[edge919]

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.

[ydoucare]

So you think having the opportunity to swear Obama into office outweighed the rule of law for the Chief Justice of the USA. There is no doubt Roberts thought Obama was eligible to be President. As you are aware Roberts went to the White House the next day to do the swearing in oath a 2nd time since he had inadvertently reversed two words in the original swearing in ceremony. It is obvious to everyone except the most obtuse birthers that Roberts did this to make sure there will never be a question as to Obama being a legal and legitimate President.

Wow, your latest effort at convoluted birther bs is reaching a new low on this thread