You're citing case law to people who view this not as a matter of fact, but as an article of faith. It's futile. They will believe what they wish to believe, and any volume of unimpeachable and incontrovertible fact will be dismissed as "trolling" or subterfuge.
When people would rather base their positions on hearsay, supposition and urban legend, facts become irrelevant, as does anything that impedes their political narrative they cling so tightly to.
Yet they cite cases as if they supported their views, when they clearly don’t. But there might be a few that remain open to reason. Isn’t that why you’re still here?