• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Alternate Supreme Courts Thread

Bork was introduced by Ford and John Danforth as a tactical play on the part of the Republicans to make Bork appear less like a right-wing hatchet man - and as Ford himself admitted under questioning by Dennis DeConcini, he didn't actually know anything about Bork's record. It was just a calling in of a favour because Bork had served under him in the seventies.

It's worth bearing in mind that Bork was the third justice Reagan nominated - and that wasn't an accident. I completely dispute any notion that Bork was some kind of natural mainstream pick. Even the Messe justice department thought his civil rights record was too much of a potential liability in 1986.
 
Bork was introduced by Ford and John Danforth as a tactical play on the part of the Republicans to make Bork appear less like a right-wing hatchet man - and as Ford himself admitted under questioning by Dennis DeConcini, he didn't actually know anything about Bork's record. It was just a calling in of a favour because Bork had served under him in the seventies.

It's worth bearing in mind that Bork was the third justice Reagan nominated - and that wasn't an accident. I completely dispute any notion that Bork was some kind of natural mainstream pick. Even the Messe justice department thought his civil rights record was too much of a potential liability in 1986.

Why was Bork nominated in 1987? The Senate was Democratic majority and Reagan was weakened by the Iran Contra scandal and by being a lame duck. As you previously noted, Bork was nearly 60, a heavy smoker and overweight. There surely were other similarly conservative Judges or other lawyers who were more confirmable and looked likely to last longer. (Bork actually did live until 19 December 2012, though.)
 
If the Republicans had kept the Senate in the 1986 midterms, would Bork have been confirmed? I have my doubts even in that scenario as the Democrats could filibuster if necessary.
 
Why was Bork nominated in 1987? The Senate was Democratic majority and Reagan was weakened by the Iran Contra scandal and by being a lame duck. As you previously noted, Bork was nearly 60, a heavy smoker and overweight. There surely were other similarly conservative Judges or other lawyers who were more confirmable and looked likely to last longer. (Bork actually did live until 19 December 2012, though.)

This stands out to me. Bork was the grandfather of the originalist movement. The Federalist Society honchos were high on him and felt he was owed a seat as a sort of cap in his career.

I don't think he's an inevitable nominee, but he seems likely to be on a shortlist for any right-wing Republican. George Bush? No. But social conservatives? Yes.
 
Why was Bork nominated in 1987? The Senate was Democratic majority and Reagan was weakened by the Iran Contra scandal and by being a lame duck. As you previously noted, Bork was nearly 60, a heavy smoker and overweight. There surely were other similarly conservative Judges or other lawyers who were more confirmable.

Well, as I say, Meese. The Reagan administration had really found itself in a dead end as far as changing the settlement of the sixties and seventies on abortion etc went in the legislative arena; a lot of stuff on constitutional amendments and the like had failed to get off the ground in 1981-85. So Meese and the right got really hung up on taking the battle to the courts, and obviously changing the supreme court was part of that. They very consciously did not want just a like-for-like replacement on Powell. And Meese was the guy who had the most influence on the nomination.

Bork himself had pre-eminence on the right of course - he was seen as very much a warrior for the cause, someone absolutely reliable. But he was also seen as being kind of owed it as well, given he'd been in the trenches for so long - and precisely because he had been passed over so many times before.

I don't think it was an accident that Bork had been passed over so many times before, and his nomiation came at the end of the Reagan years; I think his nomination is very much a function of the social side of the Reagan revolution having becoming unstuck in the political arena. That's another reason why I'm very doubtful about his nomination; Republican political strength actually works against a high-risk, high payoff nomination like Bork's. As you imply, there's also younger and more confirmable right-wingers availible, like Scalia.

I'm also wondering whether Bork would even be positioned as a possible nominee. IOTL he joined the DC Court purely on the lure of a potential supreme court nomination, and didn't like the job very much. Not least because he had to give up an only recently-acquired huge salary as a senior partner of a law firm. With Bork more ensconced at the law firm and approaching sixty, I'm wondering whether he would actually want to take a huge salary cut for a window of only a few years as a potential nominee.
 
I'm also wondering whether Bork would even be positioned as a possible nominee. IOTL he joined the DC Court purely on the lure of a potential supreme court nomination, and didn't like the job very much. Not least because he had to give up an only recently-acquired huge salary as a senior partner of a law firm. With Bork more ensconced at the law firm and approaching sixty, I'm wondering whether he would actually want to take a huge salary cut for a window of only a few years as a potential nominee.

This is a very good point
 
I note McCree turned sixty in 1980, and it sounds like his health was poor in the years up to his death; it's possible Marshall could retire in 1983 before the election year, when presumably McCree would be considered too old, and Higginbotham would have six years on the appeals court under him.

It's sort of interesting that Higginbotham might just retire in 1990 or 1991 the way Marshall did, since Higginbotham retired from the Third Circuit then. He was diagnosed with some sort of disability. But Higginbotham was still doing private work until his death in 1998 I think, so he could hold out more easily than Marshall could or would if he didn't like the incumbent president who might appoint his replacement.

Marshall and Brennan OTL absolutely had issues with the President who was replacing them. They'd held out for over a decade under Reagan and then Bush before throwing in the towel.


The 1984 Republican nominee, no matter who they are, will be somebody who is either Conservative themself (Danforth, Dole, Kemp, Laxalt) or will have to shore up the party's Conservative flank (HW Bush). Think of how Ford needed to make Dole his VP in 1976 - by this point Conservatives had to be taken into account. It's also worth considering that even the moderate Republican Presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford weren't trying to nominate moderates or liberals, there just wasn't yet the same sort of vetting process that came later. Even HW had that issue. Bork was a finalist for the Douglas seat that went to Stevens, after all. Nixon was somewhat disappointed with Blackmun and Powell.

If seats open up in 1986 (Burger) and/or 1987 (Powell) there's the issue that the Conservative Republicans don't have much of a bench though. Look at OTL names from the Reagan/Bush period (1986 to 1991):
Antonin Scalia - head of OLC from 1974 to 1977 (which itself was where Rehnquist was plucked from) but put on the DC Circuit in 1982.
Richard Posner - put on the Seventh Circuit in 1981
Doug Ginsburg - Regulatory Czar in 1983, DOJ 1985-1986, DC Circuit 1986 ... and also nominated partly out of spite after the Bork failure (Reagan wanting to put somebody younger and possibly more extreme than Bork up out of spite). He had the advantage of being a Thurgood Marshall clerk though.
Lawrence Silberman - DC Circuit 1985. Before that he had various Nixon/Ford-era big legal posts like Solicitor of Labor, Deputy AG, and acting AG briefly. He also had lots of private practice experience.
Frank Easterbrook - Put on the 7th Circuit in 1985. But he'd been in the Solicitor General's office too (arguing 20 cases before the Supreme Court) and was promoted to Deputy Solicitor General during the Carter Administration.

If the emphasis is on judicial experience (preferably more than just one year) ... you've maybe got the Conservative Arlin Adams on the Third Circuit or the moderately Conservative Anthony Kennedy out in the Ninth Circuit (there since 1975).

If you're looking beyond having enough experience as Federal judges (which Reagan sort of did when he picked O'Connor, although she'd been an intermediate-level state court judge for a bit) Orrin Hatch and Robert Bork are understandable picks. Silberman or Scalia or Easterbrook, with their prior executive branch legal experience, all could work since just a year or two of judging would be on top of otherwise sufficient legal careers. Ken Starr clerked for two years for Burger.

If Jack Danforth is elected President in 1984, Clarence Thomas might get put up. Danforth was Thomas's big booster OTL. He was assistant AG for Missouri from 1974 to 1977 under Danforth, then joined Danforth's staff in Washington in 1979 (a legislative assistant for the Commerce Committee) - only leaving because Danforth recommended him for a post in the Reagan Administration. He would probably get a more important posting than he historically did in the Reagan Administration, and that could be a pedestal from which he's moved to the Supreme Court in 1986 or 1987.
 
It's sort of interesting that Higginbotham might just retire in 1990 or 1991 the way Marshall did, since Higginbotham retired from the Third Circuit then. He was diagnosed with some sort of disability. But Higginbotham was still doing private work until his death in 1998 I think, so he could hold out more easily than Marshall could or would if he didn't like the incumbent president who might appoint his replacement.

Marshall and Brennan OTL absolutely had issues with the President who was replacing them. They'd held out for over a decade under Reagan and then Bush before throwing in the towel.


The 1984 Republican nominee, no matter who they are, will be somebody who is either Conservative themself (Danforth, Dole, Kemp, Laxalt) or will have to shore up the party's Conservative flank (HW Bush). Think of how Ford needed to make Dole his VP in 1976 - by this point Conservatives had to be taken into account. It's also worth considering that even the moderate Republican Presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford weren't trying to nominate moderates or liberals, there just wasn't yet the same sort of vetting process that came later. Even HW had that issue. Bork was a finalist for the Douglas seat that went to Stevens, after all. Nixon was somewhat disappointed with Blackmun and Powell.

If seats open up in 1986 (Burger) and/or 1987 (Powell) there's the issue that the Conservative Republicans don't have much of a bench though. Look at OTL names from the Reagan/Bush period (1986 to 1991):
Antonin Scalia - head of OLC from 1974 to 1977 (which itself was where Rehnquist was plucked from) but put on the DC Circuit in 1982.
Richard Posner - put on the Seventh Circuit in 1981
Doug Ginsburg - Regulatory Czar in 1983, DOJ 1985-1986, DC Circuit 1986 ... and also nominated partly out of spite after the Bork failure (Reagan wanting to put somebody younger and possibly more extreme than Bork up out of spite). He had the advantage of being a Thurgood Marshall clerk though.
Lawrence Silberman - DC Circuit 1985. Before that he had various Nixon/Ford-era big legal posts like Solicitor of Labor, Deputy AG, and acting AG briefly. He also had lots of private practice experience.
Frank Easterbrook - Put on the 7th Circuit in 1985. But he'd been in the Solicitor General's office too (arguing 20 cases before the Supreme Court) and was promoted to Deputy Solicitor General during the Carter Administration.

If the emphasis is on judicial experience (preferably more than just one year) ... you've maybe got the Conservative Arlin Adams on the Third Circuit or the moderately Conservative Anthony Kennedy out in the Ninth Circuit (there since 1975).

If you're looking beyond having enough experience as Federal judges (which Reagan sort of did when he picked O'Connor, although she'd been an intermediate-level state court judge for a bit) Orrin Hatch and Robert Bork are understandable picks. Silberman or Scalia or Easterbrook, with their prior executive branch legal experience, all could work since just a year or two of judging would be on top of otherwise sufficient legal careers. Ken Starr clerked for two years for Burger.

If Jack Danforth is elected President in 1984, Clarence Thomas might get put up. Danforth was Thomas's big booster OTL. He was assistant AG for Missouri from 1974 to 1977 under Danforth, then joined Danforth's staff in Washington in 1979 (a legislative assistant for the Commerce Committee) - only leaving because Danforth recommended him for a post in the Reagan Administration. He would probably get a more important posting than he historically did in the Reagan Administration, and that could be a pedestal from which he's moved to the Supreme Court in 1986 or 1987.
Where did you read that Nixon was disappointed with Blackmun and Powell? Why was he? Was it only because of Roe v. Wade?
Also, I have previously asked here who Nixon would have nominated to succeed Douglas without Watergate. He had promised Bork the next vacancy.
 
A Republican president of this era certainly won't be intentionally nominating liberals, but there's still quite a large gap between originalism and justices of the moderate right. Reagan himself put both O'Connor and Kennedy on the court. Scalia was the outlier even in a world where Reagan won, so I think the assumption people are making here that everyone will be in the Bork mould in a Reaganless world is a bit strange.
 
A Republican president of this era certainly won't be intentionally nominating liberals, but there's still quite a large gap between originalism and justices of the moderate right. Reagan himself put both O'Connor and Kennedy on the court. Scalia was the outlier even in a world where Reagan won, so I think the assumption people are making here that everyone will be in the Bork mould in a Reaganless world is a bit strange.

Originalism is sort of weird, considering that the Court's biggest originalist for ~30 years was the arch-liberal Hugo Black and it was Frankfurter and various moderate-to-conservative Republicans like Stewart, Harlan II, etc. who more inclined towards a more flexible and evolving approach. But you could see funky differences in that Republican judges (inclined towards judicial discretion and reasonableness) were often stronger on Fourth Amendment issues than Black (who hated giving judges any discretion, preferring absolute, mechanical, and broad applications of written provisions) who saw 'unreasonable' in the Fourth Amendment and interpreted it as 'defer defer defer.' By contrast, Scalia later was quite liberal on the Fourth Amendment, because he figured the task was analogizing to what was considered reasonable or unreasonable in 1791.

I don't think Reagan was disappointed in O'Connor, but he was hoping for someone more Conservative than she turned out to be. She also moved a bit left over time. Kennedy meanwhile was Reagan trying to get somebody into that Supreme Court seat before 1988, when the Senate Democrats made it fairly clear they wouldn't confirm anybody before the election. We could wonder what would have happened if the seat was left open throughout 1988 and who HW would have nominated.

The gist I'm getting is that Republican Presidents primarily wanted folks bordering on the originalist (or at least wanted folks committed to an idea of judicial restraint, which if you look at the differences between Black, Thomas, and Scalia may or may not be a value originalists cared about and was/is applied in different areas) but weren't exactly dissatisfied when they didn't turn out originalist because they usually were committed to judicial restraint in the areas they cared about (like criminal procedure or not rocking the boat socially/culturally on racial issues).

Henry Friendly had an interesting observation on the Burger and Warren Courts. He noted that despite the Conservative ire towards the Warren Court, it mostly stuck to Constitutional text and history (the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment) whereas the supposedly more conservative Burger Court was the one free-wheeling things constitutionally.
 
Why did Hugo Black become such a strong supporter of desegregation and civil rights despite not only being from Alabama but, in fact, having been Senator from Alabama?
 
Why did Hugo Black become such a strong supporter of desegregation and civil rights despite not only being from Alabama but, in fact, having been Senator from Alabama?

He was always something of a racial liberal. The same year he joined the Klan, he was leading the prison reform movement in the state to end the convict leasing system (slavery 2.0). The only case where he defended the moral rightness of violence was one involving leased black miners (who had a life expectancy of about five years...). The Executive Secretary of the NAACP also testified on his behalf during his Supreme Court confirmation process.
 
Powell retiring when he did, incidentally, could be butterflied easily enough. He was relatively equivocal about retiring, and unusually his family was actually advising him against doing so. Partisanship was definitely an issue in the mix - it's presumed in the case of Stewart, but it's certain in the case of Powell - so different political circumstances could sway his decision. If there's either an incumbent Republican running for re-election who is in a politically strong position, or a Democrat who is in difficulties, he could definitely put off retirement at least until 1989. (I think he would retire no later than that or 1990/1991 though, as his health was becoming an issue)

Burger's retirement is also potentially butterfly-able, but that's less clear-cut.
 
Wasn't homophobia largely aimed against gay men rather than lesbians? From the homophobic speeches of the time I have read, I think they all focus on gay men, specifically. Even today, in some homophobic countries, lesbians are treated differently from gay men.
This is not to say lesbians were accepted, just that they often didn't face the outright hostility that gay men did.

The differing legal treatment of gay men over lesbians is a whole different issue, but in the eighties lesbians absolutely did face outright hostility. Probably more than they would have done previously due to a lot of issues around things like the growth of feminism and various dynamics around the AIDS crisis. 'Lesbian' then was almost always linked to 'radical feminist', and was weaponised as such politically.

I think a single, celibate lesbian would have faced enough speculation themselves, (Look at the continual speculation over Kagan's sexuality, even today) but a lesbian woman who had a partner - I just don't see that not coming up when it comes to anything as high as a supreme court nomination. It was entirely possible for Jordan to keep her sexuality under wraps OTL because she only ever went as high as a congresswoman. (And a lot of members of congress were in the closet back then) But when you get to the level of the Supreme Court, that kind of anonymity just breaks down. The vetting by the administration wasn't as intensive back then as it is now - look at Ginsburg; but also look at the very fact Ginsburg's failed nomination happened only a few years after the period we're talking about - but it definitely was a thing that nominees were asked about their personal life.

There was a very, very big effort on the right incidentally, particularly in the States, that LGBT people should basically not be appointed to anything important at all, and certainly not to things like being a judge.
 
Powell retiring when he did, incidentally, could be butterflied easily enough. He was relatively equivocal about retiring, and unusually his family was actually advising him against doing so. Partisanship was definitely an issue in the mix - it's presumed in the case of Stewart, but it's certain in the case of Powell - so different political circumstances could sway his decision. If there's either an incumbent Republican running for re-election who is in a politically strong position, or a Democrat who is in difficulties, he could definitely put off retirement at least until 1989. (I think he would retire no later than that or 1990/1991 though, as his health was becoming an issue)

Burger's retirement is also potentially butterfly-able, but that's less clear-cut.

Powell had considered retiring in 1982, after a decade on the Court, as he found O'Connor, who Reagan had nominated, a great Justice, but his family convinced him not to.
He also nearly died on the operating table during a surgery in 1985.
If he had either retired in 1982 or died in 1985, do you think Reagan would have nominated Bork to succeed him and he would have been confirmed?
 
Last edited:
The differing legal treatment of gay men over lesbians is a whole different issue, but in the eighties lesbians absolutely did face outright hostility. Probably more than they would have done previously due to a lot of issues around things like the growth of feminism and various dynamics around the AIDS crisis. 'Lesbian' then was almost always linked to 'radical feminist', and was weaponised as such politically.

I think a single, celibate lesbian would have faced enough speculation themselves, (Look at the continual speculation over Kagan's sexuality, even today) but a lesbian woman who had a partner - I just don't see that not coming up when it comes to anything as high as a supreme court nomination. It was entirely possible for Jordan to keep her sexuality under wraps OTL because she only ever went as high as a congresswoman. (And a lot of members of congress were in the closet back then) But when you get to the level of the Supreme Court, that kind of anonymity just breaks down. The vetting by the administration wasn't as intensive back then as it is now - look at Ginsburg; but also look at the very fact Ginsburg's failed nomination happened only a few years after the period we're talking about - but it definitely was a thing that nominees were asked about their personal life.

There was a very, very big effort on the right incidentally, particularly in the States, that LGBT people should basically not be appointed to anything important at all, and certainly not to things like being a judge.

Thanks for the explanation.
 
Powell retiring when he did, incidentally, could be butterflied easily enough. He was relatively equivocal about retiring, and unusually his family was actually advising him against doing so. Partisanship was definitely an issue in the mix - it's presumed in the case of Stewart, but it's certain in the case of Powell - so different political circumstances could sway his decision. If there's either an incumbent Republican running for re-election who is in a politically strong position, or a Democrat who is in difficulties, he could definitely put off retirement at least until 1989. (I think he would retire no later than that or 1990/1991 though, as his health was becoming an issue)

Burger's retirement is also potentially butterfly-able, but that's less clear-cut.
I would call Powell's retirement political rather than partisan because while a moderate conservative, he was a registered Democrat.
If Powell had not retired in 1987, how do you think he would have voted in Thompson v. Oklahoma and Stanford v. Kentucky?
 
Powell had considered retiring in 1982 but his family convinced him not to.
He also nearly died in the operating table during a surgery in 1985.
If he had either retired in 1982 or died in 1985, do you think Reagan would have nominated Bork to succeed him and he would have been confirmed?

If we're talking about 1985, then Scalia would very likely win out for the nomination for the exact same reasons he did IOTL in 1986. And yes, though I've mentioned before that Scalia wasn't without some exposure himself, it was certainly less than Bork's and in 1985 there's still a Republican senate. He would very likely be confirmed.

Assuming Powell retires at the end of the court term in 1982, then that's before Scalia was even a judge, so he wouldn't have been realistically considered. Bork would certainly be in consideration, and if not him, I think the chances of a very right-wing nominee with a lot of baggage is pretty high; 1982 is before the new generation people like Scalia could come through; if not Bork, it could be someone like Clifford Wallace, who could go down just as badly as Bork. There's a Republican Senate in 1982 of course, but that's a Republican caucus with a good quantity of moderates and even liberals in it, and 1982 is an election year. If someone like Bork or Wallace was nominated, I certainly wouldn't rule out a failed nomination.
 
Re Barbara Jordan besides the obvious point about her sexuality, she had multiple sclerosis and was in extremely poor health for the whole of the 1980s. It's why she left Congress and frontline politics just as she was making a name for herself. There's a New York Times article from 1988 which describes her as "suffering from a degenerative bone disease and using a wheelchair". Sexuality aside, someone that physically infirm is not going to be considered for a supreme court nomination. IIRC in 1993 Bill Clinton approached her about a political or judicial appointment and Jordan declined for that reason.

And if we handwave away her sexuality and health, if she gets onto the bench she's not the consistent liberal hero a lot of people assume she'd be (which IMO comes from not much more than her race, sexuality and that one speech she made on the Watergate committee which wasn't particularly ideological). In congress she was regarded as a moderate and had poor relations with the Congressional Black Caucus, criticised for being too friendly with conservative politicians and being disinterested in civil rights and women's issues. At the time of her death she was the chair of a federal commission into immigration policy that called for legal immigration numbers to be cut by a third, enforcement against illegal immigration to be drastically stepped up and ending all unskilled immigration altogether. A few years ago the National Review published an article praising her views on immigration! She absolutely would not have been the great liberal reformer a lot of people are assuming she'd be, and I suspect that if she were on the bench for any length of time her views would drift towards the right significantly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top