As for him putting the appeals on the discuss list, maybe he hasn’t read those appeals. IIRC, not all the appeals directly or correctly addressed the two-parent argument. Even if they did, that doesn’t mean the cases were able to overcome the obstacle of “legal standing.” Short of that, why would a judge put such a case on a discuss list?
Both Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro specifically made the two citizen parent argument and asked the Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings on standing and hear those appeals on the merits of the constitutional claims.
The SCOTUS invented the legal standing rule. It’s their baby. When a lower court denies a case on legal standing, the SCOTUS needs a compelling reason to overlook the standing argument. IIRC, both of these cases involved retired military, each trying to claim standing based on the chance of being called up by an illegal president to serve in the military. You’re supposed to have particularized harm, not something speculative. I can’t see one justice bringing such a case before the other justices on a weak claim of legal standing. I’ll try to look at these cases later, but the ones I’ve seen prior haven’t done a good job of explaining the citizen parents requirement as established in Minor v. Happersett. Usually there’s more emphasis on Vattel, which is fine, but not as compelling as the precedent in Minor.