In other words, this wasn’t decided on the basis of plaintiff not having “standing”. It was a ruling that defined (or redefined if you will for anyone insisting on trying to read 18th century minds in favor of their hero) natural born citizen as someone whose parent is an American citizen at the time of their birth. Location of that birth is not relevant. Not a huge surprise for me since two out of my three kids were born overseas and the local U.S. Embassy had no problem issuing birth certificates and passports for their first trip back home. This decision can be appealed. There are higher courts. But the chances a court would overturn it are very slim.
Why?
Quite right and evidence exists among the writings of the founders, the discussions surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, actions of the 1st Congress, etc. that this was the intent all along, albeit not unanimous. Of course, the Constitution left the power to deal with the details to the Congress. Reinforced by the 14th Amendment, very few argue with your point. The few being the Birthers, but they don't count.