Locke’s contention was that no man had inherent power to regulate or restrict divine arbitration in civil affairs. Even in dire circumstances, he alleged, natural rights transcended the political process.

So, in the context of today, he’s basically arguing for SCOTUS to be replaced with a religious tribunal and any secular constitution with “natural” (read: religious dogma) law. THAT doesn’t sound like something a SCOTUS judge should be advocating either…