Then the way I see it is that the know he is uneligable to hold office, however the damage to the country by this getting out could be greater than the damage he can do while in office.
For them to refuse to even look into this tells me that something is wrong.
No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court is not, generally speaking, a trial court. It doesn't, for the most part, review cases to sort out what the facts are - i.e., to make findings of fact (e.g. this birth certificate is a forgery, the state of Hawaii is lying when it certifies that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii). It reviews cases when an error of law may have been made by the court below, or when the relevant law is unclear, or when certain laws may be unconstitutional. What error of law do you think the California Supreme Court made?
The Supreme Court turns down most cases that it is asked to review, and it's not because they know something is wrong with them - it's because they can only review so many cases so they aren't going to waste time reviewing things that don't need to be reviewed (e.g. when what's at issue is a finding of fact regarding which there's no serious dispute, when what's at issue is an interpretation of law that's already sufficiently well settled). People can fantasize all they want that Hawaii is lying and faking official documents, they can pretend that President Obama's grandmother really does claim that he was born in Kenya, they can claim that U.S. citizenship law is something other than what it is when it comes to minors' losing their status - they can do those things as often as they want and for as long as they want, but that doesn't make them true. Hawaii says that President Obama was born there - they say that officially. Until someone can provide compelling proof that Hawaii is lying, this particular fantasy is not going to be indulged by serious people tasked with meaningful work (e.g. Supreme Court Justices).
The Supreme Court Justices aren't going to take up this issue because there's no there there and they're smart enough to see that. Even those that might prefer President Obama not be our President, they're not so frustrated by the fact that he is that they're willing to delude themselves into believing snake oil salesmen.
And, not for nothing, but Ms. Taitz didn't ask the Court to look into anything (except to the extent necessary to either grant or deny this application for stay). She just asked them to grant a stay - as I pointed out before, there was no accompanying petition for writ of cert. She asked them for a yes or no answer, not to grant cert and review the matter. They considered the application in conference (after Justice Kennedy had already considered it on his own) and gave her an answer. This wasn't the typical cert petition situation where what they were deciding in conference was whether or not to later consider the question and give an answer. What they were deciding in conference in this situation was an actual answer to the question. That answer was no.
At this point, President Obama's citizenship has probably been proven more throughly than that of any president in history. An official document from a the official record keeper of a state is prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein and would be accepted by any court in this nation absent compelling evidence to the contrary. When someone comes up with such compelling evidence, there'll be something to talk about. As it is, I know of only one piece of legitimate (though circumstantial) evidence - and it's not even close to being dispositive as it's too easy to otherwise explain (and ironically, it wasn't even known for most of the life of this conspiracy theory - for most of that life proponents were swinging with air).
This is one of the reasons President Obama has been winning the rhetorical war and, as a result, the political war and many of the policy battles. So many of his ideological adversaries have allowed themselves to be distracted by their thirty or forty hulking giants.