I disagree on your #1:
It would be too hot for them [SCOTUS] to handle
It's SCOTUS’ job to handle "hot" constitutional issues. They already refuse to take what they decide to be trivial cases.
IOW, they don’t want to deal with the cases they deem too hot or too trivial. What does the country do to resolve legal and constitutional issues? Shall we have three Supreme Courts, one for trivial, one for garden variety and one for hot cases?
SCOTUS cowardice is leading the constitutional shredders to do what they please and eventually when communists take over, there will be SCOT SINO and we can kiss the Republic good bye.
I agree with your #2. Again, cowardice may come to play. Republicans in state and federal levels should grow some spines and other body parts by requiring eligibility proof for anyone who wants a place on the ballot.
As I always believed, 0b0z0 won't be running in '12. A good reason could very well be the fear of some states will get it done and won't place him in their ballots.
Damn check speller, made it Chinese!
SCOT SINO ———> SCOTUSINO (in name only)
I think the part they need to grow is a bit lower.
from Kerchner’s website:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.” [Case Summary] [Full Case]