There is no doubt that keeping Obama off a ballot would result in mayhem and burning cities. It seems that those in positions of authority would rather see the Constitution overthrown than to face the issue head on.
America is being extorted and we are paying to keep the peace.
I read the decision. It reads to me as if the plaintiff had people offering expert testimony who did not meet the legal definition of "experts", so their testimony that the documents were forged/faked was given no weight. That is not unusual.
When you get down to the core NBC issue, the court faced it squarely. It noted that the phrase "natural-born citizen" was not defined in the Constitution, so it looked to normal legal principles of the time to determine how it was likely understood.
So the Court had to decide what would have been the most commonly understood meaning of that phrase at that time. It noted that English Common law was the default rule in the colonies, so it credited the English common law rule of "jus solis" (place of birth), over the continental, De Vattel rule of "jus sanguinas" (citizenship of parents). In essence, the determination that our legal tradition was founded in the English common law, not Contintental law, compelled the conclusion that if you're born in the U.S., you're an NBC.
Historically, that's almost impossible to argue. For example, the citizenship of the colonists themselves was determined by English common law. You were a subject of the King if you were born in a British colony. To assume they would have discarded the rule with which they were all familiar, and which applied to all the colonists themselves, in favor of another definition that had never applied in the colonies, without making that unusual choice explicit in the text of the Constitution, doesn't make much sense.
That's what it really all boils down to. English common law was the basis of our legal system, and continental law was not. You can disagree with that, and think it is a stupid thing to do, but you can't credibly argue that's not a fair interpretation of our legal history.