“Tested on history” implies that it’s a matter of knowledge and understanding. It’s not.

The Roberts court is simply corrupt and compromised. It’s not a matter of whether or not they know and understand history, precedent and established legal principles - they don’t care. None of that means anything at all to them (except insofar as they might misrepresent them in an attempt to explain their rulings - a thing that they’ve not coincidentally mostly stopped even bothering to pretend to do).

Their rulings are entirely dictated by ideology and expediency, and are thus not subject to any meaningful “test” on history, law, the Constitution or any of the other things that they’re ethically obligated, and in many cases literally sworn, to uphold.