“This has all been part of the Court system for a very long time, it’s not something being cooked up in response to the challenges to Obama’s qualifications.”
Assuming you are correct. Then I would say it is time to fix this. That would be “change I could believe in.” What you describe is what I would call judicial cowardice.
So, you want an “activist” court that sees fit to interject itself into political matters? Because that is exactly what you would end up with. Sorry, but that part of justiciable question doctrine does not need to be changed, unless you are willing to cede power to the courts in a manner which is unprecedented.
The whole idea is that if there are no actual questions of “law” involved, then the courts shouldn’t be putting themselves in a position to act on something that is better left to the legislature and/or executive to solve. This has been the position of the Supreme Court for nearly as long as it has existed. The Court has routinely refused to hear such cases, whether brought on behalf of conservatives or liberals and for pretty good reason.
The main point I was trying to make in posting that in the first place was kind of an effort to deflect some of Orly Taitz’ comments about the judge’s decision. Or course, I kind of hard to take her seriously after seeing for myself that not only had the judge NOT had his order dismissing the case “sealed,” but in fact had posted his judgment online through the court’s website at his docket. Huge difference between “sealed” and “made public” and I don’t know how anyone with a modicum of intelligence couldn’t tell the difference, particularly a lawyer.