> What sets the office of the presidency apart is not the unique qualifications. What sets the office of the presidency apart is that the Constitution specifies how a President is to be chosen and specifies that a President is to be chosen by a constitutional group of constitutional actors called Electors. The only function of Electors is to choose a President and Vice-President. It is their exclusive bailiwick.
The electoral process is a political process defined by law.
> There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for transferring any of their duties to courts.
Electors have no authority to decide questions of law. There is no transfer of duties to courts. To the contrary, you wish to transfer courts’ duties to Electors.
> There is absolutely no reason to believe that judges would be any better than Electors at evaluating the worthiness of candidates.
“Worthiness” is not the question, being legally eligibility is the question and such questions are exclusively within the purview of the Judiciary.
legally eligibility = legally eligible
I think that somewhere you got the notion that only courts can become involved with anything that can be called legal. This is reflected by your statement that "Electors have no authority to decide questions of law." But, of course, every constitutional actor must, at a minimum, "decide questions of law" in order 1) to determine that he/she has a constitutional duty to perform, 2) to determine the proper scope of his/her duty, and 3) to determine what, if any, steps must be taken to properly perform his/her duty. Legal questions are being decided every single day by persons who do not wear robes and many of the resulting decisions are not reviewable by courts.
Obviously, we cannot resolve your claim that the courts have the power to pass upon the qualifications of candidates for the Presidency. That issue can only be resolved if and when a court ever claims to possess that power. I do not believe that that will ever happen. So, when you vote, choose carefully.