The Court has to force this just to end it.”
Based on what legal requirement or action? The court only addresses actions brought before it by capable parties.
Capable meaning those who present they are capable as parties able to bring action as those in the proper standing to the case.
Maybe this is the loop hole that no one who has the right standing as another party to the case has not asked the right question.
Meaning I think having three points.
1. Acknowledged their standing as a valid party to the particular law regarding their case.
2. Has the case been shown to be a valid case where they have been harmed by the illegality committed against them by the other parties illegal action.
3. What is the action/remedy that is proscribed by law to address the harm to the other party.
***
True - SCOTUS has NO POWER defined in the Constitution to force this, but ever since Marbury v. Madison, where they ASSERTED the right to judicial review, THEY HAVE ASSUMED THE DE FACTO POWER TO DO SO IN THE PUBLIC’S EYE. Just look to United States v. Nixon, when SCOTUS ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes - he could have ignored them, but HE DID NOT ...
Now as far as standing:
Donofrio took his case through the NJ State Court system and was denied twice - which he fully expected.
His next recourse was to SCOTUS - and HE does have standing, based on SCOTUS rules. Appeals of cases from State Supreme Courts are AUTOMATICALLY appealable to SCOTUS.
Now as far as harm:
Donofrio cited in his brief Bush v. Gore, where SCOTUS affirmed that ANY infringement on the right to vote is a grievous thing. He also cited other harms ...
As for remedy:
If it is determined that a fraud was perpetrated upon the United States (an ineligible candidate or candidates), remove the prepetrator ...
The harm clause is speculative. Past events are what they deal with. A past event Constitution fills that muster. The man must show his proof of natural born citizen status.