(Intentionally?) sloppy wording. Surrick agreed with the "no standing" argument. He didn't appear to rule on the merits of the citizenship allegations themselves.
IOW, the judge basically ruled that no citizen or group of citizens has the legal right to question the qualifications of a U.S. presidential candidate. It's a "Just WHO do you think you are?" ruling.
I've asked this before, and I haven't seen the answer yet: Who does have standing for such a complaint?
An elector or a State
Oh, and another candidate after the election. Say McCain
It may have been 4 years ago, but I do remember objection being raised on the senate floor when GW Bush was certified in 2004 (I think by Barbara Boxer). Then an investigation ensued by congress.
Although I am a product of the public school system I also remember somewhere in Article 2 of the Constitution (or perhaps 14th amendment?) that an objection to the eligibility of the candidate for president is raised when the electoral college meets (or the HOR if there is no majority vote in the EC). Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of time to read up on this but if anyone does I would be interested to know what he/she finds.
Perhaps its time for us to approach our legislators with this issue and demand they raise objection at the certification should Obama win the EC.