[Albion Wilde]

But again, why do you think that the acts of the Supreme Court are driven by reason? They merely provide an intellectual veneer to the decisions drawn on their sociopolitical preferences.

I repeat: I do not think the acts of the Supreme Court are driven by reason. Twenty years ago, when I began the research, I believed that a majority of justices still adhered to their personal bias towards a JudeoChristian form of marriage, in view that the SCOTUS repeatedly UPHELD traditional marriage against challenges up until the 1970s, when Thurgood Marshall and other encroaching leftists started appeasing the underworld socialists and communists ON THIS ISSUE.

Please read the words of my original post, including the dates cited, before jumping on the "you so stupid" bandwagon here. I actually did the research in one of the nation's most outstanding law libraries. Why continue to insist that I must be wrong from the comfort of your sofa without having done similar research yourself? Could it be...vanity?

[annalex]

I repeat: I do not think the acts of the Supreme Court are driven by reason.

We agree on that, then. Sorry if I came across belligerent or vain.

You said, "My astonishment was not with the arguments of the left: it was with the contortions of the the Supreme Court justices". My thought was that since you were astonished by a [mental] contortion, you must have expected reason instead of a contortion. I misunderstood something; it happens to me often.