PRAY tell, WHO WOULD have the standing to challenge???
I believe that the courts believe that the Constitution only allows eligibility to be determined by the Electoral College.
Every state has in its election laws a procedure for challenging a candidate's eligibility for the office he is seeking. In some states, any voter can bring the challenge; in others, only another candidate on the ballot for the same office can bring the challenge. But in every state there is a very narrow window when such challenges can be heard (usually from the time the candidate files for the office until the date the ballots are printed).
In 2008, no one used any of these election laws to challenge Obama's eligibility. Instead, lawsuits were filed after the election. But once Obama was elected, only Congress could challenge his eligibility (when it counted the electoral votes, or thereafter via impeachment); the courts no longer had any role.
Pesumably, someone will mount an election challenge to Obama in 2012; if they follow the proper procedure (not likely if they're represented by Orly Taitz), they will get a definitive court ruling.
A RAT challenging a GOP. But then that would never happen because the libs would never allow any GOP candidate to advance even into the first round of debates.
I have now read the 9th Circuit's decision. They held that certain of the plaintiffs (minor-party candidates for Pesident) would have had standing had they sued before the election. (The suit wasn't filed until January 20, 2009.)