Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote and Congressional Certification?

Is this why the Donofrio v. Wells (NJ) case is still "pending?" Is it only after the Electoral College votes and Congress certifies the election, that the Supreme Court believes it may take action regarding the eligibility of presidential candidates? The cases currently before the court, except for the Berg (PA) case, are versus state secretaries of state, not against Barack Obama, but perhaps that does not make a difference.

Is it similar to a prosecutor only allowed to prosecute after the crime and not before?

You may see this blog post, from Leo Donofrio's new hit thread, "Mother of all Conspiracy Theories, Obama has a Twin" (catchy tune, BTW).

Everyman Says:
December 14, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Yes, we have been betrayed by men… church-wise in the 60’s and maybe tomorrow, civil-wise by the SCOTUS;
Hell man, do you think you are any more protected from betrayal than our Saviour… take a long look at a crucifix… and remember his best friend Peter?

The only thing within your power is you… don’t betray yourself… know you are fighting the good fight and will continue to fight until you have satisfied yourself that you have done all that you can do to right the wrong… understand this…
if the case fails tomorrow that is not because you didn’t fight … if it dies tomorrow and you fail to continue to fight … you must answer to yourself and all those who have given their life to protect the constitution.

Oh you of little faith; so gifted in knowledge and talent to express your thoughts.
You have but to ask yourself have I done the best I could have done? … is there anything more I can do?
Perhaps the electoral must vote as directed in the following:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/100108.html#5
Judge Alsup wrote, “Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.” Timing is everything… you maybe the only one able to raise an “objection”

Pity-party is over.
Regardless of what they say… you and I will Know the truth …and that makes all the difference.
You will call upon your Ancestors, for at this moment, YOU are the sole reason for Their existence.

And here, from the blog, Ballot Access News, Oct. 1, 2008, is the post about the McCain court case and the ruling of Judge Alsip.

McCAIN WINS BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUIT

On September 16, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that John McCain should be on the California ballot. Robinson v Bowen, C08-3836, n.d. The plaintiff, a presidential elector candidate for Alan Keyes, had argued that McCain is not "natural-born". Judge Alsup said that McCain is "natural-born." He also said that even if a candidate does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president, he or she should still be on the ballot.

Every time a minor party presidential candidate who does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president tries to get on the ballot, and the matter goes to court, courts rule that the candidate should not be on the ballot. The two leading cases are Cleaver v Jordan, in which the California Supreme Court said that Eldridge Cleaver should not be on the 1968 California ballot, and Jenness v Brown, in which a U.S. District Court in Ohio said that Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate in 1972) should not be on the ballot. Both Cleaver and Jenness were under age 35. Unfortunately, neither decision is reported, although the briefs in Robinson v Bowen cited the Cleaver case.

Judge Alsup wrote, "Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course."

The party that most often nominates a presidential candidate, or a vice-presidential candidate, who does not meet the Constitutional qualifications, is the Socialist Workers Party, which has done this in 1972, 1980, 2004, and 2008. Each time the party used a stand-in who did meet the Constitutional qualifications (but only in those states which refuse to print an unqualified presidential candidate on the ballot). Each time except 1972, the party did not fight in court to place its actual nominee on the ballot. Perhaps, if the SWP or any other party nominates someone in 2012 who doesn't meet the Constitutional qualifications, the party can raise the issue in court again, this time depending on the Robinson v McCain precedent.

What exactly do you think is going on? The "comments" link works just fine. Was Justice Alsip (no disrespect intended, Judge) just conning here, finding an excuse to allow McCain on the ballot, while passing the buck?

Is this the view of proper procedure that the SCOTUS maintains?

I'm going to comments now. You are invited to join me.