“Again, the court rejected this claim.
...in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position ...”
What a mess. The Court agreed that her argument for citizenship was sufficient, but noted that it was not necessary. That kind of thing happens all the time. Lawyers occasionally get surprised by which points the Court regard as key, so they deliberately err on the side of caution and over-argue the overt.
I’m not claiming to be a legal authority. I’m not. The issue here is fantasy versus reality. Leo Donofrio devoted his formidable intellect to deluding himself, and that much he did. You are free to embrace the theories of losing attorney Leo Donofrio. Self-delusion is one’s right, but not a winning strategy.
You're not reading very well. The court didn't agree with Minor's argument on citizenship. They rejected it, not just for her, but they rejected the 14th amendment for women as a class. When it says, "it did not need this amendment to give them that position," the "them" refers to "women," not just Virginia Minor. Read and learn:
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
And ...
Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men.