<story><title>The Supreme Court discussed my research on gerrymandering: some misconceptions</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/06/the-supreme-court-discussed-my-research-on-gerrymandering-there-were-some-misconceptions/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>djrogers</author><text>I think the author may be getting a bit too defensive of his work here - not that he doesn&amp;#x27;t have a right to defend it, but he may be seeing attacks on it where they don&amp;#x27;t really exist.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s exceedingly common for Supreme Court justices to ask controversial questions they think&amp;#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.&lt;p&gt;The reasons for this are two-fold.  First, these &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; Supreme Court Justices; their opinions become law, and they have a responsibility to understand both sides on an argument.  Second, they understand that it&amp;#x27;s best for the court and the country if controversial&amp;#x2F;questionable things are brought up and addressed in session rather than debated endlessly after their decisions are issued.&lt;p&gt;In short, don&amp;#x27;t read too much in to what questions the justices ask, or what aspects of a case they question...</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>dcow</author><text>This is, in a nutshell, both why I love hackernews and what&amp;#x27;s so frustrating about discussing a topic these days. It&amp;#x27;s impossible to explore something you may totally disagree with without people generally reducing that exploration to a proxy for your worldview and consequently making character judgements or finding a way to get offended to the point where the identity politics card gets played and you get labeled a bigot for some conclusion you never supported but was obviously present in the undercurrents of your questions. The Supreme Court judges aren&amp;#x27;t special in that respect. Anyone should be allowed to question and explore a topic without having to issue trigger warnings or generally be expected to manage the &amp;quot;visceral&amp;quot; response their questions might evoke from a bystander observing the discussion or even the participants. The way you handle input into your personal biological process is your responsibility not mine. And society does not exist to protect you from malicious input, although you are free to choose networks where the chances frequency of receiving such input is relatively low.</text></comment>
<story><title>The Supreme Court discussed my research on gerrymandering: some misconceptions</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/06/the-supreme-court-discussed-my-research-on-gerrymandering-there-were-some-misconceptions/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>djrogers</author><text>I think the author may be getting a bit too defensive of his work here - not that he doesn&amp;#x27;t have a right to defend it, but he may be seeing attacks on it where they don&amp;#x27;t really exist.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s exceedingly common for Supreme Court justices to ask controversial questions they think&amp;#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.&lt;p&gt;The reasons for this are two-fold.  First, these &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; Supreme Court Justices; their opinions become law, and they have a responsibility to understand both sides on an argument.  Second, they understand that it&amp;#x27;s best for the court and the country if controversial&amp;#x2F;questionable things are brought up and addressed in session rather than debated endlessly after their decisions are issued.&lt;p&gt;In short, don&amp;#x27;t read too much in to what questions the justices ask, or what aspects of a case they question...</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>stevenwoo</author><text>On examination of the evidence, the motive for a questioning supreme court justice is leaning to supporting the other side.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;fivethirtyeight.com&amp;#x2F;features&amp;#x2F;what-justice-kennedys-silence-means-for-the-future-of-gerrymandering&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;fivethirtyeight.com&amp;#x2F;features&amp;#x2F;what-justice-kennedys-s...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>