The tradition through which the Chief Justice swears in the new president reflects a telling evolution in our understanding of the normative relationship between the Court and the head of state.
He should have walked to the DOJ, taken the rest of Jack Smiths report from AG Garland, and released it to the American people before a felon buries it forever.
Thank you very much for your very thoughtful legal commentary about the Supreme Court—they have to be watched very carefully right now, given at least 2 of their recent horrifying decisions, the Chevron decision giving corporations the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and the decision to protect US Presidents from criminal prosecution! I’d pay for a subscription, but am retired and unable to due to a very tight budget.
Chief Justice is about to help a felon commit perjury. I guess when allowed to get away with treason, what's a bit of perjury going to hurt?
The Supreme Court has a couple of treasonous perjurers sitting on the bench, so what can we expect from them? Nothing that resembles the Constitution and the law they swore to uphold.
Now the Chief Justice has sworn in Trump as the 47th president as of 12:02 pm Today. It would be helpful if someone filed a case claiming Trump is an illegitimate president and attached the Special Counsel's report on January 6 as Exhibit A to the Complaint showing Trump's illegitimacy under the 14th Amendment..
Today the Chief Justice will swear-in Donald Trump as the 47th president. But Trump committed acts in 2020 and 2021 including organizing, fomenting, and encouraging his January 6 insurrections to take violent action to keep Trump in power. Their coup failed, but Trump fomented and encouraged a coup. As such he is ineligible to be sworn in as president of the U.S. as his actions make him ineligible under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment . The Supreme Court never ruled on Trump's eligibility to be inaugurated as president again; they only held that one state cannot make the determination. So in the view of many Trump has no right to the office of President, and any of his actions as an illegitimate president could be challenged in court after a hearing to determine if his actions did violate Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Many Americans would welcome such an inquiry and determination of Trump's right to serve.
An argument can (and should) be made that the SCOTUS chief justice should be precluded from administering the oath of office to the president to better ensure the chief justice properly fulfills his own oath of office. Some presidents who choose to have the chief justice swear them in may have an improper ulterior motive. This particular president and this particular chief justice highlight some issues.
The Constitution (Article I, Section 3) requires that "[w]hen the President of the United States is tried [by the Senate after being impeached by the House], the Chief Justice shall preside." Trump was impeached twice. For the first impeachment, Trump was the president. So Chief Justice Roberts presided over his trial.
Later, Chief Justice Roberts (according to the SCOTUS opinion purporting to justify pretending that Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution and according to New York Times reporting regarding that decision) engineered the circumstances that helped Trump avoid a criminal trial for committing crimes against the American people--which should have prevented Trump from being president again. SCOTUS justices (including Chief Justice Roberts) obstructed justice (including by helping Trump and other federal officials conceal relevant evidence), delayed and ultimately prevented the criminal prosecution of Trump (who clearly committed crimes that Congress and a former president determined should be criminal under federal law), and, essentially permitted Trump to be re-elected.
Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly showed that he was unwilling to fulfill his own oath to support and defend the Constitution against domestic enemies for whom he administered the presidential oath of office. Chief Justices should be precluded from individually helping install any president in office, including by administering an oath of office.
Thanks for this piece of history. A similar set of events took place after the contested election of 1876. After the compromise giving Hayes the presidency, Hayes was sworn in twice. Once in private on March 3, 1877. Then in a formal inauguration on March 5th. Chief Justice Waite administered the oath both times.
In the last 6 hours of his Presidency, 1/20/25, 6 AM Eastern, Biden has granted Preemptive Pardons to the following:
Dr. Fauci
J6 Committee members AND Staff AND police who testified.
General Milley who was threatened with death
Others
He should have walked to the DOJ, taken the rest of Jack Smiths report from AG Garland, and released it to the American people before a felon buries it forever.
THERE'S STILL TIME.
Steve, would appreciate if you'd write about preemptive pardons. Love your analyses. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your very thoughtful legal commentary about the Supreme Court—they have to be watched very carefully right now, given at least 2 of their recent horrifying decisions, the Chevron decision giving corporations the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and the decision to protect US Presidents from criminal prosecution! I’d pay for a subscription, but am retired and unable to due to a very tight budget.
Rose, if a gift subscription is offered, I will buy it for you. I'm not wealthy but I can help with this.
Chief Justice is about to help a felon commit perjury. I guess when allowed to get away with treason, what's a bit of perjury going to hurt?
The Supreme Court has a couple of treasonous perjurers sitting on the bench, so what can we expect from them? Nothing that resembles the Constitution and the law they swore to uphold.
TIL: Per curiam opinions are not necessarily unanimous. Never skip the footnotes.
Now the Chief Justice has sworn in Trump as the 47th president as of 12:02 pm Today. It would be helpful if someone filed a case claiming Trump is an illegitimate president and attached the Special Counsel's report on January 6 as Exhibit A to the Complaint showing Trump's illegitimacy under the 14th Amendment..
Today the Chief Justice will swear-in Donald Trump as the 47th president. But Trump committed acts in 2020 and 2021 including organizing, fomenting, and encouraging his January 6 insurrections to take violent action to keep Trump in power. Their coup failed, but Trump fomented and encouraged a coup. As such he is ineligible to be sworn in as president of the U.S. as his actions make him ineligible under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment . The Supreme Court never ruled on Trump's eligibility to be inaugurated as president again; they only held that one state cannot make the determination. So in the view of many Trump has no right to the office of President, and any of his actions as an illegitimate president could be challenged in court after a hearing to determine if his actions did violate Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Many Americans would welcome such an inquiry and determination of Trump's right to serve.
An argument can (and should) be made that the SCOTUS chief justice should be precluded from administering the oath of office to the president to better ensure the chief justice properly fulfills his own oath of office. Some presidents who choose to have the chief justice swear them in may have an improper ulterior motive. This particular president and this particular chief justice highlight some issues.
The Constitution (Article I, Section 3) requires that "[w]hen the President of the United States is tried [by the Senate after being impeached by the House], the Chief Justice shall preside." Trump was impeached twice. For the first impeachment, Trump was the president. So Chief Justice Roberts presided over his trial.
Later, Chief Justice Roberts (according to the SCOTUS opinion purporting to justify pretending that Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution and according to New York Times reporting regarding that decision) engineered the circumstances that helped Trump avoid a criminal trial for committing crimes against the American people--which should have prevented Trump from being president again. SCOTUS justices (including Chief Justice Roberts) obstructed justice (including by helping Trump and other federal officials conceal relevant evidence), delayed and ultimately prevented the criminal prosecution of Trump (who clearly committed crimes that Congress and a former president determined should be criminal under federal law), and, essentially permitted Trump to be re-elected.
Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly showed that he was unwilling to fulfill his own oath to support and defend the Constitution against domestic enemies for whom he administered the presidential oath of office. Chief Justices should be precluded from individually helping install any president in office, including by administering an oath of office.
Thanks for this piece of history. A similar set of events took place after the contested election of 1876. After the compromise giving Hayes the presidency, Hayes was sworn in twice. Once in private on March 3, 1877. Then in a formal inauguration on March 5th. Chief Justice Waite administered the oath both times.