Then all we need to know is whether the evidence is admissible. That’s for the court to decide.
The evidence produced by Obama on his fightthesmears website was proven to be a forgery by guys like Polarik. So the Supremes would be deep in the muck on Berg vs. Obama, trying to wade through which evidence is trustworthy and which isn’t. That’s likely one reason why they docketed Donofrio first, so they can just declare what the meaning of “natural born” is and wash their hands of all that goo coming their way through the court systems.
That is something we need to be careful about assuming. It was not 'proven', as it was an examination of an image of a document, not the actual document. Polarik(sic) also hasn't proven he is who he claims to be. He admits his name is not really Polarik and he hasn't given anyone documented proof he is an 'expert', he hasn't even produced the affidavit he claims he signed. Nor have has his charges been examined on the source document in a court. It is not 'proven' just 'alleged'. For all we know, he is a guy who works at Kinkos (thus assumes he is an expert) who made all this up like all the bogus structural engineers on truther sites claiming fire doesn't melt steel. We need to examine our evidence and experts as much as we do Obama's to make sure we have an air tight argument.