|
Post by purplehaze on Oct 26, 2020 16:48:16 GMT -5
In no way is this a political post just an interesting note regarding alum Justice Clarence Thomas who will swear in Justice Amy Coney Barrett tonight after she is confirmed by the full Senate.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 26, 2020 16:57:39 GMT -5
Thanks for that note.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 26, 2020 16:58:23 GMT -5
Would have thought chief justice Roberts, a sort of "in-law" to Holy Cross, would have done this.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Oct 26, 2020 17:56:43 GMT -5
CT swore in Pence as VP as well.
|
|
|
Post by HCFC45 on Oct 27, 2020 6:26:55 GMT -5
Would have thought chief justice Roberts, a sort of "in-law" to Holy Cross, would have done this. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., will administer the Judicial Oath to the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, as the 103rd Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, in a private ceremony today, October 27, 2020, in the East Conference Room at the Supreme Court. Upon administration of that oath, she will be able to begin to participate in the work of the Court. A formal investiture ceremony will take place at a special sitting of the Court in the Courtroom at a later date.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 27, 2020 6:37:47 GMT -5
Excellent news. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 27, 2020 14:22:36 GMT -5
What happened to the initial post that Clarence was going to do it? Was that ever true? Wishful thinking? Or, change in plans? Again, I would have thought Roberts would do it as Chief Justice and, apparently, he did.
No offense to Clarence but you'd think it should have always been the plan to have the top person do it . . . . . unless he was ill with the coronavirus.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 27, 2020 15:08:50 GMT -5
What happened to the initial post that Clarence was going to do it? Was that ever true? Wishful thinking? Or, change in plans? Again, I would have thought Roberts would do it as Chief Justice and, apparently, he did. No offense to Clarence but you'd think it should have always been the plan to have the top person do it . . . . . unless he was ill with the coronavirus. It was on TV-- Justice Thomas administered the oath to her at the White House. Perhaps that was ceremonial because the next day the Chief Justice did so at the Court.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Oct 27, 2020 15:29:34 GMT -5
White House ceremony was a photo op
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 27, 2020 15:49:13 GMT -5
I believe there are actually two oaths and If I am wrong I'd welcome a correction--the first is the "constitutional oath" and the second is the "judicial oath". In the case of Justice Barrett, I believe that Justice Thomas administered the constitutional oath while Chief Justice Roberts handled the judicial oath.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 27, 2020 15:54:25 GMT -5
From supremecourt.gov
Two Oath Ceremonies Evolve
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, as Supreme Court Terms grew longer and circuit court duties diminished, new appointees were more likely to begin their work with the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Two distinct oath ceremonies developed. In the first, the Chief Justice or the senior Associate Justice administered the Constitutional Oath during a private ceremony, usually held in the Justices’ Consultation Room in the U.S. Capitol. In the second, the Clerk read the commission in open court and administered the Judicial Oath before the new Justice took his seat on the Bench.
For the most part, this process was followed until 1940 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt invited Frank Murphy to take his Constitutional Oath at the White House. On January 18th, Murphy’s Constitutional Oath was administered in the Oval Office by Justice Stanley F. Reed as the President looked on. A newspaper covering the event stated this occurrence was “without precedent.” A little more than two weeks later, on February 5, 1940, the Clerk of the Supreme Court administered the Judicial Oath to Murphy in the Courtroom and the new Justice took his seat.
By the 1950s, the practice of administering the oaths at the Supreme Court Building resumed. If the new Justice had not previously taken the oaths, the Chief Justice or senior Associate Justice administered the Constitutional Oath privately in the Justices’ Conference Room after which the Justices proceeded to the Courtroom. Upon entering, the new Justice sat near the Clerk of the Court while the Clerk read the commission aloud. Next, the Clerk administered the Judicial Oath and the new Justice took the Bench. If the oaths had already been taken, the new Justice sat at the Bench upon entering and the Chief Justice simply announced the change in membership.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Oct 27, 2020 17:27:08 GMT -5
As a ND grad and longtime admirer of HC one might think that I am happy about all of this.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 27, 2020 18:57:24 GMT -5
Seems to be a waste of time. One oath ought to do it. If the wordings are different, and assume they are, combine them for goodness sakes. Agree with hoops, looks more like a photo op at the White House.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 28, 2020 0:13:11 GMT -5
Seems to be a waste of time. One oath ought to do it. If the wordings are different, and assume they are, combine them for goodness sakes. Agree with hoops, looks more like a photo op at the White House. The absence of the Chief Justice at the White House for both the oath last night and the previous super spreader event introducing ACB was duly noted by the analysts I listened to. They also noted that Chief Justice Roberts, unlike Justice Barret and her husband, and President Trump and his wife and son, has not caught Covid-19. Clarence Thomas was not wearing a mask last night. I hope we don't read about him having the virus in a week or so. Still proud of him as an HC alumnus. Is anyone else picking up on a subtle increase in deference and respect he is starting to receive as the longest serving Justice? Or am I watching the news channels through purple tinted glasses?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 28, 2020 3:55:16 GMT -5
Yes. You are. IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 28, 2020 6:44:42 GMT -5
The respect he seems to get from his peers seems to be far greater than from the general public. The personal attacks he had to weather at the time of his nomination are still having an impact on some people's opinion of him.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Oct 28, 2020 7:21:18 GMT -5
I believe that his decisions and the very unusual lack of verbal participation in the oral arguments of the Court are significant factors in many cases negative opinions about him.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 28, 2020 7:29:20 GMT -5
Because he so seldom offers an opinion, when he does it seems to draw more attention. His voting record is consistent in supporting the Constitution and in not trying to alter it or to legislate from the bench. There are some who agree with both of those approaches.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Oct 28, 2020 7:43:13 GMT -5
Other than being proud of all HC's Supreme Court connections (Justice Thomas, Justice Roberts' wife, the late Justice Scalia's son) I won't offer my personal opinion of Justice Thomas as a judge, but as I lawyer I have observed: conservatives hold Justice Thomas in the highest esteem due to his assiduous approach to the Constitution, and others view him far more negatively, and not just because he rarely asks questions of litigants.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Oct 28, 2020 10:55:26 GMT -5
In no way is this a political post . . .
|
|
|
Post by Dean Wormer on Oct 28, 2020 12:53:26 GMT -5
No I don't see it as a post about politics (banned) but of course it is loaded with potential for politics. Thus far, other than one ad hominem post, it's staying within the realm of the political without going down the path of politics, and since it's discussing an HC alum, I will not delete the whole thread.
As to hchoops post, he was not commenting on the politics just the general fact about why others may not view him favorably. Absent the comment about not participating verbally in oral arguments (a fact presented) the same could be could have been said about Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsberg or any other Supreme Court justice.
Carry on ... very carefully all.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 28, 2020 23:41:34 GMT -5
Since his controversial nomination hearings, I think Clarence Thomas has conducted himself judiciously and as I watched him read the solemn oath to Justice Barrett at the White House the words "quiet dignity" came to mind. I think Father Brooks would be proud of him.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 28, 2020 23:45:01 GMT -5
As a ND grad and longtime admirer of HC one might think that I am happy about all of this. Good one.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Oct 29, 2020 7:41:25 GMT -5
I’m sure most of us here are pleased that there finally is a justice who did not attend Harvard or Yale - and from the Midwest to boot - some balance on those fronts is a good thing, IMO
|
|
|
Post by lou on Oct 29, 2020 8:02:17 GMT -5
I’m sure most of us here are pleased that there finally is a justice who did not attend Harvard or Yale - and from the Midwest to boot - some balance on those fronts is a good thing, IMO Don't remember that coming up in the confirmation hearings. And no, where she went to law school is the least of my concerns
|
|