I'd say that's a good bet. Minor v. Happersett has never said what birthers seem to think it says.
Yes, they have embraced a classic fallacy, the composition fallacy. On the order of
Aside from the fact that it does not say what Birthers want it to say, the Birther gang doesn’t seem to be aware of what they are setting themselves up for.
Minor was a case that stated women could not vote. Can you imagine the fun MSNBC would have with that?
“Chris, the latest argument from the Right is that Minor vs. Happersett, a Supreme Court Case denying women the right to vote, also means that a man born in Hawaii cannot be President if his father is from Africa. What do you say to that?”
“Well Rachel, this just goes to show how the GOP wants to turn back the clock to the days before women’s suffrage. To the days of Jim Crow. To attack women’s rights, to attack civil rights….”
Frankly I am surprised that this hasn’t happened yet. Maybe they are saving it for closer to the election.