I respect your opinion, although I happen to disagree with it. I think a plausible argument can be made either way.
The fact remains that Obama has chosen a different path. One possible explanation is that he was born in Kenya and hence must go down this path in order to become President. Another possible explanation is that he has weighed the advantages and disadvantages, and has concluded that he's better off politically by treating the entire matter as frivolous and ignoring it.
In the latter case his political judgement (or that of his advisors) may turn out to be wrong, but it nevertheless explains his actions. And from a practical viewpoint his present course of action will not prevent him from becoming President, and it will not matter to the vast majority of the public.
It will matter to his most vociferous right-wing critics, but I don't think Obama is concerned about appeasing them.
So the outcome of the Supreme Court conference, if they choose to hear the case, might be this:
1. The Court hears arguments about how a Nicaraguan-born candidate was allowed on the ballot of New Jersey. The question is why, and how many other states allowed this candidate onto the ballot, and why?
2. The Court hears arguments as to what evidence would be sufficient to prove Article II qualifications. The Court hears the difference between a hospital birth certificate signed by delivering doctors, and certifications of live birth given by states up to a year after a birth. They also hear arguments on how to handle non-hospital births.
3. The Court rules that authority to determine Article II qualifications begins with state Secretaries of State as they certify candidates. The Court lays out what evidence a candidate must present in order to qualify. That evidence is a) the original birth certificate signed by the delivering doctor, then b) a certification of live birth filed within 24 hours of a non-hospital delivery, with a doctor's signature attesting to the medical examination of the baby.
4. Here's the tricky part -- does the Court offer a remedy in this situation, being that the candidates must provide such evidence before either the Electoral College votes or Obama is sworn in (McCain has, Obama has not), or does the Court pass on this election and stipulate that this ruling is for elections from 2012 and beyond? If it is the former remedy, then Obama may be in trouble; if it is the latter remedy, then he wins by holding out.
-PJ
In both cases, I believe the above to be the truth.
As to which path he's chosen to deal with this issue, it's fairly clear that he's taking the path of no return. He and the DNC are fully invested in his presidency, and have 66 million votes underlying that. They're in with the treachery and have crossed over into actual treason against their country.
It's clear to me, at least, that he and his comrades would rather violate the Constitution and endure any political or social risk, to carry out their Socialist agenda.
Looking at this in that light sheds a great deal of light on the mindset and loyalties of these people. They obviously only pay lip service to America. At heart, they are globalists, with allegiance only to Socialism and world government.
That may sound wild-eyed to some, but there is no other answer. It's happening right before our eyes. The proof? No one on the Democrat side, except for Phil Berg is honestly asking Obama to do the right thing.