Are you trying to outdumb yourself?? Yes, we all know what legal dicta is, but it's completely inane to presume any court is going to waste its time writing pages and pages of irrelevant dicta. The dicta in Minor is relevant to the holding. I've shown this in the Wong decision where it specifically mentions Virginia Minor's citizenship as a product of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. The Minor case has been cited in subsequent decisions in relation to several issues NOT just ONE sole issue as you pretend. It has been quoted in relation to voting rights, privileges and immunities clause, presidential eligibility, natural-born citizenship, etc. NOTHING in the Minor decision has been butchered. I've given several quotes. You've shown none to be butchered or what even leads you to such a faulty conclusion (other than perhaps parroting sometimes lurker who I've thoroughly schooled several times). It's time you start showing some intellectual honesty. Moving goalposts, tapdancing and ignoring incovnenient facts do not serve you well, unless maybe you're auditioning for ABC's Wipeout.
In addition, dicta canNOT be used as precedent in a subsequent case as a basis of the court's ruling and holding. Minor has not been used as precedent for any case in defining or ruling that a person is a nbc since WKA, Yet WKA has so been employed in thousands of cases, from immigration court to SCOTUS regarding whether an individual is a nbc. Are you too dense to understand why WKA is cited for the definition of nbc and Minor is as you put in a previous post “ignored.” And you couldn't figure out why Minor is ignored? I don't know how many examples or times I need to repeat it, all of Minor's language regarding citizenship is dicta and has not nor ever will be used as legal precedent to show a person to be or not to be a nbc.
Are you trying to outdumb yourself??
It's hard to be dumber than willfully ignorant.