[InterceptPoint]

I think you are right. Read the fine print from the article:

It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

...

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

I think the Court's failure to respond was an error on the Court's part and that is the reason for the rehearing. It will end up in the circular file along with all the rest. The Supremes are not going to address the eligibility issue unless forced to by lower court rulings. And since it appears that nobody or no organization actually has standing to sue then then I don't see this yielding any positive results either.

What a sad state we have come to in this country when the Judiciary and the Legislative cower in fear of the President's political power.

[CanaGuy]

Now available at bookstores near you......

[colorado tanker]

It seems to me that once the votes of the Electors are read out in the House of Representatives and the winner of the election is announced and after a President takes the oath there is really only one alternative under the Constitution to address the qualification issue. That would be by the House Judiciary Committee beginning an impeachment inquiry and issuing subpoenas for the relevant documents.