No, it's simply a given that women can be President. There have been female Presidential candidates as early as 1872. We don't need the Supreme Court to adjudicate the "question," just because it's capable of being asked. I could certainly pretend that there's a dispute here that the Court should settle, and make all kinds of arguments to that end, but it's just not an issue that anyone with a legal and historical education would ever take seriously.
Or for a non-Presidential-related issue, take the "question" of whether gold fringe on a U.S. flag puts a courtroom under admiralty jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's never ruled on that either, not because they're afraid of it, but because it's pseudo-legal nonsense.
One way to check whether there's any validity to the "question" is what the historical precedent says. Have we elected Presidents who had non-citizen fathers or parents? Yes. Have major parties nominated candidates who were known to have had non-citizen parents? Yes. When candidates with immigrant parents ran for President, was there any inquiry into their parents' citizenship at the time of their birth (either by the opposition, the states, or the public)? No. In other words, there have been plenty of opportunities for the children of non-citizens to be challenged in court, and such challenges have simply never been brought or taken seriously by the judicial system.
If you go pose the "question" to a respected Constitutional law professor, they'll tell you that there's no parental citizenship requirement. If you pose the "question" to anyone who's written a legitimate law review article on the subject, they'll tell you there's no such requirement. If you talk to ConLaw experts at any think tank or legal advocacy group from the Federalist Society to the Heritage Foundation to the Cato Institute, they'll tell you there's no parental citizenship requirement.
This is why you don't see Birthers citing living, breathing ConLaw experts who agree with them. Because there aren't any. (Or rather, no more than you can find who'll tell you that gold fringe is legally significant, or that there's a secret Constitutional amendment that forbids lawyers from holding political office.) It's why you don't see them citing any law review articles or legal textbooks or hornbooks that say 'The President must have two citizen parents.' Because there aren't any. This is why Birthers instead rely on their own amateur research through the University of Google, and why they rely on quotes they've mined from dead guys. On the occasions they *have* received an opinion on the "question" from a legitimate ConLaw expert (e.g., Ron Rotunda, the Indiana court), the expert inevitably disagrees with the Birther position, and the Birthers then simply dismiss the expert as being wrong.
All in all, that's part of how we know there's simply no merit to the claim that being born of a foreigner makes one ineligible for the Presidency.
I don't think that is true. Prior to ratification of the 19th Amendment, the Constitution was silent on the matter, leaving it to the states to decide whether women could vote. Thus some states allowed women to vote even as early as the revolution, while others did not until forced to by the ratification of the amendment.
Are there any examples besides Obama?