Replies

The MERITS of the case including the “two parents are required argument” was NOT before SCOTUS. STANDING was before the federal courts and the case was denied STANDING by the lower court and that was affirmed on appeal. SCOTUS declined to take the case, period, and no reason was given for or against the two parent argument.

No federal court can get to the merits of the NBC claims without first granting standing. Anti-birthers mischaracterize the failure to grant certiorari as an adverse assessment of the merits of birther cases, but this has not been true in any case because no case has been granted standing.

The Supreme Court can grant cert and reverse a lower court’s ruling on standing. That would send an Obama eligibility appeal such as Kerchner v Obama or Hollister v Soetoro back to the lower court for a trial on the merits.
If the only issue that appellants were asking the Supreme Court to address was standing, there would be no reason to discuss Minor v Happersett in the Certiorari petition.
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.
Appellants have argued that the issues raised in their lawsuits are of such constitutional importance that this is one of the few times in American history that the High Court should exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the lower courts and directly rule on the constitutional merits of their claims as opposed to exercising appellate jurisdiction and only ruling on matters of law such as the proper application of standing, justiciability and political question.

“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.