And a second time. I merely wish to understand how you can categorize court verdicts as debate, and not as something directly relevant to the issue they judged about. Also, what you consider an anachromism and what not. Mainly because the article already mentions things which are even younger than the 1963 court case, yet still have their deserved and unrefuted place in the article. Though constant objectivety, I am certain we will achieve a rewarding, not circular, debate (and results from that debate, of course).