Replies

“Appellants in the Obama is ineligible movement have asked the Supreme Court to rule directly on the constitutional issues raised in Article II, Section 1 as applied to Barry Soetoro.”

The appellants have properly put forward their claims, but the federal courts (including SCOTUS to justify granting cert) cannot REACH any claims on eligibility if the plaintiffs cannot establish STANDING.

All that SCOTUS did in refusing certiorari was to let stand the lower court's denial of standing and in doing so SCOTUS made absolutely NO ruling or expression of opinion on the merits of plaintiffs claims that Obama is ineligible.

The Drake/Keyes case could yet be remanded to the district court for a hearing on the merits. Only after such a hearing, including discovery, could it be concluded that a refusal to grant certiorari would reflect a lack of support from SCOTUS on ineligibility claims, IMO.

All that SCOTUS did in refusing certiorari was to let stand the lower court’s denial of standing and in doing so SCOTUS made absolutely NO ruling or expression of opinion on the merits of plaintiffs claims that Obama is ineligible.

Kerchner v Obama was dismissed on standing grounds but not Hollister v Soetoro. Hollister v Soetoro was dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
In other words, the judge denied the legal theory of the lawsuit.
The Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal and the Supreme Court refused to review the appeals court’s decision.
What needs to get to the Supreme Court is an appeal that is not simply asking them to rule on standing or other technical legal deficiencies.
Barnett/Drake/Keyes is another appeal where the issue on appeal (the original jurisdiction court’s reason for dismissal) is standing.