Except in cases where original jurisdiction applies, the Supreme Court doesn't hold hearings, nor does it issue "verdicts", this is the role of the trial court, known usually as the District Court in the federal system. Primarily, SCOTUS is the final appellate court in the country and it reviews the decisions of lower courts. The Court never finds anyone guilty or innocent (as it is NEVER the court of original jurisdiction in a criminal matters), but it will vacate those findings of a lower court, if the Court finds some Constitutional or other legal infirmity in the lower court's application of US law.
As for you excepting "whatever verdict", I'm dubious as the Supreme Court has already issued several (your word) "verdicts" when they have refused plaintiff's petition for certiorari.
Denial of cert shouldn't necessarily be taken as an endorsement of the lower court's decision. But, I would point out that while the Court has denied cert in every "birther" case that it's come across, it did grant cert for Anna Nicole Smith and her contested inheritance case of her late husband. That should be enlightening.
If this should come about, I would completely accept the Supreme Court's decision regarding Obama’s natural born status.
But...I believe you missing the entire point of my post. It is **NOT**just Obama’s eligibility.
Obama’s eligibility has merely focused a bright spotlight on a fundamental flaw in our system of self-governance. Surely, in the future there will be **other** constitutional issues that need and deserve resolution and the common citizen will be frustrated in finding clarification because all three branches of government will not acknowledge that the common citizen has “standing” to pursue resolution.
This needs to be fixed. I am a realist, however, and if it were fixed it would mean that those in the three branches of government would lose power, so therefore, I doubt it will be fixed. At best ( maybe) we will get piecemeal legislation . For example, Arizona requiring that candidates prove their eligibility before having their names placed on the ballot.
You were fine up to there. A denial of certiorari is no more a "verdict" than a ruling is. Less so actually. It doesn't mean anything, legally speaking. It does not prejudice later cases, one way or the other.
But you knew that. Or should have.
The denials don't even mean that the Court agreed on the "standing" issue, let alone the core issue of eligibility.