Monday's technical hearing about the Fair Credit Reporting Act exposed one of the biggest debates about the modern Supreme Court: What should be done about precedents that rely on methodologies that have become unfavored?

The court appeared closely divided during the hour-and-a-half-long hearing, which I covered here. Unlikely to generate much media attention, the case nevertheless provided a window into the competing jurisprudential ideologies of the justices far beyond the labels of "conservative" or "liberal."

For instance, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed once again in agreement on a question of statutory interpretation. Although, once again, they emphasized different arguments to make their points.