Maybe, that sounds vaguely familiar. I have become accustomed to stupid court decisions being the manifestation of Liberal Judges.
I know very well SCOTUS can be wrong, possibly corrupt, or just downright nuts. As I think you know, I get pretty livid about Kelo.
If you acknowledge that the courts can be wrong, why do you turn to them as the first source of proof? Why do you not start with primary sources and work your way forward to what courts latter said? (and thereby determine where the courts made a mistake in their reasoning or application of the law.)
But as to natural born, Rogers v. Bellei was merely a clearer statement than most of something that the courts have pretty consistently held. We follow English common law in this, and born on the soil (usual exceptions) equals natural born.
I disagree that the courts have consistently held. Look up ex parte Reynolds for example. I also point out the obvious contradiction of using English law as the basis of citizenship when that very same bit of law made it illegal for us to throw off our British Subjectude.
If you don’t want it to be that way, get the Constitution changed. Don’t claim that it says something it doesn’t, or that the courts have held something they haven’t. I doubt you’re going to change even Justice Scalia’s mind on this.
That is certainly true if his response to someone asking him to consider it is that they don't have a right to ask him the question. (Standing.)