Don’t tell me the Supreme Court should rule that it has no power to overturn the decision of electors no matter how wrong they are....
Suppose the Supreme Court should decide that the Supreme Court should decide who can and cannot run for president (even though the Constitution directs that electors should select our presidents) and suppose further that the Supreme Court mistakenly decides (by a 5-4 decision) that a fully qualified candidate from an opposing party is not qualified and cannot run for president. You seem to believe that Supreme Court justices are incapable of error or mischief. Justices often disagree with one another. How can that be if they are by nature free of error?
Since everyone is capable of error, there is no way to guarantee that human errors will never occur no matter who makes a final decision. The fact that someone who is exercising a constitutional power might make a mistake does not mean that the power should be seized by the Supreme Court. I trust that the voters and their electors will do at least as good a job as the Supreme Court at accurately measuring the qualifications of presidential candidates. But, it doesn't really matter who I think would do a better job. The important thing is that I think the Constitution has placed this power in the hands of electors. For more than 50 presidential elections, the electors have chosen our presidents and I can't say that they've made any constitutional errors in performing that duty.
I don't believe that the Supreme Court has ever believed that it has the power to disqualify presidential candidates. I think that they have very sensibly avoided the role that you want to give to them.
> Suppose the Supreme Court should decide that the Supreme Court should decide who can and cannot run for president
They do no such thing, they decide questions of law. Article II eligibility is a question of law. The Electoral College performs a ministerial function, they do not decide questions of law.