I’m betting that the opposite of reliance on the ancient Roman legal system principle of “stare decisis” and basing rulings on precedent is NOT what you are advocating: that the Constitution is a “living document” to be individually interpreted by (for example) each of the 179 liberal federal judges that have been appointed by Obama since 2009.
The reason that the Ankeny ruling shows up in so many subsequent rulings is simply that the attorneys representing the “Obama is eligible” position have done a better job of stating their case in their briefs than the “Obama is ineligible” attorneys have done.
I am at a loss to comprehend how you can misunderstand my position on this. What I am suggesting is a concept called "first principles" which is the standard methodology in the Science/Engineering World. The notion that you would simply rely on the opinion of some other authority to come to a decision is nonsensical in the Science world, and it ought to be nonsensical in the Legal world as well.
If the opinion cited is based on a mistaken understanding, then all opinions based on the cited opinion are likewise wrong.
The reason that the Ankeny ruling shows up in so many subsequent rulings is simply that the attorneys representing the “Obama is eligible” position have done a better job of stating their case in their briefs than the “Obama is ineligible” attorneys have done.
You may regard that as the correct way of looking at it, but from my perspective, the entire legal system is biased in favor of a simplistic understanding of the law because it is relying on mistaken understanding from previous courts.
The courts will simply not entertain any notion contrary to their pre-existing bias. I even suggested this might be a problem for anyone seeking to challenge this. It's like Roe v Wade. Bad Precedent will create automatically bad subsequent rulings.