Won’t their deliberation be over who has standing to file such a suit, rather than the merits of the case itself?
“lack of standing” is what has stonewalled every petitioner to date
Will they expand upon who or what has the “standing” to demand the verification of the credentials of a candidate for the US presidency?
Certainly, if an illegitimate Obama were to sign a statute which harmed John Smith, John Smith would be harmed by Obama's having illegitimately assumed office. Such harm would seem a clear and foreseeable consequence of Obama's taking office. Why, then, should John Smith not have standing to file an injunction to prevent such harm? Has anyone expressed the issue in such terms?
IMHO, from a PR campaign standpoint, the argument needs to be distilled: either Obama is eligible for office or he is not. If he is eligible, it would be best for everyone, including Obama, if his eligibility were officially established rather than dodged. For him to dodge the issue suggests bad character.
If Obama ran for office, knowing himself to be ineligible, that would mean he planned to use subterfuge and intimidation to gain an office he knew he couldn't earn legitimately. No reasonable citizen should trust someone who would do such a thing. Not only would he be ineligible for office--he would be of entirely unsuitable character as well.
If it were shown that Obama, though ineligible, legitimately believed himself to be eligible, and could not reasonably have known of his ineligibility, that would be the only scenario where Obama could be regarded as honorable. Even then, however, he would not be entitled to the presidency.
As for the Court, it needs to recognize that if Obama enters the White House without having provided at least prima facie evidence of eligibility, Civil War II will be much worse than would be any riots that would result from giving the White House to Senator Biden.
I would think the lowly little citizen, us, would have more standing than anyone in America.