posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by oghamxx
Thanks oghamxx! It's fair that we disagree.
I'm not certain, once again, that this level of discretion would have been available to Chief Justice Roberts.
As an aside... the following is the Oath of Office that John Roberts took:
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the
rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws
of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will
well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
When you evaluate the oath, it is plain to see that he is not obligated to "police" in favor of the Constitution, but rather to administer justice
post hoc. Again, I hear what you are saying, and in principle, agree with you from a personal perspective. But from the more professional "Decorum
and standards" of professional conduct perspective, I don't believe that Chief Justice Roberts had the discretion as he had already sworn to
"Faithfully discharge the duties of the office..." Including swearing in the President-elect.
So, difficult conundrum here...