I want to know the answer to the following question:
What did Justice Jackson argue there were no grounds upon which to support what?
All the background I'm provided with is that "Rutledge, on behalf of the four dissenting justices, took the position that the majority had indeed permitted a violation of the wall of separation in this case: "Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia's great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth."". Is that enough to answer the question?
Answer: no