I might buy your opinion except for the fact that in about 90% of the more than 200 Obama eligibility lawsuits that have been filed, there was no defense at all presented by Obama. Such was the case in Lamb v. Obama in Alaska. There was only a plaintiff’s brief for the Court.
Why would Obama ever allege that he had been damaged by being declared eligible as a natural born citizen? You cannot force someone to become a plaintiff. When a party offers no defense, they are leaving it up to the court to rule, solely on the position of the plaintiff.
Obama eligibility lawsuits have failed primarily due to one simple fact: the four persons who did have standing to file suit decided not to sue or even to support any eligibility lawsuit by filing an amicus brief. The persons with standing are John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the only other persons who received electoral votes and who had a chance to hold the office if Obama is ineligible. It is also conceivable that a judge might have granted standing to the Republican Party on behalf of its candidates but the Republican National Committee has never challenged Obama’s eligibility either.
Hillary Clinton would also have had standing, before the 2008 Convention.
The only scenario that would have ever worked is if one (1) State Attorney General, or Governor, or responsible election authority under a state constitution had thought enough of the difficulties Obama presented, and in an effort to clarify the ambiguities, had tossed him from the state ballot.
That, BTW, happens in many a state election, as the authorities do their jobs and check the eligibility of candidates for every elected office in a state and respond to complaints. E.G., Rahm Emmnauel had to go to court as a Plaintiff to be re-placed on the ballot after a residency challenge to his eligibility to run for mayor.
In these cases, the election authorities become the defendant and the removed party, the Plaintiff. He has been "damaged" by removal from the ballot.
In the case of all those lawsuits fought, quashed, or totally ignored by Team Obam, The Courts, as time went on, were completely justified in claiming res judicata and thus merely dismissing the case.
That is where we are today. The courts, as they do, feed off one another. The SCOTUS seems determined to sit this issue out, hoping it will go away when Obama leaves office.
However, there is a larger issue the SCOTUS is leaving on the table, and that is "who or what is a citizen?" Instead of taking up a case, the SCOTUS seems content to let this question be answered bureaucratically. I don't think that is right for the offspring of two illegal aliens, or indeed legal aliens, to become an automatic citizen of the US. I can easily accept dual citizenship, after both parents are naturalized, but I do not think (or feel) that this is a Natural Born Citizen.
In the case on one US citizen parent, and the child born overseas ... speak, SCOTUS!