I fail to see how that would let the Chief Justice “off the hook.” If there’d been ANY question in his mind of the legality, do you really think he’d have administered the oath?
What was the snafu that Roberts didn’t administer it right the first time, leaving open a question of legality - and then later, he was made to do it again, in some hallway, if I remember.
So you really think Roberts didn’t know how to do it correctly - or maybe he was trying to keep from legally swearing in a fraud - but when it was caught, they forced him to do it correctly? - Remember the secret meeting, also, of the ‘bummer with the members of the SC just before a case was to be presented? (WAsn’t that illegal?)
the election was over - a done deal. Were the SC justices coerced - for “the good of the country” - i.e., to prevent a scandal that would likely rip the country apart and cause full scale riots in every city in the land - were they coerced to acquiesce?
181 posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:43:05 PM by maine-iac7
Neither the first nor the second Oath was constitutionly administered. Chief Justice Roberts is no dummie. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew that BO didn’t have a clue.
Some people seem to think that CJ Roberts had the authority not to administer the Oath. That is not true. Once the election was certified by congress, Roberts had no choice but to administer the Oath. Neither he nor any other SCOTUS just could sua sponte decide that BO was not qualified without a proper case before the them. Then problem with all the eligibility cases so far has been that the Plaintiffs lacked standing.
http://standupamericaus.com/our-privilege-our-right-and-our-duty-civilian-grand-jury:33320