The Supreme Court discussed my research on gerrymandering: some misconceptions
I think the author may be getting a bit too defensive of his work here - not that he doesn&#x27;t have a right to defend it, but he may be seeing attacks on it where they don&#x27;t really exist.<p>It&#x27;s exceedingly common for Supreme Court justices to ask controversial questions they think&#x2F;know others will have, regardless of their own opinions - many times you will see them ask questions or dig in to areas that are in direct contrast to their leanings.<p>The reasons for this are two-fold.  First, these <i>are</i> Supreme Court Justices; their opinions become law, and they have a responsibility to understand both sides on an argument.  Second, they understand that it&#x27;s best for the court and the country if controversial&#x2F;questionable things are brought up and addressed in session rather than debated endlessly after their decisions are issued.<p>In short, don&#x27;t read too much in to what questions the justices ask, or what aspects of a case they question...