Readers Question Obama's Second Swearing In
Lots going on in the first work day of the new administration, but without question the story that has generated the most creativity among our Readers Who Comment is the one about the do-over oath of office that Chief Justice Roberts administered to President Obama.
While there is no question that this time they got the oath right, a number of our readers wonder why a Bible was not used, as it was for the public swearing-in, and some suggest sinister reasons or questions of constitutionality surrounding this second effort. Others ascribed such questions to Right Wingnuts, a term they use to counter the dreaded label, Liberal.
One reader wondered if the fouled-up intial oath wasn't a Roberts payback because then-Sen. Obama had voted against confirming Roberts.
A few were more creative, like HumbleGovWorker, who wrote, "This is not one for the Harvard Law Alumni newsletter." [Both Roberts and Obama are alums.]
cashmere1 said, "Heckuva job Justice Roberts! How embarrassing!"
jonfromcali wrote, "How long before the crazies start bloviating about the fact that Obama didn't use a Bible the time he got the oath right -- clear proof that he's a Muslim and doesn't plan to rule by Christian principles?..."
goldmineman said, "Obama has still NOT been properly sworn in! He is NOT the POTUS until he says the oathe correctly (as written in the Constituion) and swears on the Bible. He ain't the president!"
And Bitter_Bill wrote, "He didn't use a Bible, for this, the official oath. Wonder why?"
singeril said, "This is all much ado about nothing. Obama was President before the oath was even given according to the Constitution. I don't think any of this would have been necessary had Obama not "jumped the gun" and interrupted the Chief Justice in the very early moments of the oath. I think this "startled" the Chief Justice which caused him to inver the words of the oath."
PutDownTheKoolaid wrote, "Okay, right wing wackos, you can move on now to some other pathetic excuse of a scandal to monger about."
noaxe397 said, "I think it was a good think for Obama to retake the oath. It will be one less arrow in the quiver of right wing crazies to shoot him with. And believe me, they sure would. Didn't some nut job get all the way to the Supreme Court with that "Obama's birth certificate is a fake" thing?..."
gregharbaugh1 wrote, "While I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Justice Roberts for a mistake, I am also aware that then Senator Obama voted against Roberts' confrimation. Is this a little public embarrassment as payback? A neo-con effort to cast doubt on Pres. Obama?...I think the chief justice owes the American public an apology."
but_seriously said, "Who the hell cares. Both Obama and Roberts were nervous. So what? To suggest some conspiracy on Roberts' part is shear lunacy. Frankly, the administration made a circus where there was none with its silly "re-oath" stunt."
Janice71 wrote, "Im glad they redid the oath. Better to be safe than have someone challenge it later. Justice Roberts, next time use a cheat sheet."
fishingriver said, "If this is all the press has to go after, its a good sign."
mwcob wrote, "...There is no "neo-con" conspiracy to keep Obama out of office. Ironically, the Republicans have been kinder to him than Harry Reid lately... These things happen. People need to take their prozac and move on."
bjalexa said, "Some of you people are nuts. Truly nuts. I cannot believe you can find sinister motives in this. He used a Bible and said "so help me God" in front of 1.8 million people. They did it again word-by-word exactly as written in the Constitution... Go spend some time working at your local food shelf. Most are desperate for both food and volunteers. Come back in 6 months when there's something real to talk about."
We'll close with waterfrontproperty, who wrote, "Quite simply, it was the right thing to do."
All comments on this story are here.
Posted by: gary4books | January 23, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: csintala79 | January 23, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: whocares666 | January 23, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: bucinka8 | January 22, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: wgmadden | January 22, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: B2O2 | January 22, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: skramsv | January 22, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: readerny | January 22, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: StanKlein | January 22, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: lamplighter035 | January 22, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: TOMHERE | January 22, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | January 22, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: dragondancer1814 | January 22, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: qqbDEyZW | January 22, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: Attucks | January 22, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: mobedda | January 22, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: SA-Town | January 22, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: AverageJane | January 22, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: respondus | January 22, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.