[Publius Valerius]

I’m not saying he’s eligble or he’s not. Except in one post, I haven’t passed on the merits of the case.

I’m saying that the Supreme Court will not weigh in on this issue because of the absurdly huge ramifications involved, particularly when there is a political resolution to the problem, if one even exists.

[DJ MacWoW]

I thought SCOTUS had lifetime appointments in order to avoid political pressure.

[prismsinc]

The issue here is who in our election system is responsible for establishing a candidate’s eligibility. Eclair won, it’s done. Next time, we’ll have a system in place. Roger Calero isn’t eligible to be dog catcher, much less POTUS

[so_real]

I’m saying that the Supreme Court will not weigh in on this issue because of the absurdly huge ramifications involved

Then what purpose does a "supreme" court have?

[MozarkDawg]

I’m saying that the Supreme Court will not weigh in on this issue because of the absurdly huge ramifications involved, particularly when there is a political resolution to the problem, if one even exists.

And I say that the huge ramification that will occur if they do NOT weigh in, should it be discovered at a later date that indeed, 0bama did not meet the requirements to be elected to the office, yet was allowed to hold it for whatever reason means that ANY citizen may also ignore ANY portion of the Constitution at his whim. This would be a terrible precedent to set.