[Danae]

I see your point. However, thats why they are appointed for life. So as to be above that type of political fray. They may not WANT to get involved, but they are gonna get it. The Issue of Standing and who qualifies FOR it is a big grey area that clearly needs to be addressed and defined clearly. Its up to that court to make those kinds of massive decisions, and it really DOES open a Pandora’s box. Mostly because it will once again free that average American to legally challenge his/her government in a court of law. Which to be honest is how it is SUPPOSED to be. Many people seem genuinely surprised to learn that they have no standing to claim that the Government is incorrectly assessing taxes, etc. Or that they do not have the right to challenge a candidates constitutionally mandated qualifications. There is a reason Michelle Obama said: “My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by His step father.” Obama TAUGHT Constitutional law, he KNOWS the weak spots!!!!!!!!!! He is USING one!

A LOT of cases will get overturned because of it. Its really a big deal and I think an uphill battle. There is a LOT of inertia on this one, and not in in our or Berg's favor. It will take a huge Outcry from us, the PEOPLE to get it changed.

[WoofDog123]

“Its up to that court to make those kinds of massive decisions, and it really DOES open a Pandora’s box. Mostly because it will once again free that average American to legally challenge his/her government in a court of law. Which to be honest is how it is SUPPOSED to be”

I suspect the primary political concern of the court is provoking a crisis at the 13th or 14th hour over a person either likely to win or who may have won depending on timing. Presumably the court members are connected enough to know if there is factually a citizenship issue with this guy (e.g. does a colb exist in hawaii, etc.) If they know that he is in fact questionable, then those members who would legally tend to vote to invalidate his eligibility would be having to take into consideration the more extreme possible ramifications of invalidating the winner of the election (if he loses, they are off the hook on the impact). At the same time, some members may be inclined to ignore any legal issue anyway....

It sucks.