They are hostile because most judges and lawyers agree that the WKA case in 1898 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html) provided the legal definition of natural born citizen. You might disagree, but it is certainly true that most judges and lawyers think WKA decided the issue over a hundred years ago. I’m politically to the right of Rush Limbaugh, but that would be my analysis of the case as well.
LexisNexis, listing the holdings in WKA, has this as #19 (of 37 holdings in WKA):
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is common law of this country, as well as of England.”
However, the only birther lawyers I know of that were fined were ones involving pure lunacy (Jesuits installing Obama), or a couple where the lawyer made no attempt to follow the federal rules of procedure in federal court. It usually takes a special effort of weirdness to get a court to fine a lawyer for bringing a case. I’m actually surprised Orly Taitz hasn’t been disbarred by now.
What in the world does that mean?