You said, “I bet few people on this forum or any other can match the length and depth of my reading on this particular subject.”
Unfortunately, your understanding of this particular subject is inversely proportional to your amount of reading. . .
You only regurgitated the common opinion of people in your vocation, and most of them have never bothered to look at evidence to the contrary. And you don't either.
It's not just on this subject. Lawyers are all about "precedent" and they will mindlessly follow it like robots until the next "precedent" overturns the one they previously believed.
They regard the supreme court like they would the Pope speaking "Ex Cathedra" and simply refuse to consider the possibility that the Highest court may have erred in their judgement or understanding.
And this is how we get Plessy v Ferguson.
If we were having an argument about that decision prior to 1954, you would be assuring me that "Separate but Equal" is correct, and I'm a moron for just not believing what all the "expert" lawyers tell me.