So what? The significance of what he did was that he granted standing to the plantiff, he stated the facts, applied the law and made a decision. His decision included that Mr. Cruz was eligible for the Office of President, and that Cruz was a Citizen by Birth and that was identical to the term Natural Born Citizen.
More significant, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the decision and did so Per Curiam, which means that they did not issued a written decision. This occurs most often when the court rules unanimously and when the issue is not controversial (from a legal standpoint).
An appeal has already been filed, so fasten your seatbelt, we're in for a bumpy ride.
That he mostly just quoted articles simply means he probably didn't do much if any independent analysis. Doesn't prove the analysis he quotes is not correct. (But in this case, the analysis he quotes has a lot of problems.)
It is true that an appeals court should ideally affirm a lower court decision per curiam and without opinion only in a non-controversial case, but in practice appellate courts do it to dodge controversial or contentious cases too.