A nice attempt at spin. I’ll give you a B minus.
Back here in the real world we know that the Chief Justice administered the Oath of Office twice. John Roberts had plenty of time to consider the implications in between the times that he administered the oath publically and then in the smaller, private ceremony.
One of the cases from Orly Taitz (Lightfoot v Bowen) that challenged Obama’s eligibility was sent to Justice Roberts on December 29, 2008 on a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (agreement to hear the case before the full court). Roberts (and the Supreme Court) rejected granting the Petition on January 26, 2009. The Chief Justice would have been very familiar with the facts of the case submitted by Orly Taitz before he denied the Petition.
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/01/interview-orly-taitz-chief-justice.html
James, you’re speculating, just as we all are.
If the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to Zero is all the proof you need that he’s eligible to hold the office of President, then so be it.
It’s not nearly enough proof for millions of your fellow Americans.
You guys on the anti-birther side are going to have to realize at some point that you haven’t convinced the rest of us with your legal arguments.
Nothing except the release of Obama’s personal documents and records will end this.
If you want to argue against Obama coming clean with the American public, then make that argument. You’ll be forever cast as a left-wing tool if you do, but that’s your last option.
We won’t believe this man is eligible until he provides us with solid proof of that eligibility.
If you really want to help, join us in demanding that he release his documents.