Which is that rotten fruit from that rotten tree I mentioned earlier. The legal system doesn't know HOW to make correct rulings because they have a flawed or misled understanding of the principles involved.
Your quoting these decisions as examples impresses me not at all. Argumentum ad Verecundiam is still a fallacy among thinking men. You might as well be pointing out Roe, or Kelo, or Wickard, or Lawrence, or NFIB v Sebilus for all I care. I long ago ceased to have any belief that the courts could get anything right.
I could care less about impressing you or anyone else. I simply post the facts.
Your “a dicto simpliciter” sweeping generalization that because courts have on occasion made bad decisions means that all court decisions are bad and the entire legal system is corrupt is illogical thinking.
I understand that you don’t much care for the decisions that have been rendered on this issue but the fact remains that under our system, court decisions stand until and unless they are overturned.
In my humble opinion, the way to address the Obama eligibility issue constitutionally is through Congress, not through the civil (lawsuit) courts. No lawsuit is going to impact the tenure of the presidency.
I further believe that a criminal (not civil) indictment by a grand jury of average American citizens could force a resignation under the 25th Amendment, as it did with Nixon; but no one has yet filed an official criminal complaint which could trigger a grand jury investigation.
Congress, on the other hand, had the power to refuse to certify Obama’s electors under the 12th Amendment. Congress also has the power to remove Obama from office under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7, and under Article 2, Section 4.