- Mar 3, 2004
It highlights the importance of persuasion on the Court. For all of her many qualities, Ginsburg is not noted for being able to win around wavering swing votes on the court. Kagan, by all accounts, on the other hand, is a dab hand at just that. When a President appoints they often have to choose between the firebrand like Ginsburg, who will write powerful judgments and (more often) stinging dissents; or a more low key appointee who can win folk over. There's a place for both on the Court.All commies, the US Supreme Court. It is strange though how no matter what the neocons do in trying to stack the US Supreme Court with individuals who would be seen as a 'safe pair of hands' for neocon concerns how at least one of their safe pair of hands turns out to be an unexpected dissenter. Perhaps there is something about the Supreme Court which gives incumbents pause for thought. After all, they can't be deselected by a political party so whatever impression they give the neocons in order to get the seat can easily be be reversed after appointment and there's nothing the Republicans or Democrats can do to reverse their pick.