4. What are the major points of disagreement between Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion and that of the plurality? Is her view that a manufacturer that markets its product nationwide ought to be amenable to suit in the state where the product is sold and causes injury consistent with Hanson’s notion of purposeful availment? Would the dissent make a similar argument as to a component-part manufacturer? Do you agree that Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion emphasizes sovereignty, not fairness or reasonableness, as the touchstone of the jurisdictional inquiry? Is this approach at odds with International Shoe’s requirement that the exercise of jurisdiction comport with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”? Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg’s dissent that this view of jurisdiction is no different from “the long-discredited fiction of implied consent”?