Judge John Roberts is sworn in as US Supreme Court Chief by US Supreme Cort Justice John Paul Stevens before his wife, Jane, and US President George Bush.
John Roberts, President George Bush's choice for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was sworn in to the post in which he will help shape American life for years to come.
Roberts, 50, a conservative Catholic appellate judge, was approved as the 17th Chief Justice by 78 votes to 22 in the Senate, then sworn in later in the day by the longest-serving Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens at a White House ceremony.
"I, JOHN ROBERTS, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES......" Roberts said, his hand on a bible held by his wife, Jane, as seven chief justices and the wives of two late members of the high court looked on.
The youngest chief justice for 200 years.
"I view the vote this morning as confirmation of what is, for me, a bedrock principle, that judging is different from politics," said Roberts.
Bush praised Roberts as a man of modesty, integrity and rare intellect.
He said Roberts, the first new member of the Supreme Court since 1994, had a deep reverence for the constitution, placing his lifetime appointment in the context of more than 200 years of political continuity in the United States.
"When a president chooses a Supreme Court justice, he is placing in human hands, the full authority and majesty of the law," Bush said, before Roberts was sworn in below a crystal chandelier in the White House's ornate East Room.
"I submitted to the Senate a nominee of integrity, deep humility, and uncommon talent."
Many Democrats said Roberts' reputation as a brilliant and fair-minded jurist, who as a lawyer argued many cases before the Supreme Court, overrode their concerns about his conservative leanings.
That is all very well, but the question today, 20 January 2009, is:
"DID CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS VIOLATE HIS OWN OATH OF OFFICE BY SWEARING IN BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?"
It is legitimate to ask that question because John Roberts had knowledge of the questions that have been raised in numerous lawsuits about the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of President of the United States. Questions about whether or not Obama is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as required by Article Two, Section One of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Regardless of his place of birth, Obama has stated in his autobiography that his father was a citizen of Kenya, at that time a colony of Great Britain.
His father's British citizenship disqualifies Obama from being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN within the meaning traditionally given that term.
Roberts had knowledge of the ineligibility of Obama because he accepted a lawsuit alledging that and scheduled it for conference by all nine judges of the US Supreme Court. Even though the judges declined to follow that conference with an open hearing on the case, Roberts and the other judges were aware of the legal arguments presented in the case against the eligibility of Obama.
SO, THE QUESTION IS, HOW COULD ROBERTS, KNOWING THAT THERE ARE SOUND LEGAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ELIGIBILITY OF OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PROCEED TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE TO OBAMA.
THE QUESTION WILL HAVE TO BE ANSWERED.
IT WILL BE ANSWERED; IF NOT IN OUR TIME, IT WILL BE ANSWERED IN HISTORY.