[Constitution 123]

“”””And while the Constitution sets certain eligibility requirements for POTUS, I can make an argument for the SCOTUS to avoid the controversy under the political question doctrine on the grounds that the political process should determine whether the eligibility requirements have been met.””””” In other words, let the voters, Electoral College, and elected representatives at the state and federal level set the standards and procedures for determining whether a candidate has met the constitutional eligibility requirements for POTUS.

Sometimes we make things too complicated... Let us go back to basics and consider a simple question..... Can a doctrine (the political question doctrine) trump a sworn oath? I don't so, A Supreme court ruling on The constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land is a necessary result of the sworn duty of each justice to uphold the Constitution. If they do not accept this case, why are they there? Thew need to do their duty and not be cowards.

[Labyrinthos]

The SCOTUS decisons that support the political question doctrine go back to the founding of our Country — long before the start of the Republican Party. This is less partisan than you may want to think.