Yes, I've noticed that. Let's try again.
It is the nature of thoughts that a poor selection of words can be ill suited to convey them.
"I have stated an obvious fact: Every court so far has ruled against the heritage-based theory of natural born citizenship, and that indicates that there is a broad consensus in the judicial community on that subject."
I don't think I've disputed that there seems to be a "consensus" as to their conclusions. Certainly there has not been a consensus of reasoning arriving at their conclusions, but they all get to a "consensus of outcome" notwithstanding their fallacious reasoning. My point has consistently been that a "consensus" is not the same as truth, and that the belief that it is constitutes a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. (also Argumentum ad vericundium is related.)
The more interesting question is why you think there is any purpose to harping on it? I've given you a link that pretty much explains the most common sentiment regarding the judiciary and why they cannot seem to get anything right, and yet you still seem persistent that the opinions of ill informed people ought to matter for something just because they are in positions of authority.
We don't get our truth from the propaganda tap around here. We are free thinkers and don't respond well to attempts to push us into official orthodoxy, regardless of who is doing the pushing.
You want to sway opinions here? Bring facts, not votes.
You really ought to read that link. It will answer the questions you seem intent on asking.
Judges are just spouting their religion as decreed by their elder priests. Their decisions are based on faith, not on reason.
Again, this was already addressed in the OP when I said they are trying to use a quantity over quality argument. The lack of “quality” is that, in the quanitity of “consensus,” the legal reasoning has NOT been consistent in these cases. I already explained this too. There’s no reason to regurgitate the point unless you think the consensus is based on a “correct” interpretation, which it demonstrably is not. The most widespread legal reaction has been to deny legal standing to private citizens who have challenged the Kenyan coward, but again, this hasn’t even been consistent from a legal rationale standpoint.