Nonsense. All you're doing now is being contrary and desperately trying to come up with more denial based on distorted semantics.
Except that Gray said the opposite, not that the Supreme Court was committed to the view, but rather
What you quoted does NOT say the opposite of the court being committed to the view that NBCs are excluded from the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. All he's saying is that the issue wasn't as fully explored in the Slaughterhouse Cases. Slaughterhouse was a split decision, but the Minor decision was unanimous in rejecting the 14th amendment, saying it did NOT confer citizenship on NBCs. Sorry, but you're trying to read into this statment something that just isn't being said. The full context matters, because Grays says the court was committed to this interpretion, he then gives the passage where NBC is defined and then he affirms the conclusion of the Minor decision:
The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ....
Read it closely. Both jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria are cited in establishing Virginia Minor's citizenship. Her 14th amendment argument was categorically rejected. Wong Kim Ark could NOT be declared a citizen on this same basis because he was NOT a natural born citizen. Gray, who never mentions the phrase natural born citizen from this point forward in his decision, uses a different term and a different interpretation of the subject clause that is dependent on residence and domicil in order to declare Wong to be a citizen.
You must be having a reading problem. Look at the full quote again:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court...Got it? Neither Justice Miller nor any of the other justices understood the Court to be committed to that view. That's what it says.