[El Gato]

There is no way an honest man, a man who respects oaths, a man who respects the wisdom of prior generations, a man who cares at all for the future generations could administer the oath of office to a man whose claim to that office when his disputed qualifications remain uninspected, for that would be a dereliction of duty in pursuit of the status quo -- to have us all to hell on auto pilot.

Even if the Chief Justice and all but the deep liberal four, refused to administer the oath, someone would, even if they had come up with a justice of the peace (if DC has them). There is no requirement for the Chief Justice, or really anyone to "administer" the oath. It's *Tradition!*, but it's not required. In fact he could just "Swear" the oath by signing a copy of it. But the oath itself *is* required, before a President-elect becomes a President.

I hope there is a sudden thunderstorm on January 20th, just as Obama say "swear to support and defend."

The Mother of All Zots would be nice.

[little jeremiah]

If even several of the justices refused to administer the oath of office, word would get out, and it would start off his term with a great deal of taint.

I like the MOAZ scenario, though.