Engage in substantive discussion rather than ad hominem baloney.
@I did. Once again for your edification...
...much less by virtue of the ancient 1874 matter of Minor vs. Happersett...
What does the age of a case have to do with anything?
And once again, just like before and as is seemingly your typical ploy, you chose to avoid answering a question instead of engaging in a substantive discussion as such discussion would prove you have a bias as well as a misunderstanding of the issue.
And since you obviously don't want to get into a substantive discussion on the aspect of dicta, as your previous reply indicates, I'll let the other question slide. You had no intention of ever backing up your assertion anyway, did you?
You'll probably ignore my question this time as well, just like you did my other, since there isn't an easy answer that doesn't torpedo your boat.
And while your words may seem flowery your own ad hominems still manage to spew forth the same recognizable putrid aroma of puddled, disease ridden diarrhea, which spills forth from within your rotting, curdled, highfaluting oral pontifications. And the silver platter upon which you serve your words doesn't decrease the stink one wit, even as it tarnishes from such corrosive elements.
BTW, I see you called in your tag team partner.
Are you always so needy of such emotional support?
Maybe it was Cesar Chavez's fault.
The English Common Law system, which, having been initiated by King Henry II, must go back to at least 1189, the year of his death. Trust that the passage of time has rendered many old decisions quite obsolete. The short version of the relevance of that fact is that the US, after successfully revolting against the Brits during the unpleasantries from July 4, 1776 until the Treaty of Paris, adopted the Common Law of England (as then it stood) and thereafter our common law and theirs diverged during the ensuing centuries and you would be surprised at how much of our own common law has been rendered obsolete by the passing of time and historical events. For example, Dred Scott vs. Sandford (SCOTUS 1857) was rendered more than moot by the results of the War Between the States and the subsequent post-war constitutional Amendments XIII, XIV and XV. If that is overinclusive, sue me; Minor vs. Hapgood did not survive the enactment of the Women's Suffrage Amendment; and Lochner vs. New York (SCOTUS 1905), a 14th Amendment substantive due process case involving New York legislative action limiting the work hours of bakers, was rendered obsolete by the New Deal with no Constitutional Amendment intervening and was, in effect, and was implicitly but not explicitly overruled in 1937 in West Coast Hotel Co. vs. Parrish with no intervening constitutional amendment. These are a very small sample of significant decisions rendered obsolete and, except for Dred Scott, all were subsequent to Minor vs. Happersett and all including Dred Scott were SCOTUS cases rendered obsolete one way or another.