So what's the right way, if judges are going to homer for The One like this?
In this instance, what you are seeing is a very large gap in the Constitution (it specifies a few qualifications for the Presidency, but nowhere indicates how a challenge to those minimal qualifications would be handled), and there is a complete lack of Federal statutes on this kind of issue. It was literally inconceivable until Obama and the rather unique circumstances he presents came along.
I think the legal approaches are fruitless - and I agree with other commentators that Obama has been lucky in the particular "enemies" he has drawn (e.g., Taitz), because. while a genuine question remains, Obama and his supporters can continue to sit on the documentary evidence that would clear up this dispute (one way, or another) while asserting that those who raise the issue are crazies (pointing to Taitz, et. al.)
I don't know how Taitz came to represent those plaintiffs, but there appears to be no organized group that could be labeled "birthers" - just a loose association of visible folks who share with a significant portion of the overall population (under the radar) at least a doubt about Obama's natural citizenship.
Anyone can file a complaint in Federal Court - and if you see enough of them you will see some complaints, mostly pro se, that are completely outrageous and an absurd waste of the time of the courts. But if you pay the filing fee and file the document you can say you have "filed suit" against so-and-so, over this-or-that issue. Never mind that the case is going to be dismissed as soon as possible (because of possible lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction or the lack of a properly identified cause of action, or a host of other possible defects), you can make that claim. In other words - the absolute "front door" of the Federal Court process, the Clerk's office, is agnostic on the legal merits of what gets filed. They just take the filing fee and stamp the file date and case number on the documents (presuming they come within a country mile of the formatting requirements). I have seen complete nonsense, utter rambling incoherence that suggests insanity, filed under the proper caption, stamped and assigned a case number in the Federal Courts.
What I saw of Taitz's filings did not address the jurisdiction and standing issues and contained a lot of extraneous and irrelevant information that made her pleadings stand out as rather odd. Any time you see a pleading that cites a newspaper article or references a website address - be on guard. In legal pleadings you should see citations of prior case law, statutes or the Constitution (state or federal). The case might involve material on a website (it could be a copyright infringement claim and the contents of the website could be the infringement at issue), but the way it would be referenced is as Exhibit A, or Exhibit 12, etc. an noted as "Attached". Then, at the back of the pleading would be an Exhibit A (or 12, etc.) which would have the paper copy of the web pages following. To reference a hyperlink in a pleading is really crazy because the link is to a dynamic page - which could easily be changed between the time the pleading is filed and the time the case is reviewed by the court. No lawyer with any sense would do that, and yet Taitz's pleadings were full of it. That was one gross and superficial indicator that there was something wrong with her efforts, but you seldom fin that someone with a meritorious legal argument is gong to wrap it in pleadings full of technical, formatting or presentation errors.
In the law there is a cliché which goes something like "If you can't pound the facts, pound the law, if you can't pound the facts and the law, pound the table!" Which is to say start off with a challenge to the facts ("The defendant wasn't on the continent of North America on on November 22nd!") then challenge the applicability of the law to the facts ("Wis, Stats. 811.04 says the crime of robbery can only be committed by those under the age of 90."), and if you can't stand on either a factual or legal argument - make some noise. It seems that almost all of what Taitz was doing was making noise.
Unless some has a much better legal approach, all that's left would be political pressure, and given the present makeup of Congress, don't hold your breath. A reversal of control in the House in 2010 could get the House Judiciary Committee in position to do dome digging.