I maintain a page on this web site titled “Recent court rulings on presidential eligibility.” As of this writing the page lists 10 cases with excerpts from the decisions, and in each the Court has said that the children of non-US-citizens can be President. Many of the cases were appealed to their respective state appeals courts, and one to a US circuit court—all decisions affirmed.
Birthers commenting here, and in many other forums, argue that these decisions are dead wrong, that they violate clear precedent from the US Supreme Court. They say that barring a clear statement to the contrary from the Supreme Court (and maybe even not then), Obama is not eligible to be President.
If these cases are wrong, and only the Supreme Court speaks with authority, why have almost none of of these cases been appealed to the Supreme Court? A number of birther lawsuits have been appealed to the Supreme Court, but only one1 where there is clear indication in the decision that the children of non-citizens can become President. Why are the birthers avoiding raising the question to the forum that they say alone can decide it? It would seem to me that the savvy birther attorneys know that the Supreme Court wouldn’t hear the cases, and so they are avoiding the negative publicity of the Supreme Court not seeing them as worthy of consideration.
1In the Farrar case, an application for a stay was made to the Supreme Court (denied by Justice Thomas), but no application was made to appeal the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court; no writ of certiorari was filed. In an attached decision, Mr. Welden appealed the decision of the Georgia Superior Court, but the case was not pursued after being denied by one justice.