In this task, you're given a passage, further information available on a particular linked term from the statement, and an answer term. Your job is to generate a question that can use the information provided to obtain the given answer. You should use the information on both passage and link information to create the question. Note that the answer to the question should be exactly the given answer, and if the answer is none, the answer to the question shouldn't be obtainable from the passage or linked information.

Passage: Shah Nawaz Bhutto, a direct descendant of Muhammad Khan, came to prominence during the British Raj as a dewan of the princely state of Junagadh in south-western Gujarat in India. During the Partition of India in 1947, the Muslim Nawab of Junagarh wanted to accede his state to the newly created Pakistan, but he faced rebellion by the population of Junagadh, majority of whom were Hindus. The Indian government thwarted Junagadh's accession to Pakistan, and the Bhuttos fled to Sindh in modern-day Pakistan. Shah Nawaz Bhutto moved to Larkana District in Sindh, where his land-ownership made him one of the wealthiest and most influential people in Sindh. Beginning the political dynasty, Shah Nawaz's third son Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1928-1979) founded the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) in 1967 and served as President and Prime Minister. He married an Iranian-Kurdish woman named Nusrat Bhutto. His daughter, Benazir (1953-2007), also served as Prime Minister, while Benazir's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, later served as president from 2008 to 2013. The Bhuttos continue to dominate the leadership of the PPP. Benazir's son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari became co-chairperson in 2007.
 Link Information: Nusrat Bhutto (née Ispahani; ; ; ;
23 March 1929 – 23 October 2011) Answer: 24
How old was Zulfikar's wife when their daughter was born?

Passage: The policy change faced legal challenges. Following a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on October 30, 2017, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked enforcement of the ban, writing that as far as could be seen, "all of the reasons proffered by the president for excluding transgender individuals from the military in this case were not merely unsupported, but were actually contradicted by the studies, conclusions and judgment of the military itself". In March 2018, Trump announced a new policy on transgender service members, namely a ban on those with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, which would effectively be a ban on most transgender service members. The new policy was challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On April 13, 2018 Judge Marsha J. Pechman blocked enforcement of the policy, ruling that the administration's updated policy essentially repeated the same issues as its predecessor order from 2017, and that transgender service members (and transgender individuals as a class) were a protected class entitled to strict scrutiny of adverse laws (or at worst, a quasi-suspect class), and ordered that matter continue to a full trial hearing on the legality of the proposed policy. On January 21, 2019, the Supreme Court — with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas forming the majority for the 5-4 opinion — allowed Trump's policy to go into effect while challenges in lower courts are adjudicated. On March 12, 2019, acting Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist signed a directive to allow Trump's policy to take effect in 30 days.
 Link Information: John Glover Roberts Jr. (born January 27, 1955) Answer: Clarence Thomas
Who is the oldest judge that formed the majority opinion on January 21, 2019?

Passage: The right to marry a person of a different race was addressed in Loving v. Virginia, in which the Court said, in 1967, that its decision striking down anti-miscegenation laws could be justified either by substantive due process, or by the Equal Protection Clause. The unconstitutionality of bans on and refusals to recognize same-sex marriage was decided partly on substantive due process grounds by Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. A right to have children was addressed in Skinner v. Oklahoma, but the Court in Skinner, in 1942, explicitly declined to base its decision on due process but instead cited the Equal Protection Clause since the Oklahoma law required sterilization of some three-time felons but not others. A substantive due process right of a parent to educate a young child (before ninth grade) in a foreign language was recognized in Meyer v. Nebraska, in 1923, with two justices dissenting, and Justice Kennedy has mentioned that Meyer might be decided on different grounds in modern times. Laws that "shock the conscience" of the Court were generally deemed unconstitutional, in 1952, in Rochin v. California, but in concurring, Justices Black and Douglas argued that pumping a defendant's stomach for evidence should have been deemed unconstitutional on the narrower ground that it violates the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination. The Court, in O'Connor v. Donaldson, in 1975, said that due process is violated by confining a nondangerous mentally ill person who is capable of surviving safely in freedom. Chief Justice Burger's concurring opinion was that such confinement may also amount to "punishment" for being mentally ill, violating the Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment in Robinson v. California. Freedom from excessive punitive damages was deemed to be a due process right in BMW v. Gore, in 1996, but four justices disagreed. The Court, in Cruzan v. Missouri, decided, in 1990, that due process is not violated if a state applies "a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state".
 Link Information: none Answer: none

Which justices disagreed with the courts position on freedom from punitive damages?