I mean that any court which does not weigh evidence is unable to have produced a sensible decision. I mean that we should not blindly accept the pronouncements of a court which will not examine the evidence. You are falling for the fallacy of Argumentum ad verecundiam.
The courts are answerable to the people, not the other way around. The courts likewise do not have the power to overrule the document which created them in the first place.
But court decisions are the law until they are overturned. If nothing else, the recent spate of decisions in favor of the jus soli interpretation of natural born citizenship completely demolishes the claim that President Obama should know that his father's lack of U.S. citizenship represents a bar to his eligibility, since he is clearly qualified under the prevailing interpretation of the law.
We have yet to see any proof that Obama even qualifies as a citizen under that doctrine. His document comes from a state that seemingly has a habit of giving away birth documents to people who were not actually born there, and his current offered document appears to be fake. Even were you to accept the notion that "anchor babies" are qualified to be President, Obama hasn't even demonstrated himself to be as qualified as an anchor baby.
It's possible (though highly unlikely) that a future SCOTUS ruling will overturn Wong Kim Ark, but that would not apply retroactively to elections already held under what is currently regarded as settled law, any more than overturning Roe v. Wade would criminalize abortions performed in the past.
Wong Kim Ark can be interpreted in such a way as to not contradict the distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen." As has been pointed out, Justice Gray conspicuously left out the words "Natural born" in his decision. (As did the 14th amendment, upon which the decision was based.)
The previous court decision in Minor v Happersett specifically looked at the 14th amendment and then exclaimed "The Constitution (meaning the 14th amendment) does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." This observation is either a complete contradiction of Justice Gray's later Wong Kim Ark decision, or Justice Waite and Justice Gray were referring to two distinctly different classifications of citizenship.
Does it make sense that Justice Gray could find "in words" within the 14th amendment where it says who shall be "natural born citizens" when Justice Waite could not find such a thing?
Really?
LOL! You’re arguing with me! That won’t do you any good.
So you think these courts have failed to “weigh evidence” and have been “unable to have produced a sensible decision.” And you think that Hawaii is “a state that seemingly has a habit of giving away birth documents to people who were not actually born there.” And that ‘Wong Kim Ark can be interpreted in such a way as to not contradict the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”’
That’s fine! You’re entitled to your opinions. Now, present them in a legally acceptable form, backed up by legally competent evidence, and make your case in a forum that has the legal authority to rule on it. Simply making unfounded assertions on a blog isn’t going to accomplish anything.
Of course, you’re aware that those same claims have been repeatedly rejected by all the courts that have considered them.
But by all means, you’re free to keep trying.