I would agree with you if there were one or two aberrant rulings that were outliers. But there have been hundreds in practically every state in the union and from judges and justices who are conservative, moderate and liberal.
Did any Tea Party endorsed conservative member of Congress object to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes on the grounds that he is constitutionally ineligible? Nope.
Which all rely on an excessively broad, but long assumed interpretation of a 1898 court decision that didn't even have as much of a majority as Plessy v Ferguson, and about which, mistakes have been found.
I restate the point. The fundamental facts are in dispute, but all the courts begin deliberation on the assumption that their long standing biases are correct. They simply never look at the issue from it's origins, but merely rely on the claims of that aforementioned 1898 "precedent".
Once again, "process" without regard for accuracy.
Did any Tea Party endorsed conservative member of Congress object to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes on the grounds that he is constitutionally ineligible? Nope.
Non Sequitur. In fact, it is reversal of the Argumentum ad Numerum fallacy. That no one objects does not make something true.