An assertion of bias against a judge is not to be made lightly and an adverse evidentiary ruling against a party falls well short of indicating bias. There are

An assertion of bias against a judge is not to be made lightly and an adverse evidentiary ruling against a party falls well short of indicating bias. There are many good reasons why evidence may be rejected that does not result from judicial bias. A judge who is biased against a party is not qualified to sit on a case. And if bias was established, the aggrieved party would no doubt seek the judge's recusal. I see unfounded accusations of judicial bias as being similar to unfounded claims an election was rigged. You need a good basis to make such claims. The fact the media may have construed it this way is of no moment. It's not beyond the media to embellish reality for a good story. I'm referring here to explicit bias: that the judge leaves court and says 'Well, I like Apple, so I'll decide for them'. This is not what is happening. I'm not venturing into the area of implicit/social biases, like what is dealt with in the book 'How judges think' by Richard Posner.