Take the bullflop of your imagination to court and lose.On the possible chance that I have failed to convey my thinking regarding the pronouncement of courts, let me attempt to clarify it now.
I do not regard your inane opinions about the courts to express any manner of thinking.
Your inane opinion certainly does not stop you from repeatedly citing court opinions, however irrelevant they may be, for example Minor v. Happersett.
Were any holding in Minor to be in conflict with a holding in Wong Kim Ark, any conflicting holding of Minor would have been struck down by Wong Kim Ark.
I was wondering when you would get to that. If you will notice, You cited Minor v. Happersett, and *I* pointed out the court acknowledges "authorities" which do not agree, meaning they are aware of "authorities" that take my position.
In my example, the court is being cited as a witness, not as a court.
The other aspect of this is that *YOU* and others believe in the infallibility of the courts whether I do or not, so you should accept arguments based on courts even though I reject them. (Unless they are in the capacity of witness.)
Were any holding in Minor to be in conflict with a holding in Wong Kim Ark, any conflicting holding of Minor would have been struck down by Wong Kim Ark.
I don't care. Opinions over a century away from the event are irrelevant, especially when they conflict with testimony at or close to the event by people who were present.
And both cases are fooling with that 14th amendment nonsense, which I regard as illegitimately ratified.
I have still yet to hear your opinion on that particular point and I suspect you might be in agreement with me about that.