But by the same legal and historical evidence, they got Plessy wrong? How does that work? In Wong, they ignored the Congressional record, they ignored the Slaughterhouse cases, they ignored Minor, they ignored the war of 1812, and they flew all the way back to Monarchical/Feudal law to justify their ruling; They cited a basis of law which is completely incompatible with the principles of American Independence, and you are telling me they got this one right?
They were brilliant on Wong, but ignorant and stupid on Plessy. Got it.
True to a good extent, but it wouldn't have changed the result if they hadn't.
...they ignored the Slaughterhouse cases
No, they didn't. They said the comment in that case was absolute dicta, and wrong-headed dicta at that. They cited Minor to show that the same Court didn't mean what they said in Slaughterhouse.
You can't pass your BS off as truth to those of us who know the facts, Jack.
...they ignored Minor
No, they didn't. They cited Minor to show that the same Court didn't mean what they said in Slaughterhouse. They said, in essence, that it doesn't mean the crap you say it does.
...they ignored the war of 1812
Wow, that was a huge legal decision, wasn't it?
...and they flew all the way back to Monarchical/Feudal law to justify their ruling
Which is to say, they thoroughly examined the history of the term.
They cited a basis of law which is completely incompatible with the principles of American Independence
As shown by the fact that literally every single one of the 13 original States either adopted the common law in general or specifically adopted the common law rule for citizenship. Ha!
and you are telling me they got this one right?
Damn straight. Their decision was in accordance with all prior law and virtually every real legal authority who had ever spoken on the matter.