[19:25-21:25]
Ms. Johnson:that is entirely correct. Even in swain, history was relevant and to look more broadly in arlington heights, this court said history is relevant. And in another, said history was elephant. There isn't a new rule about history being relevant. Mississippi ignored what this court said – jus. Ginsburg: the court took account of the history. What are we to make of that?
If the court had taken into account its history it could not have come to this conclusion. There are many reasons to believe they did not. They said considering history it doesn't alter our opinion and they pasted in their prior history. They also said his history doesn't undermine stated reasons. It is wrong. It may or may not be sufficient but of a desire for all-white jury, found willing to make false statements, those things in the past, with respect to three other jurist does undermine it. Looking at what they did, there is no point in which they say we are more skeptical of the reasons he stated because he was dishonest before. When I look at the statements he made here, the eight false statements, they were matched with false statements he did before. They did not consider history, nor did they consider anything else that would be consistent with this court's insistence we look at the totality of circumstances.