Justice Roberts and President Obama Flub the Oath

January 20th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

There has been some debate among bloggers about the oath President Obama took earlier today. Liberal bloggers argue that conservative Chief Justice Roberts flubbed the oath, which caused Obama to do the same. Conservatives (and others) ignore Roberts’ mistake and focus solely on Obama, blaming him entirely for the mistake.

So, what actually happened? First, did Obama flub the oath, if so, did Roberts flub it as well? Lets have a look at the transcript:

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama…
OBAMA: I, Barack…
ROBERTS: … do solemnly swear…
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…
ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…
OBAMA: … that I will execute…
ROBERTS: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…
OBAMA: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…
ROBERTS: … and will to the best of my ability…
OBAMA: … and will to the best of my ability…
ROBERTS: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.

The transcript makes clear that Justice Roberts made a mistake first, then corrected it, after which President Obama repeated the mistake not the correct version. In other words, both flubbed the oath, Roberts corrected himself, Obama did not.

More important than the flub, though, is that the message stays the same; the meaning of the sentence does not change. Shorter; there’s no use in debating the issue since it doesn’t matter whether Obama flubbed it and if so why.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Michael van der Galien
    January 21st, 2009 at 01:53
    Reply | Quote | #1

    This works right?

  2. Michael Merritt
    January 21st, 2009 at 04:30
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I thought it was Obama who jumped the gun first. Then Roberts made the “faithfully” mistake, Obama paused, Roberts corrected himself but Obama said it the wrong way anyway!

  3. C Stanley
    January 21st, 2009 at 05:30
    Reply | Quote | #3

    When I watched it I thought that Obama had a brain freeze in the midst of repeating the ‘execute’ passage (it looked like he first jumped in too soon, then was really nervous and tongue tied on the second part.)

    But after reading the explanation and seeing that Roberts did in fact put the ‘faithfully’ in the wrong place, it makes sense as most people are pointing out that Obama’s pause was to allow Roberts to repeat it the correct way. But as MM points out, assuming that Obama did know the correct wording and waited for Roberts to get it right, he then flubbed it by repeating the incorrect version.

    Sort of reminds me of those times you try to walk past someone on their right side and they think you’re going to go the other direction- and then you try to correct and go the other way, but then they also try to correct and you end up bumping into each other!

  4. David
    January 21st, 2009 at 16:31
    Reply | Quote | #4

    I suppose it isn’t every day that someone is inaugurated as US President in front of a crowd of over a million people. I guess that both Obama and Roberts were a bit nervous….

  5. The Beer Snob
    January 22nd, 2009 at 16:58
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Both flubbed it. I don’t care that they did, everyone makes mistakes when they’re nervous…..what really bothers me is that the media is already covering for Obama….most media outlets simply day Roberts flubbed it (which he did) but completely ignore the fact that Obama did as well

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.