits at noon. But before Obama can do anything.
He must take the oath. The office of President is separate from the person that occupies it. Many news agencies were erroneously reporting that Obama was President at noon even though he had not been sworn it yet. That is plain wrong. At noon the office of President passed from Bush to Obama. Obamas' term had begun. But he's not officially President until he takes the oath. At noon Obama had the office of President with a four year lease on it. But he can't do a damned thing with that office until he swears the oath to officially become President. I'm sorry but the Oath of the President is not a ceremonial standard line of bull shit that doesn't really mean anything and can be surreptitiously dispensed with. The 20th Amendment gives Obama the office and the term at noon. But it's Article II section 1 that gives Obama the Presidency with the swearing of the oath. On January 20th at noon after swearing the oath we have a President occupying the Office of President for four years. If Obama had taken the oath at 8:00 am. We would have a President awaiting his office and term that would transmit at noon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. To think Roberts went through his confirmation hearing without using any notes.
Maybe the oath isn't enough information for his expansive memory to retain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #28
54. Article II Section 1 of the Constitution states only the President has to say the Oath.
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 11:20 AM by MiltonF
Roberts could have said anything he wanted, he could have recited his ABC's would not have changed anything as long as Obama said the Oath correctly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #54
81. Yes but the interpretation of the 20th infers the oath is somewhat optional.
That it's January 20th at noon that makes you the President. Not swearing the oath. That's simply untrue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #81
89. The oath is required but it is only required to be said by the President. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top