Ratan,
re: "You are insulting the highest court in the land by calling them biased."
I didn't mean biased towards the candidate, I meant they were leaning towards the candidates position. Remember, they have already read the briefs in the case. At some point they have to be biased towards a point of view, in order to make a decision, don't you think?
Actually, it was interesting. The Justices seemed to be arguing their position, against the other Justices, by directing leading questions to the attorneys. The Bush lawyer, in the end changed to a completely different argument, one that was initially advanced by Scalia. I don't think the guy intended to use that tact, if he was even aware of it. Just my read, I could be way off base as I'm not used to this stuff.
Beleive me Ratan, I have great respect for the impartiality of the courts (usually).
John |
