A case of nerves. Justice Stevens and Vice-President Biden did a much better job.

The whole think seems vaguely unrehearsed. It took too long to get to the oath. The Warren prayer was bloated. Franklin was singing some song I have never heard of. Obama delivered the State of the Union a month early. I think what the lady read was a poem, but I am not sure. I only really enjoyed Biden confidently repeating his oath.

It was just Roberts showing he is too non-traditional.

I eagerly await the conspiracy theories claiming that all his future acts will be illegitimate because he was never entitled to "enter on the Execution of his Office."

They're already drafting the pleadings.

"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."

Since Cleveland counts twice, this is . . . er . . . wrong. It's only 43.

There will also be those on the left (DU) who will say it was done on purpose to mess up a historic event. I knew it would not be long. Back to the usual.

Jonathan F.'s prediction is already coming to pass. The historical revisionists are out in force at Althouse, where the party line is that Robert's version of the oath was perfect, but Obama screwed it up because he's not really an American, etc.

I wondered what happened there. I thought Roberts was saying something weird "the office of president to the United States". How can he make such a mess of it? Let's hope he gets it right next time.

This justifies Obama's vote against confirming him to CJ.

Make that "Maybe Obama thought."

Sometimes a flubbed line is just a flubbed line.

I think it's time for another edition of Orin Kerr's famous series, the John G. Roberts Umpire Watch. In this edition, Roberts is unfavorably compared to Doug Eddings.

It actually makes me feel a little better because that's the kind of thing I would have done. However, Roberts &Obama are two of the smoothest talkers I know of; so it's surprising it came from them.

Can't wait for the Linda Greenhouse article on what Robert's flubbing his lines and Obama's correction means in the great scope of things.

SP said, "Franklin was singing some song I have never heard of ..."

Really? You've never heard of "My Country 'Tis of Thee"?

On BBC they called it "the national anthem." But that was before she started singing.

There's an old Jewish tradition that requires that certain ritual texts actually be read rather than recited from memory, regardless of how confident the reader is that he or she knows the words by heart. (I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more liturgically-inclined Christian traditions had a similar rule.) There's some real insight here into human fallibility, particularly when all eyes are on you and the task seems (seems!) so simple.

On BBC they called it "the national anthem." But that was before she started singing.

It is the national anthem--of the United Kingdom. The music is the same as that for God Save the Queen.

There's an old Jewish tradition that requires that certain ritual texts actually be read rather than recited from memory, regardless of how confident the reader is that he or she knows the words by heart

Reading is no guarantee against flubbing (as I have demonstrated on several occasions).

Barristers Handshake:

Clearly none of you paid attention in lawschool... the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that the Oath is whatever Roberts said. BHO obviously botched it.

Au contraire. You have clearly not paid attention to Supreme Court decisions during the last decade. That argument would work only if Justice Kennedy -- the swing voter -- had said it.

LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES HAVE JUST TAKEN FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH INTO CUSTODY SJORTLY BEFORE DEPARTING FOR CRAWFORD, TX. THE FORMER PRESIDENT WAS HANDICUFFED AND TAKEN AWAY BY US FEDERAL MARSHALS ON UNSPECIFIED CHARGES.

DEVELOPING....

Barristers Handshake nailed it.

The conspiracy types are on it, caps lock and all.

DID ANYONE NOTICE JUDGE ROBERTS LEFT OUT FOR OBAMA TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST FORIEGN AND DOMESTIC THREATS , STRANGE HOW COME THEY TOOK DIFFERNT OATHES

What I think happened is:

Roberts got it in his mind he was going to re-word the oath to get around a split infinitive. Instead of the classic "To faithfully execute...", Roberts wanted "to execute...faithfully."

When Roberts used this construction while administering the oath, it threw Obama, who thought Roberts had flubbed the line. Obama didn't realize Roberts had said it this way on purpose.

Obama noticed Roberts omitted the "faithfully" from the usual place, and waited for Roberts to say the line correctly, which he initially was not going to do. Obama then realized what Roberts was doing and played along.

An absolutely ridiculous way of enforcing a ridiculous grammar rule.

Churchill took great pride in never needing notes until one day (still early in his career) when he found that he... needed notes, and suddenly, and didn't have them. Very embarassing. From that day forward, he was never without them, though of course often spoke without looking at them.

What I think happened is:

Roberts got it in his mind he was going to re-word the oath to get around a split infinitive. Instead of the classic "To faithfully execute...", Roberts wanted "to execute...faithfully."

When Roberts used this construction while administering the oath, it threw Obama, who thought Roberts had flubbed the line. Obama didn't realize Roberts had said it this way on purpose.

Obama noticed Roberts omitted the "faithfully" from the usual place, and waited for Roberts to say the line correctly, which he initially was not going to do. Obama then realized what Roberts was doing and played along.

An absolutely ridiculous way of enforcing a ridiculous grammar rule.

Again, it's not an infinitive -- the line isn't, "to faithfully execute," it's "I will faithfully execute." I believe the Framers avoided splitting any infinitive in drafting the Constitution.

Also, I am listening to the tape again, and it seems very clear to me that Roberts appears to be grasping for memory when reciting the words "that I will," and then hesitates and slightly misses a beat where the next word "faithfully" should have been. After Obama says, "that I will execute--" and stops, Roberts comes back in, sounding eager and relieved: "the off-- faithfully the Pres-- Office of President of the United States . . . ."

I can't tell if you were serious or if this was a parody of the "split infinitives are okay" crusade, but I don't believe that anyone, on listening several times to Roberts' performance, could think that his errors were intentional. And whatever his errors may have been, the Presidential Oath of Office doesn't contain any infinitives, aplit or otherwise.

So is Roberts no longer a textualist?

Jonathan F:

And whatever his errors may have been, the Presidential Oath of Office doesn't contain any infinitives, split or otherwise.

Oh, yeah, Mr. Smarty?

What about when the president pledges "To boldly go where no man has gone before"?

What's the good of being Chief Justice of the United States if you can't do a little on-the-fly editing of the Constitutional text? Only an annoying textualist like Scalia should object.

Seriously, it's too bad Roberts tried to wing it without having the text in front of him, just in case. After all, they have a very nice print shop in the basement of the Court that could have whipped something up for him.

Who's the Justice most likely to tease Roberts about this?

LM:

Who's the Justice most likely to tease Roberts about this?

I would imagine Nino, on the theory that he is the Justice most likely to tease about anything.

If there's any real portent, it would involve the two or three documents - presumably executive orders - Obama signed immediately after taking the oath. Any reports on what they were? Seems odd, but haven't seen or heard this reported.

David Nieporent, those are my thoughts exactly.

I expected a pause after I, BHO, as did Obama. Obama jumping in at that point threw off Roberts, who then proceeded to misplace the word "faithfully," and Obama's pause, which I interpreted live as a "line please" pause, was in fact a pause to allow CJ Roberts to correct himself.

Quite a fascinating little piece of human interaction, and so easy to put yourself in their shoes. I'm sure Roberts had worked and memorized the Oath, but suddenly everything came off track when Obama spoke unexpectedly (to Roberts anyway -- as I said, I agree with David that Obama jumped in where one would naturally expect a pause to be).

Deliberate? A nod to Roberts that Obama doesn't really care where the adverb goes?

A pre-arranged signal to the NWO sleeper-cells.

Obama - "I Swear I will faithfully execute all Republicans and conservatives in the newly established death camps".

Obama - "I Swear I will faithfully execute all Republicans and conservatives in the newly established death camps".

Tsk, tsk. They are reparations camps.

What's odd is that, after Roberts comes back &says it correctly, Obama then goes ahead &says it with "faithfully" at the end like Roberts initially said.

He was already past the point where "faithfully" belongs, having just said "that I will execute" before pausing. That's when Roberts just mutters some nonsense and Obama goes with the line Roberts intially stated.

NaG:

I know that the President's oath is specifically spelled out in the Constitution. The Vice President's is not. However, the Vice President's oath, as recited by Biden, became this long, sprawling thing that was easily twice as long as what President Obama recited. That seems wrong to me. Who wrote the Veep's oath? Is that like marriage vows, where they can write their own?

I believe that the oath is established by statute. It is the same oath that Senators and Representatives take--possibly also federal judges and cabinet officers? In any event, it certainly has nothing to do with Biden's choice.

What I think happened is that Roberts said, "I, BHO, do solemnly swear..." except that Obama jumped in after "I, BHO", expecting (as did I) a pause there. That threw Roberts off, and he lost his train of thought.

So much for Roberts reputation as being a stellar advocate who can think quickly on his feet.

Youtube has most of the oaths of office of the last 80 years. In 1933, Chief Justice Hughes repeated the entire oath before letting Roosevelt say anything. Other than that, everyone said "I (name) do solemnly swear". Only George Bush in 1989 had a minor flub. He said the word "I" as if to interrupt the Chief in exactly the same place as Obama did. But, Bush quickly stopped. Most of the Chiefs were careful not to pause between the name and the word "do". Apparently, the custom used to be to ask a question "Do you (name) solemnly swear".

A subconscious slip by the Chief Justice?

Recall that Obama had some very harsh things to say about Judge Roberts during the confirmaiton hearings, was one of only 22 senators who voted against him, and has pointedly implied that he would choose different sorts of people to fill judicial vacancies.

Justice Roberts no doubt had to swallow hard to administer the oath to Obama.

This will not be a big deal. The first thing the feds do after they administer an oath orally is have you sign it on paper.

If Obama has nothing to hide, why hasn't he released the signed oath?

Ugh, the only people that call Obama The One and The Messiah are the right-wingers. I can assure you that no Democrat believes that Obama is God, and this popular right-winger insult was only sarcastically expressed by John McCain's horrid ad.

Commontheme,

"So much for Roberts reputation as being a stellar advocate who can think quickly on his feet."

What exactly is common about your theme again? Or is it common in the derogatory sense?

Aw, Roberts will have plenty of times to get it right in the future.

I like the theory that Roberts was hurrying it along to prevent a Constitutional crisis of "Whose Presidency Is it Anyway?"

LM

I know you were kidding about the signed oath. But do you have any explanation for the lack of a birth-certificate?

And please, everyone, no flaming. I don't think that there's anything at all fishy about this. It just struck me last night that--one would think--this is a document that we would have for any president. I'm simply curious as to why it has not been produced, since there must be some reason.

University transcripts strike me as a different matter. They should be available, in my opinion. But Obama is following precedent in not releasing them. So it's hard to take this as a sign of anything, other than perhaps safeguarding some realm of personal privacy.

Ugh, the only people that call Obama The One and The Messiah are the right-wingers. I can assure you that no Democrat believes that Obama is God, and this popular right-winger insult was only sarcastically expressed by John McCain's horrid ad.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. "Few," I'll give you. "Virtually no," maybe. But I would be very, very careful about saying that none do.

While there are a lot of people who are over-excited about "Hope and Change," if someone on the Volokh Conspiracy talks about "The One" or "The Messiah," there is a 99.99% chance of that person not being an Obama supporter.

Remember Obama did vote against Roberts..

Hoosier:

I know you were kidding about the signed oath. But do you have any explanation for the lack of a birth-certificate?

I thought some Hawaiian state officials had more or less vouched for his birth certificate, but honestly I haven't paid that much attention to it. (I admit I have been endlessly entertained by those making an issue of it.)

I'm generally skeptical of the sort of conspiracy theories required to account for contemporaneous birth announcements, so until Jim Lindgren or Orrin Hatch or Newt Gingrich or the SCOTUS think there's something to worry about, I assume I don't have to concern myself with it.

BTW, have we seen the Bush Sr. and Jr. birth certificates? Bill Clinton's? I don't know that either.

I'm offended, DangerMouse! The Infanticide President would inevitable be abbreviated TIP, which is clearly a reference to Obama's race somehow!

Other, less offensive names the always classy Right has come up with:

Thug in Chief, Bogus POTUS, Osama, Obeyme, Obamination, Barack O’Possum, Saint of Hyde Park, Fauxbama, O’barmy, Black Whiteguilt Oblack, Obamafuhrer,
BARRYSTROIKA, Obama-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong, Hussein ObamaMessiaHamas, Ubingobangobongo, Obamacaca.

Just be glad it wasn't Hillary.

Sarcastro,

Some of those are good. I'd like to think of one that has the ever popular "Mc" prefix. Obambi McHopenchange, maybe.

It's good to know there is no cult of personality surrounding Obama. It's all been a figment of the imagination of those Rs, rightwingers and presumably those "whites" who are still belated in "doing right," in marked contrast to other races in our now post-racial society.

It's good to know there is no cult of personality surrounding Obama. It's all been a figment of the imagination of those Rs, rightwingers and presumably those "whites" who are still belated in "doing right," in marked contrast to other races in our now post-racial society.

Hyperbole and racial straw men aside, yeah, pretty much.

Sorry, the last sentence should of course have said "[B]efore he enter."

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

Jonathan:

Where'd you learn American? I don't remember ever before seeing an American verb conjugated in the 3rd person present subjunctive.

LM,

"until Jim Lindgren or Orrin Hatch or Newt Gingrich or the SCOTUS think there's something to worry about, I assume I don't have to concern myself with it."

A major factor in dissuading any of this nonsense was the fact that under a strict reading of the law, McCain wasn't technically eligible either, being born in the Canal Zone before it was U.S. territory, as I understand matters.

"Hyperbole and racial straw men aside, yeah, pretty much." LM

Don't be so defensive LM.

From Farrakhan stating "the Messiah is absolutely speaking" and indicating Barack will bring "universal change," to text in his campaign ads that indicated "we can change the world" and "we can save the planet," to Matthews/Olberman and the obsequiousness of the press in general, to Slate.com's ongoing "Obama Messiah Watch" dedicated to "considering evidence that Obama is the Son of God," to "obama/messiah" styled blogs, to 2.6 million hits when "obama" and "messiah" are searched, to the "Jesus was a community organizer" motif, to rightwinger sites such as Mother Jones' articles titled "Barack Obama's Messiah Complex," to any number of other references that could be offered - it all makes no difference - it's all others' imagination, those damned "rightwingers," makin' stuff up.

And there were no strawmen, racial or otherwise. The words chosen reflect direct quotes from other commenters and from the minister who gave the benediction after the oath of office.

It was intended more lightly and not so seriously, but they were direct quotes from others, not I.

Although, to be fair, I also learned Latin.

michael:

Slate.com's ongoing "Obama Messiah Watch" dedicated to "considering evidence that Obama is the Son of God"

What a joke. You're transparently twisting the evidence, in much the same way you've done before. Like here, where I pointed out how you presented an LAT article as an example of work produced by "conservative blogs."

You are purportedly presenting evidence that someone views Obama as a 'messiah,' but most of the evidence you're citing is just instances of what you're doing yourself: someone claiming that there's someone else who views Obama as a 'messiah.' In other words, your 'proof' is recursive. You're doing a silly trick with mirrors.

The Slate "Obama Messiah Watch" started here. But it's not Slate claiming that Obama is a messiah. It's Slate claiming that someone else is doing that. Does it present any real evidence? None that I can find.

Mother Jones' articles titled "Barack Obama's Messiah Complex"

This article is here. And just like the Slate article, it mocks and criticizes Obama. Does it show any proof that someone views Obama as a 'messiah?' None that I can find.

By the way, the Slate and Mojo articles date back to a time when Hillary was considered the D front-runner. So it's not particularly shocking to find that certain non-Republicans were looking for ways to slam Obama.

2.6 million hits when "obama" and "messiah" are searched

Guess what: the comment you wrote about "obama" and "messiah" is probably one of those hits. Most of the top items are people expressing your perspective. Like an American Thinker article called "Obama's Messiah Shtick." Or Michelle Malkin pointing to the Slate article. So you're getting lots of hits because the righty echo chamber has been very busy doing what you're doing, and writing articles with titles like "Obama's Messiah Shtick."

In other words, when asked to prove your claim that there is a "cult of personality surrounding Obama," you bring as evidence a bunch of people simply making the same claim you're making: that there's a cult of personality surrounding Obama. Trouble is, the 'proof' they're presenting is just as underwhelming and circular as the 'proof' you're presenting.

Here's a clue: presenting an instance of someone else presenting the same straw man you're presenting is not the same thing as presenting proof that the straw man is something other than a straw man.

I think you're having trouble dealing with certain simple realities: Obama is popular, and a lot of people find him inspiring. This doesn't justify the hyperbole you're using, but apparently you can't find any other way to cope.

PS: I have a side bet running that you won't be able to respond without using one or more of the following words: arrogate, sneer and mephitic. I could use the dough, so please don't let me down.

jukebox_sneer,

Ok.

I knew I could count on you.

jukebox_sneer,

That the Left relies upon arrogations and sneers, even habitually and absent virtually any thought whatsoever, is a particularly prominent aspect of the social/political landscape.

But what's next, you're going to huff and puff and blow my house down?

Boo.

A final note, for humor and some added perspective. Iowahawk's takeoff on Demi Moore's and Ashton Kutchner's "Pledge" video, and the video itself, here.

jukebox_sneer,

Would it have been so hard to avoid yet another sneer?

But no, I rarely use that descriptor, it's particularly severe and I reserve it for situations wherein it's applicable. It can be thoughtfully applied to some prominent aspects of the MSM, for example, the self-admiring Fourth Estate having often abdicated its proper role, and taken on the characteristics of the First and Second Estates.