Which is silly in a number of ways. The only editorializing is the part saying they're "rightly" skeptical. I don't think anyone is disputing that they asked some skeptical questions and said questions are quoted therein.
That aside, being harshly questioned is not necessarily predictive of which way they will vote. If anything, they're harder on the side they rule against and are using the questioning to find the strongest arguments to put in their rulings.
That aside, being harshly questioned is not necessarily predictive of which way they will vote. If anything, they're harder on the side they rule against and are using the questioning to find the strongest arguments to put in their rulings.