[FredTownWard]

"The fact of the matter is that you are not going to change the minds of someone who's spent the better part of his or her life constructing an elaborate perspective-with regard to interpretation of Constitutional, common and case law-to reflect your opinion more closely, no matter what polemical skills you possess."

Uh huh, like the ever-leftward-drifting David Souter or the wobbly Anthony Kennedy? They weren't closet liberals; they started out as conservatives. Kennedy in particular as a "swing" justice is potentially vulnerable to a little friendly persuasion; once upon a time they both persuaded themselves that they were conservatives. Stevens and Ginsburg might be immune, but they are also the two most likely future vacancies. Thus it is a little silly to dismiss the possibility that trying a technique OTHER THAN insulting them with big words they cannot understand might be more effective.

[Politicalities]

Uh huh, like the ever-leftward-drifting David Souter or the wobbly Anthony Kennedy?

An even better example might be Owen Roberts (I sure hope that the coincidence in names does not indicate a similar lack of backbone), who started off as one of the stalwarts defending the Constitution against FDR's New Deal assault on it, but after the threat to increase the number of Justices allowed himself to be cowed into changing his mind and helped usher in the era of unprecedented federal power we now enjoy.

And you're the only one on FR that does that

Really? Since I'm the "only one on FR that does that", where did you ever come up with the general rule that you "don't read group replies?" I mean, I'm flattered that you came up with a rule just for me, but really, you needn't have gone to the trouble.

These threads can get long and winded.

Indeed, which is why I choose not to contribute to their length by writing half a dozen separate replies at once.