I disagree with those rulings but whether I personally agree or disagree is irrelevant. Those decisions stand until they are overturned by higher courts. Court decisions on homosexual marriage can also be rendered moot by legislative action that is subsequently upheld as constitutional.
It is the Obama ineligibility movement that has placed a premium on court decisions. The movement has almost exclusively relied on the civil courts as the preferred means of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. At last count, 340 civil judicial actions and appeals have been filed.
If those who believe Obama is ineligible had pursued criminal actions or legislative remedies, I would be discussing those results. But its been lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.
So you think the courts get it wrong time after time on the Constitution, redefining marriage & states’ rights, & yet you keep quoting the courts’ track record on eligibility cases. If they are so prone to getting it wrong, as you say they are in homosexual marriage vs states’ rights cases, why do you obsessively quote their decisions on eligibility cases?