There is no law that requires the Chief Justice of the US to swear the president into office. It is tradition. If Roberts thought Obama was not eligible to serve as President, then he would have refused to perform the swearing in of Obama. That act alone would have brought the issue to an immediate head. Yes we have a system of laws in our country, and the Chief Justice of the USA is well aware of the law and the Constitution. It is obvious that he had zero questions regarding the eligibility of Obama. Don't forget that Roberts was described as “one of the foremost Constitutional scholar in our country” by Sen. Jeff Sessions at Roberts’ confirmation hearing. So yes, if Roberts felt Obama was not constitutionally eligible, could have refused to swear Obama into office.
You are the one who seems very prone to posting before engaging your brain.
There is no law that requires the Chief Justice of the US to swear the president into office. It is tradition. If Roberts thought Obama was not eligible to serve as President, then he would have refused to perform the swearing in of Obama.You earlier made it sound like Roberts could have refused Obama access to the office by not swearing him in. It's not under the authority of a court justice to unilaterally decide someone is not eligible for office and then attempt to bar them from office. Whether Roberts understands that Obama is Constitutionally deficient may be something he could put aside for the historical opportunity of swearing in a president, even one for which he knows shouldn't be occupying the office. NOTE that the swearing in ceremony was botched and repeated in private. Further, if Roberts understands there's no well-defined mechanism for preventing ineligible electees from office, then he may have only taken an expedient course.