Conservative jurists, for years, have grounded their philosophies in some type of formalism–textualism, originalism, etc. Liberal jurists, for years, have grounded their philosophies in flexible, real-world based, pragmatism of various degrees. When conservative jurists get to the Supreme Court, they may quickly learn a lesson, such as the one that the Chief learned. Judicial ideologies, not keyed to any formalist decision-making process, must give way in certain important cases. Confronted with such a decision, conservative jurists are not familiar with how to proceed, and get “wobbly.” Liberal jurists are quite comfortable in the “there is no spoon” and know how to resolutely proceed with flexibility.

Maybe. Just a thought.