Take the following as truth: Not an airtight argument (all anti-discrimination laws pick and choose among protected classes), but a cleverly textualist one--and one that seems to have helped convince a majority of the court to strike down the amendment, despite a lack of helpful precedent.
Then the following statement: "The Court had always wanted to strike the amendment down and the textualist argument provided just the excuse to do so." is true, false, or inconclusive?
Answer: Inconclusive