I don't know if any of this is true or not. I have a hard time believing he would have gotten this far without it popping up if there actually were a problem, but I can't say it's impossible either. After all, there are still lots of people who think President Bush "stole" the 2000 election from Al Gore, which is about as crazy as thinking that Kennedy, the unions, and the Chicago mob stole the 1960 election from Nixon. Wait a minute . . . .
A couple things, however. The issue is a big issue in that qualification is important. As an example, a poster mentioned that Justice Roberts administered the oath of office not once but twice. If the little details don't matter, as some here seem to think, then why was this necessary? I liken it to all of the picky (and seemingly insane) rules of law regarding jurisdiction, standing, and the like - what most folks refer to as technicalities. However, these are obviously important, or we wouldn't have them and we certainly would not spend as much time arguing over them.
As to the citation for contempt, I will not attempt to reach the merits of that matter. However, I would point out that the decision of whether or not to actually cite for contempt lies solely in the discretion of the presiding judge. It is very likely that the vast majority of persons before the court who are actually in contempt are not actually cited for the same. I don't know the presiding judge or even what court it is in, but I would submit that unless he or she is a life-appointed federal judge, the fact that he or she is a judge means that he or she had to be politically astute enough to know not to cite the POTUS (or a candidate and likely winner of the election for same) for contempt of court.
A couple things, however. The issue is a big issue in that qualification is important. As an example, a poster mentioned that Justice Roberts administered the oath of office not once but twice. If the little details don't matter, as some here seem to think, then why was this necessary? I liken it to all of the picky (and seemingly insane) rules of law regarding jurisdiction, standing, and the like - what most folks refer to as technicalities. However, these are obviously important, or we wouldn't have them and we certainly would not spend as much time arguing over them.
As to the citation for contempt, I will not attempt to reach the merits of that matter. However, I would point out that the decision of whether or not to actually cite for contempt lies solely in the discretion of the presiding judge. It is very likely that the vast majority of persons before the court who are actually in contempt are not actually cited for the same. I don't know the presiding judge or even what court it is in, but I would submit that unless he or she is a life-appointed federal judge, the fact that he or she is a judge means that he or she had to be politically astute enough to know not to cite the POTUS (or a candidate and likely winner of the election for same) for contempt of court.
