Well, there was a "case" in Luther v. Borden (1849), but the Supreme Court determined that it could not properly decide whether Rhode Island was being governed by a "republican" form of government (as required by the Constitution). The Court felt that, under the Constitution, " it rests with Congress [and not the Court] to decide what government is the established one in a State":
"For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal." [Emphasis added.]
Next, read "cases"like:
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon (1912) (similar to Luther);
Chicago & Southern Airlines v. Waterman (1948) (After citing the institutional limitations of the judiciary to gather certain facts, the Supreme Court stated: "But even if courts could require full disclosure, the very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.")
Gilligan v. Morgan (1948) (In response to a "case" concerning the proper training and use of the National Guard, the Supreme Court didn't dare venture to decide: "It would be difficult to think of a clearer example of the type of governmental action that was intended by the Constitution to be left to the political branches directly responsible -- as the Judicial Branch is not -- to the electoral process. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.")
Even an incompetent like Orly Taitz can construct a "case" by finding a plaintiff, naming a defendant or two and filing a complaint. But, as the above "cases" show, the Supreme Court can be expected to decline to decide an issue that is, per the Constitution, to be decided by someone else (like the voters and their electors).
There are good reasons that the Supreme Court has shown no interest in interfering with the two decision by voters and their electors that Ovama is qualified. It's not the Supreme Court's job to interfere in such political decisions and, even if it were, it has no sensible way of resolving the factual disputes. If they were forced at gunpoint to decide Orly's case, they would vote 9-0 in favor of Obama. They will never attempt to disqualify a presidential candidate based on the "natural born citizen" provision.
The Founding Fathers did not think that the Supreme Court should decide all important questions for us. Your proposal that we should worship judges and hope they solve all of our problems for us reflects an attitude about the judiciary that the Founding Fathers simply didn't share.
Historical support for my view on this is now 57-0. After 2016, it will be 58-0. Make your pitch to the voters and their electors.
Ummm, you do understand this has absolutely nothing to do with presidential electors?? You were arguing that the electors have unspecified directions for determining the "qualifications" of a candidate. This immediately fails because several states have laws that allows voters to challenge any and all candidates on the basis of eligibility. If this were only left up to the electors and were just a political question, then these state laws would have to be unconstitutional.
The Founding Fathers did not think that the Supreme Court should decide all important questions for us.
Based on what ... your wishful thinking??
Your proposal that we should worship judges and hope they solve all of our problems for us reflects an attitude about the judiciary that the Founding Fathers simply didn't share.
Yikes, here comes the pointless melodrama that inevitably accompanies every losing argument. Nobody said anyting about worshiping judges.
Historical support for my view on this is now 57-0.
Nonsense. You're still making an assumption based on circular logic. You're not even agreeing with your own obot brethern who want to believe that there were several decisions in these lawsuits, such Ankeny, that they believed, declared Obama to be Constituionally eligible (except Ankeny never actually did this). You guys can't have it both ways. If it's a political question over which the courts have no authority, then Obama was never found to be eligible. If it's not just a political question, then these courts have failed to apply Supreme Court precedence: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. And we stil have the Luria decision that cites other Supreme Court decisions in defining parameters of presidential eligiblity. Why would they do this if it's a political question they can't touch??
These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.