I know that no one can “legally” order the Supreme Court to do something — however — it’s very clear that certain FReepers are of the opinion that “legal or not” — someone *is ordering* the Supreme Court to cover up things about Obama’s qualifications. That much I can say for sure (i.e., that I see, directly, that FReepers believe and say this...).
So, while I would agree with you that no one can “legally” order the Supreme Court do something that they think is politically expedient (no matter what legal decisions they think are right) — that leaves the door *wide open* for those who believe the Supreme Court is “illegally in collusion” with those who wish to cover up Obama’s lack of qualifications to be President of the United States per the Constitution...
Again, I agree with your logic and even go further than the “legal” part and say they are not going to be influenced illegally either (no matter what a certain number of FReepers are claiming...).
OK, you certainly have a right to your opinion.
However, there is and always will be, among the common members of the public and lower levels of government, uncertainty in asserting facts not in public evidence. For example, I cannot categorically state that I know for a fact that no member of SCOTUS has been coerced into deciding for or against any party on any case before it, simply because I have not been physically present with any current (or former for that matter) member of SCOTUS at all. I for one do not understand how anyone else could logically claim they can rule out that any member of SCOTUS has been coerced, for the same reason. (I am here simply addressing certainty, not likelihood.) For logical argument and legal argument, it is preferable to restrain one's assumptions to facts in public evidence.
I admit it coercion may be a long shot under the circumstances, but I would argue that given merely the extraordinary stakes at hand, along with the existence of powerful political and economic forces near the seat of US federal government power, it may be prudent not to exclude the possibility of extraordinary means to ensure certain outcomes, either directly (eg, via corruption) or indirectly (eg, via coercion).
I consider myself to be merely following the chain of reasoning of William Pitt the Elder who said "[U]nlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins."
... Or, absolute power corrupts absolutely.