“You are lying, it is not settled law.”
Good point. That would explain the US Supreme Court’s interest in these cases, and why different states have different interpretations. < / sarcasm >
You grant them "ex cathedra" infallibility. Since it took them 200 years to figure out what the obvious intent of the Second Amendment was, (McDonald v Chicago) I would not be so quick to draw conclusions regarding their lack of interest in this issue. Even were they to take the issue up, it would go like this.
After presentation of evidence and deliberation... Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito Would all vote that Obama wasn't eligible...
Sotomayor and Kagan, refusing to recuse themselves would vote that he WAS qualified...
Bryer and Kennedy might go either way, but most likely they would rule he was eligible. Kennedy always screws up when it really counts.
So yeah, if you think that's a good system for figuring out what the truth is, then you can worship those black robed high priests all you want. I do not believe something which is false to be true just because some one says so. That is why I pay scant attention to your rantings.