Your "will of the voters" comment actually hits the proverbial nail on the head. Beginning 210 years ago in Marbury v. Madison the SCOTUS has avoided certain controversies by invoking the "political question doctrine" that has it's roots in the concept of "separation of powers." What this basically means is that the SCOTUS will not get involved in controversies that are best left to the political process to resolve.
For example, the SCOTUS will not rule on the legality of the internal rules and processes of the House or the Senate unless those rules or processes violate a fundamental constitutional mandate such as equal protection under the law. The SCOTUS will generally avoid review of executive orders unless the order clearly goes beyond the internal administration of executive departments or usurps the powers and authority that the Constitution delegates to the House and Senate. And while the Constitution sets certain eligibility requirements for POTUS, I can make an argument for the SCOTUS to avoid the controversy under the political question doctrine on the grounds that the political process should determine whether the eligibility requirements have been met. In other words, let the voters, Electoral College, and elected representatives at the state and federal level set the standards and procedures for determining whether a candidate has met the constitutional eligibility requirements for POTUS.
One very serious flaw in that has now been exposed: The Hawaii state registrar has legally confirmed that Obama has no legally-established birth facts, and Hawaii law requires the birth facts claimed on Obama’s legally non-valid Hawaii BC to be legally determined in an administrative or judicial procedure.
IOW, the judicial system says this is best decided by the political process, but Hawaii statutes say it can ONLY be decided by a legal process presided over by a judge.
There is NO WAY that this even CAN be a “political question”, by the judicial definition of “political”.
The procedures for ballot access are defined in state laws.
The procedures for challenges are defined in state laws.
All these laws have been ignored.
Additionally, eligibility is not a political issue.
To wit:
If a candidate ran on a platform of ushering in the reign of the anti-Christ and ^actively^ campaigned that the USConstitution would be dissolved upon his “coronation”, provided he is elected according to the popular vote that defines the Electoral Vote, then...at that time..the SCOTUS will uphold the EC election and the US will be no longer.
The SCOTUS should be the focus of our fellow >Constitutional Fundamentalists< anger; not Obamugabe.
Sometimes we make things too complicated... Let us go back to basics and consider a simple question..... Can a doctrine (the political question doctrine) trump a sworn oath? I don't so, A Supreme court ruling on The constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land is a necessary result of the sworn duty of each justice to uphold the Constitution. If they do not accept this case, why are they there? Thew need to do their duty and not be cowards.