That's incorrect. The District Court did not express frustration with Congress. The District Court acknowledged the Plaintiff's frustration with Congress.
The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.The 3rd Circuit is not agreeing with the District Court's frustration. (It did not express such.) The 3rd Circuit is agreeing with the District Court's ruling that the
"Plaintiff's claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch."
It depends on what the meaning of the word "acknowledges" is. I am not a lawyer.
See definition of acknowledge:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/acknowledge
Description of acknowledge - American Heritage® Dictionary
TRANSITIVE VERB: 1a. To admit the existence, reality, or truth of. b. To recognize as being valid or having force or power.
Additional references: Law.com law dictionary
In my reading the use of the word “acknowledges” by the District Court is an assertion that the frustration of the Plaintiffs is valid, which is a form of agreement.
The District Court and the 3rd Circuit could have simply “recognized” the frustration of the Plaintiff, but they went beyond mere recognition to acknowledgment, a carefully chosen and much stronger, affirming word.
Once again, the 3rd Circuit in Kerchner referring to the Berg District Court:
“Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
Id. at 483 n.5. We agree.”
When the 3rd Circuit said “We agree.” it was agreeing to all of the foregoing ruling including the acknowledgment (validity) of the frustration specifically with “what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area” (the claims that Obama’s NBC status has not been established). The 3rd Circuit could have omitted the acknowledgment of the frustration from their agreement, but they didn't.
This makes the District Court that ruled on Berg, the 3rd Circuit Appeals panel that upheld Berg and now the 3rd Circuit Panel in Kerchner all BIRTHERS.
They are birthers to the extent that they acknowledge (consider valid) the Plaintiff's frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area (failure to clarify Obama’s constitutional NBC status).