they both suck

But at the end of the day Obama never did say it right. "OBAMA: ... the office of president of the United States faithfully..."

so obama isn't actually president then

Obama flubbed first - unfortunately. He did jump the gun before Roberts finished the first phrase. Then Roberts fumbled the second part, and Obama corrected it. I just really, really wish that part had gone smoothly - that's the part that will be shown throughout the world!

1- Cahill had layoffs?

Obama: "The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination."

Roberts: "The bottom line is this: I will be screwing up your swearing in."

Obama couldn't remember the words! Oh well. It's hard to repeat a full sentence back.

Why hasn't there been a post yet on the supposed Cahill layoffs?

CATFISH; C-A-T-F-I-S-H, CATFISH

ASSLOBSTER; A-S-S-L-O-B-S-T-E-R, ASSLOBSTER

Remeber that part in the speech about childishness?

Mr. Obama, meet the ATL comments.

Certainly a noticeable screw up. Both seemed to get flustered by the moment. But who really cares?

As per the Associated Press: "Later, as they shook hands before a lunch in the Capitol, Roberts chatted briefly with Obama and appeared to say that the mistake was his fault, not Obama's."

Well said number 11. Let me be the first to say that I am swearing off negativity and childishness. Hasta Luega.

What the hell is wrong with ATL? Why are they burying the story of Skadden firing 30 lawyers at the end of the first of two stories posted in a row? Seriously, did these editors used to work there or something? WTF

Scalia is currently having his clerks prepare a decision declaring the oath invalid and thus Joe Biden, the 44th President of the United States. Maybe Obama can get the VP? Doubt it ... not enough experience.

BITCH SPREAD THEM BUTT CHEEKS SO YOU CAN LET OUT ALL DAT SKATTTEN & FLOM FROM YOUR INSIDES!

Wow, HALF SKADDEN has truly been redefined...

"...as many as half of Skadden's staff attorneys were laid off last week."

OBAMA IS NOT PRESIDENT. HE NEVER TOOK THE OATH.

(and he's not a natural born citizen.)

#7, for the win.

Who cares losers.

The most humorous part of the entire process was when Roberts turned around after swearing in Obama and shouted "No HoMo!"

Both screwed up. GHWB did the same thing, but WHR was so dominant that he wouldn't even slow down to let GHWB keep screwing it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJF1iQrvd0M

Who cares losers.

The 20th Amendment says that the President and Vice-President’s terms end at noon on January 20th. So as of noon, Bush and Cheney were done, and until Obama was sworn in, Nancy Pelosi was the only one who could execute the powers of the President, as she was sworn in on January 3, 2009, again per the 20th Amendment Even if Biden was sworn in as vice-president before noon, there is no constitutionally required oath for the Vice-President. He/she only has to take the constitutionally required oath if he/she becomes President, so all that stuff with Justice Stevens was nice, but was not constitutionally required. I’m sure a presidential historian could tell us the first time a vice-president took swore an oath at the Inauguration of the President. Article 2 of the Constitution says the president has to swear an oath, “before he enter on the execution of his office,” and states what the oath must contain. If there was any question, President Obama could be sworn in again prior to him taking any action as President. The CJ does not have to swear the President. Remember a state court judge swore in LBJ.

"You don't need the bullet when you have the ballot."

18 for Comment of the Day!

What the hell is wrong with ATL? Why are they burying the story of Skadden firing 30 lawyers at the end of the first of two stories posted in a row? Seriously, did these editors used to work there or something? WTF

RIP WHR, not a whipping boy to the executive branch!

More importantly, why does the stock market ALWAYS nosedive when BHObama is speaking on TV...no offense intended to BHO, but why don't we stop our TV appearances. My 401k thanks you

Who the f cares?

24: When precisely was Obama sworn in?

If he was sworn in at 12:05pm eastern, then I would agree with you. For those five minutes only Pelosi could have executed the powers of President, but of course, she was not sworn in so you cannot say that Pelosi was President for five minutes.

You CAN say that the United States Government had no President for the amount of time between 12:00pm eastern and when Obama was sworn in.

So if Pelosi ordered an airstrike on Iran during that 5 minute period, would the military have to listen?

BITCH SPREAD THEM BUTT CHEEKS SO YOU CAN LET OUT ALL DAT SKATTTEN & FLOM FROM YOUR INSIDES!

Did Pelosi order Cahill to have layoffs?

Pelosi ordered Michelle to SPREAD HER BUTT CHEEKS SO ALL THE CORNBREAD COULD GET OUT!

Because of this blog everytime I read SCOTUS I mentally say to myself SCROTUS... very sad.

BITCH SPREAD THEM BUTT CHEEKS SO YOU CAN LET OUT ALL DAT SKATTTEN & FLOM FROM YOUR INSIDES!

More importantly, why does the stock market ALWAYS nosedive when BHObama is speaking on TV...no offense intended to BHO, but why don't we stop our TV appearances. My 401k thanks you

Justice Roberts addressed Obama as "Senator Obama" right before administering the oath. Was this correct?

KASH...how is your LOBSTER?!?!?!?!

Somebody get the Butter, cuz here comes the ASSSLOBSTER.

38

Yes. Not president until sworn in as such.

How has no one said this yet??

Guys at my high school used to flub the presidential oath of office all the time. It was no big deal.

Sen. Ted Kennedy collapses at inaugural lunch

Of course, if Obama simply restated the oath at any time after the public ceremony, then this was all rendered moot. But why let that stop ATL???

38
I don't think so. No one, except CJ Roberts, has referred to President Obama as "Senator" since November 4, 2008. "Senator" may be an honorific, but I believe that his actual title was President-Elect. When he was introduced at the inaugural ceremony, he was introduced as the President-Elect, not as the junior senator of Illinois. CJ Roberts should have referred to him as President-Elect, or as Mr. Obama.

"We didn't get our forty acres and a mule, but we did get you, Chocolate City."

Obama is quickly moving to abolish the Senate. Less than an hour into his presidency, 2% of the Senate is dying in the hospital. We finally see the change that is comming, and ATL does not report it? Make haste ATL, at this pace the senate will be abolished by late in the day on thursday.

I love farting!!

And the S.C. is next. Roberts was already showing the effects of it during the ceremony.

"Me Chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your coke."

-Eliza Gray

41
How was it correct to adress obama as senator obama? That senate seat was resigned and then occupied by another. Obama was not a senator prior to the oath.

"will faithfully execute" is a split infinitive, so my guess is that CJ Roberts was trying to make the constiution grammatically correct.

Don't worry, Winston. The state will re-record the oath without that noisome slip-up you thought you saw. This will become just another elusive memory, like that photograph you wish you could remember....

Totally Roberts's fault. What a douchebag. Only the most historic moment of any of our lives and he f*cks it up because he's nervous. He should be impeached, convicted, and removed with all deliberate speed.

It's fascinating how desensitized I've become towards the "spread the butt cheeks" guy, after feeling so appalled by his (her?) first few posts.

It's fascinating how desensitized I've become towards the "spread the butt cheeks" guy, after feeling so appalled by his (her?) first few posts.

That's right, 51, because "will execute" is an infinitive. As a matter of fact, any time an adverb EVER precedes a verb, someone is splitting an infinitive.

Neandertard

One word: TELEPROMPTER.

Bitches.

Obama: "It's ok John. We'll do it right the second time around."

Quite happy to see that the coronation did not go off without a hitch

poop

Anyone going to point out that Roberts referred to the chief executive as being "president to the United States"? The proper nomenclature is of "president OF the United States", according to the Contitution and the letterhead on my pardon.

Anyone going to point out that Roberts referred to the chief executive as being "president to the United States"? The proper nomenclature is "president OF the United States". At least thats what it says on my pardon.

Elect a TTT man as president and you've got to expect a TTT swearing in ceremony.

Cahill layoffs?

First to say FIRST, BITCHES!

51 and 56 need to go back to high school. "will faithfully execute" is not a split infinitive. That is the future tense of the verb "to execute" (the infinitive form).

66 needs to get his sarcasm meter checked and read 56 again.

Cahill layoffs?

I was at the inauguration and believe it was President Obama who screwed up the oath. I thought it showed pretty well that he is human and gets nervous.

Stupid Roberts was probably a Cahill partner. Quit whining, ATL is not relevant anymore.

Few seem to mention that even after Roberts corrects himself, Obama STILL messed it up.

66 is a retard.

Q: Kennedy and Byrd collapsed at a luncheon, what were they serving?

A: Justice.

Perhaps the most classy part of the whole thing was the final prayer: "Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen'" As eloquent as ever.

Roberts blew it worse (more significant error), but Obama blew it first. Roberts may never have blown it if it weren't for Obama. Hard to say whether Obama messing up is a but-for cause of Roberts messing up, though.

Roberts blew it worse (more significant error), but Obama blew it first. Roberts may never have blown it if it weren't for Obama. Hard to say whether Obama messing up is a but-for cause of Roberts messing up, though.

Sorry, 66, it is a split infinitive. However, I would like some of what you're smoking. Do I understand you correctly? You think "to faithfully execute" is the future tense of "to execute"? You're putting us on, right? Right?

77 - Show me the "to" in "will faithfully execute." I'll wait.

Obama was the biggest mistake this country has ever and - what will become imminently clear in the coming months - WILL have ever made. A guy works for a few months as a “community organizer” for an anti-democratic, whacko organization, calls a racist and antiAmerican sociopath his "spiritual mentor," tells us he's going to "slow our development of future combat systems," serves as a junior senator with absolutely no achievements to call his own, and wants to tax the very individuals whose economic health is vital to the economic health of all others at a time when our economy is the worst it has been in decades (while giving a tax “credit” to individuals who DON’T PAY TAXES, no less). Take a look at the clip below, America. You elected this guy as the leader of the free world. Congratulations, you’re retarded!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oyTD6JGie0

79, you are a fucktard. Go back to the Lucianne web page, where you might be appreciated.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!

66 is right.

79 - I'm pretty sure you meant to say "eminently clear," not "imminently clear." "Imminent" implies time; "eminent" implies degree. In your phrase there you'd already mentioned a temporal component with the "in the coming months" part, and by opening it with "what" instead of "when," it would appear that an adjective of kind rather than of temporal orientation was your goal.

Oh, and by the way: stop being a right-wing nutjob.

79 - I'm pretty sure you meant to say "eminently clear," not "imminently clear." "Imminent" implies time; "eminent" implies degree. In your phrase there you'd already mentioned a temporal component with the "in the coming months" part, and by opening it with "what" instead of "when," it would appear that an adjective of kind rather than of temporal orientation was your goal.

Oh, and by the way: stop being a right-wing nutjob.

79 -- the stock market certainly agrees with you.

if i were obama, i'd fake an illness and resign. too much pressure. can you imagine if there's another terrorist attack (down the road enough where he can't blame bush)? the democratic party would be ostracized for the next 20 years. gotta hand it to obama -- too much pressure for most people.

85 - To be honest, I think people are a bit more concerned about the economy than hypothetical terrorism at the moment. And I think the stock market tanking had more to do with the news from State Street and RBS than the inauguration. But keep telling yourself that everything's going to be ok for the Republicans. Maybe eventually you'll believe it.

50 - Although I think he was wrong and should've said PE but your point makes no sense. Just because a person leaves and office and is replaced, doesn't mean they lose the honorific. See President Bush, President Clinton, Gov. Dean, Gov. Ridge (although he was Sec. of Homeland Security after I think the Gov. trumps Cabinet Secretary).

83- I stand corrected. I meant “eminently” not “imminently.” I must have made the mistake in my rush to type. However, I am not a “right-wing nutjob” – I am an American (though admittedly ashamed to be one today). I voted with the rest of “real America” and will rejoice when this poor excuse for a human being is removed from office in four years.
-79

30 -

Section 3 of the 20th Amendment says "the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified."

But Clause 8 of Art. II, Sec. 1, suggests that no one who stands as acting president can perform any of his duties until he's taken the oath. "Before he enter on *the Execution* of his Office..."

So between 12:01 and 12:05, no one could carry out the duties of the president, but confirmed, appointed, etc. officials could perform their duties. So, e.g., Bob Gates had full control of the Pentagon and was probably the de facto president. He was separately sent to some military bunker by Pres. Bush under continuity of government procedures in the event of a catastrophe in Washington.

79 - Ah. Well, addressing your comments in turn, then...

1. - Community organizers are the definition of "grassroots" political leaders. Doesn't the right trumpet "grassroots" local leadership as well? Why does the phrase deserve derition? I've never understood this one.

2 - Don't know what you're talking about re: spiritaul mentor (although I assume it's the Reverand Wright nonsense I tuned out the second conservatives decided to make an issue of it), so I can't comment.

3 - Tell me, exactly why do you think we need fighter jets more capable than the F-22, aircraft carriers more advanced than the Gerald Ford class, or submarines more powerful than the Virginia class? Do you, um, expect China or Russia to become massive air and sea powers again... and then forget about their atomic arsenal and somehow advance their Cold Ware era technology by forty years? I'm skeptical, and there's better uses for the funds than designing an aircraft that's got a cloaking devise.

4 - Contrary to what you might imagine, most Presidents enter the job with relatively little on their resume. GWB had been the governer of Texas -- a state where the executive branch has achingly little authority. GHWB had extensive agency experience, but had never held any kind of representative office other than the ceremonial VP position when he was elected. Carter had been a State Senator for a couple years, and had one undistinguished term as Governor of Georgia -- basically identical to Obama in terms of political experience. And none of those guys were professors in Constitutional Law.

5 - Tell me something: Would you rather have somebody starve to death because the best job they can find is for minimum wage -- which, remember, represents about $14,000 a year for full time work -- or would you rather an extremely wealthy person be slightly less wealthy? If you're making $250K a year, taking $5K away from you hurts you a couple orders of magnitude less than giving that $5K to somebody making $14K helps them. And giving them that $5K also helps prevent the additional societal burdens created by people who fail to thrive in society (partly from things like emergency room care and homeless shelters, but most especially from crime reduction -- when you're starving to death, you're much more likely to shoot people for food than when you're not). Most people with excess wealth wouldn't voluntarily give up that money, even though doing so would benefit society as a whole (read: John Rawls, Theory of Justice). That's why the Government is there to do so through coersion.

Stop complaining.

79 - Ah. Well, addressing your comments in turn, then...

1. - Community organizers are the definition of "grassroots" political leaders. Doesn't the right trumpet "grassroots" local leadership as well? Why does the phrase deserve derition? I've never understood this one.

2 - Don't know what you're talking about re: spiritaul mentor (although I assume it's the Reverand Wright nonsense I tuned out the second conservatives decided to make an issue of it), so I can't comment.

3 - Tell me, exactly why do you think we need fighter jets more capable than the F-22, aircraft carriers more advanced than the Gerald Ford class, or submarines more powerful than the Virginia class? Do you, um, expect China or Russia to become massive air and sea powers again... and then forget about their atomic arsenal and somehow advance their Cold Ware era technology by forty years? I'm skeptical, and there's better uses for the funds than designing an aircraft that's got a cloaking devise.

4 - Contrary to what you might imagine, most Presidents enter the job with relatively little on their resume. GWB had been the governer of Texas -- a state where the executive branch has achingly little authority. GHWB had extensive agency experience, but had never held any kind of representative office other than the ceremonial VP position when he was elected. Carter had been a State Senator for a couple years, and had one undistinguished term as Governor of Georgia -- basically identical to Obama in terms of political experience. And none of those guys were professors in Constitutional Law.

5 - Tell me something: Would you rather have somebody starve to death because the best job they can find is for minimum wage -- which, remember, represents about $14,000 a year for full time work -- or would you rather an extremely wealthy person be slightly less wealthy? If you're making $250K a year, taking $5K away from you hurts you a couple orders of magnitude less than giving that $5K to somebody making $14K helps them. And giving them that $5K also helps prevent the additional societal burdens created by people who fail to thrive in society (partly from things like emergency room care and homeless shelters, but most especially from crime reduction -- when you're starving to death, you're much more likely to shoot people for food than when you're not). Most people with excess wealth wouldn't voluntarily give up that money, even though doing so would benefit society as a whole (read: John Rawls, Theory of Justice). That's why the Government is there to do so through coersion.

Stop complaining.

Neandertards > 51 > 66

- N.P., f/k/a 56

90/91, there is no better use for our money than developing an aircraft with a cloaking device. You drastically underestimate the coolness of a cloaking device. More over, how much would the enemy shit their pants if they knew that we had stealth aircraft that were actually invisible. The slogan should be "if you know its there, you're already dead."

93 - Ok, I admit, a cloaking device would be awesome.

- 90/91

93: Definitely awesome, but much less cool when you realize it is steeped in the blood of millions of homeless babies!! Wah!!

Although, on second thought, I'm not sure how many babies are actually homeless. Don't they usually get a free pass for a day or two in hospital with their homeless mothers and then when it turns out they're addicted to crank at birth they get housed permanently by the state...?

this site blows now. what happened?

90/91 you are such a loser

As a living, breathing document, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court tells us it says. Therefore, Roberts was right and Obama was wrong.

90, you are a total hypocrite if you have even two dollars more than the poorest person in the US (or on the planet). I'll go ahead and take all your excess wealth and redistribute it to the poorest people. But since you obviously won't voluntarily give up all your wealth in excess of that of the poorest person, even though doing so would benefit society as a whole (read: John Rawls, Theory of Justice), I'll be happy to do so for you through "coersion" [sic].
What's that? Redistribution of wealth to enhance total societal welfare is only a good principle when the redistribution comes from someone else? Ok gotcha.

90, that's assuming the government is actually taking my money and putting it to good use by actually helping poor people. I don't mind giving the $5000; I just don't like giving the money to the government with little to no oversite or say in what happens with it. I would prefer a tax rule that said we had to give a certain percentage to a charity - something with more visibilty into the output.
Even assuinng the government could fix all of poor peoples problems and give them everything they need to make them happy - how much money would it take? How can you put a price on that... Right now I see our government tossing around bailout figures that seem astronomical and yet they keep adding more to it. The absolute vastness of the amount of money the government must already collect in taxes seems shocking. So then when is enough, enough when it comes to collecting taxes. When can the government say well if we stop our stupid war in Iraq, and cut worthless ministerial bodies, and slash over inflated budgets can we help the poor without drastically increasing taxes. I guess I don't understand why taxes must be increased.
Just to clarify, I agree with you that giving some money to less fortunate people to keep them afloat is in the common good for us all. I just don't think the government is accomplishing that, nor will they ever truly be able to accomplish that. Lets hope our new president can prove me wrong.

To paraphrase Orin Kerr: "How many former Harvard law students who took Larry Tribe for con law does it take to administer the Presidential oath properly?" Obviously, more than two.

I've heard Tribe's bragged about having had both Roberts and Obama as students. I heard that before the election Tribe even said his "fantasy" was to see one of his students, Chief Justice Roberts, swear in another of his students, Obama, as president (can someone please find and link to that?).

Well, now we know the results of Tribe's teaching!

(In Roberts' defense, I read somewhere that when Roberts took the course, Tribe didn't assign a casebook; he just assigned his own "treatise," which I guess wouldn't actually tell you much about constitutional law! I'll try to find and post that.)

Apart from their mutual disadvantage of having had Tribe teach them constitutional law, I suppose it's not surprising that Roberts and Obama couldn't get the constitutional text right,as they both got subpar grades from Larry Tribe. Tribe publicly outed Roberts a few years ago as being just an A- student, and Obama carped about it during law school:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1493875/posts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVt2dH7d69k

http://volokh.com/posts/1217534721.shtml#408513

there is no pro-Obama bias. The Bush-appointee messed up both times. Think about all oaths--the beginning always begins with "I, name", and THEN the next part is "do solemnly...." Roberts screwed up both time. Obama memorizes all his speeches--you think he can't get the oath right. Get serious!