This vastly overstates the wisdom of the justices. They're using clueless analogies most of the time because they're actually clueless, regardless of whether th

This vastly overstates the wisdom of the justices. They're using clueless analogies most of the time because they're actually clueless, regardless of whether the arguments could be made better. It's true that lawyers should explain their positions clearly in any court, but if the ultimate interpreter of fact can't even understand the facts they're being told, there's a fundamental problem.