The one hopeful thing is that Roberts said he wanted to end the long Rhenquist period of split decisions with one tiebreaker vote. He wanted more unanimous or overwhelming-majority decisions, presumably achieved through their discussions or exchange of legal briefs in each case. It had gotten to the point where the press was drawing on the language of the dissents rather than the affirmative opinions. This case will, indeed, be a severe test of his ability to build consensus.
Unreasonable people rarely are persuaded by facts, they are agenda driven, kinda like Islam.
I don't think its possible to achieve. like america, the Court is deeply divided.