Tangent, but I’ve seen it mentioned in a couple of sources that Clinton offered Barbara Jordan a Supreme Court nomination, which is nuts on so many levels (mostly because she was at this point dying). She wisely declined the offer.Clinton had absolutely no idea what he wanted in a justice, he nearly nominated Mario Cuomo and George Mitchell. Ginsburg was a very late pick from left field and Breyer was nominated because there'd been so many fuck-ups by that point and he was an easy confirmation as somebody with a lot of friends on the Hill.
I mean it was an offer made with the intention of her declining so that he could then say that he made it.Tangent, but I’ve seen it mentioned in a couple of sources that Clinton offered Barbara Jordan a Supreme Court nomination, which is nuts on so many levels (mostly because she was at this point dying). She wisely declined the offer.
Mentioned it before but while her on the Supreme Court at any point is a non-starter for three different reasons if we handwave her on I think she’d have a really interesting judicial career. Unlikely to be the liberal hero a lot of people think she would’ve been on the bench.I mean it was an offer made with the intention of her declining so that he could then say that he made it.
Hughes dies and is replaced by Stone, who is replaced by Jackson. McReynolds dies and is replaced by Byrnes, who is replaced by Rutledge or Garrison. I'm going to assume Robinson dies or retires before 1945. Sherman Minton was considered in 1937 and got it in 1949, so he seems likely. It's now an overwhelmingly liberal court.
Supreme Court in 1945
CJ: Harlan Fiske Stone (Liberal)
AJ: Roberts (Moderate Conservative)
AJ: Hugo Black (Liberal)
AJ: Stanley Reed (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Felix Frankfurter (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: William O Douglas (Liberal)
AJ: Frank Murphy (Liberal)
AJ: Lloyd Garrison / Wiley Rutledge (Liberal)
AJ: Robert Jackson (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Wiley Rutledge / Wiley Rutledge (Liberal)
AJ: Sherman Minton (Moderate Liberal)
Moderate Conservative: 1
Moderate Liberal: 4
Liberal: 6
Supreme Court in 1949
CJ: Fred Vinson (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Hugo Black (Liberal)
AJ: Stanley Reed (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Felix Frankfurter (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: William O Douglas (Liberal)
AJ: Frank Murphy (Liberal)
AJ: Lloyd Garrison / Wiley Rutledge (Liberal)
AJ: Robert Jackson (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Wiley Rutledge / Wiley Rutledge (Liberal)
AJ: Sherman Minton (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Harold Burton (Center)
Center: 1
Moderate Liberal: 5
Liberal: 5
Supreme Court in 1953
CJ: Fred Vinson (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Hugo Black (Liberal)
AJ: Stanley Reed (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Felix Frankfurter (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: William O Douglas (Liberal)
AJ: Lloyd Garrison (Liberal)
AJ: Robert Jackson (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Sherman Minton (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Harold Burton (Center)
AJ: Tom C Clark (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Herbert F Goodrich (Moderate Liberal)
Center: 1
Moderate Liberal: 7
Liberal: 3
I mainly went with OTL names, plus Judge Goodrich of the Third Circuit who was considered several times. Truman had a tendency to put on what were considered Conservative judges for his time (meaning moderate liberals by New Deal Court standards).
Supreme Court in 1957
CJ: Earl Warren (Liberal)
AJ: Hugo Black (Liberal)
AJ: Stanley Reed (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Felix Frankfurter (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: William O Douglas (Liberal)
AJ: Lloyd Garrison (Liberal)
AJ: Harold Burton (Center)
AJ: Tom C Clark (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: Herbert F Goodrich (Moderate Liberal)
AJ: John M Harlan II (Center)
AJ: William J Brennan (Liberal)
Center: 2
Moderate Liberal: 4
Liberal: 5
If Ross Perot had won in 1992, what sort of Justices would he have put on?
Perot would probably want Justices who were (1) Business-friendly, (2) Law-and-Order, and (3) Pro-Choice. But what would that mean?
In the "A Giant Sucking Sound" timeline, Perot puts up Orrin Hatch and his Chief of Staff Thomas W. Luce III. I have no idea where the author got those names from.
Perot was one of those businessmen who think that they know everything and are good at everything because they've succeeded in their specific business field. He ran his campaign as an autocrat who didn't want to listen to any professional advice even from people he'd hired to give him advice and he was also a weird paranoid little freak of a man. Think a silent generation version of Elon Musk.
Basically he could end up nominating pretty anyone but the most reliable criteria for a nominee would be how big a crony someone was of Ross Perot. As such Luce probably is a good shout (Though he'd be shot down in flames in the senate of course) but Orrin Hatch is giving Perot far too much credit and no senator from the main parties would want to be that obliging to him.
I should bookmark all the above on the statement that I don't think Perot had any chance at all of being elected.
Shockingly, this is the first I've learned of this.Rather shocked to see it hasn't come up here at all but I was wondering if people had thoughts about what would happen if the Jefferson Administration had been successful in the impeachment of Samuel Chase in 1805.
The case had drastic effects, both in more or less setting the precident we live with today that Justices don't get removed by Congress and in preventing Jefferson from going after the target he really wanted, and for whom Chase was a test case: Chief Justice Marshall who of course was still on the court thirty years later.
Clement Haynsworth was later described as a moderate in the mold of John Paul Stevens. Had he been confirmed and Blackmun been nominated for John Marshall II's seat instead of William Rehnquist, we may have seen a more liberal Supreme Court.
Thanks for replying to my 2022 idea.In the 1970s Stevens was voting against affirmative action, was a swing vote in privacy cases, and pro-business in other cases. Haynsworth would likely be in the same ballpark as Stevens and Powell, and more Conservative than the Stevens from the 90s onwards.
If confirmed instead of Rehnquist, then Blackmun is put on the bench in 1972. Roe would be decided in 1972 and on narrower grounds.
Without Roe, Blackmun likely ends up a Moderate like Lewis Powell or pre-90s John Paul Stevens. Given how rarely Rehnquist's vote was pivotal prior to the 1990s, Blackmun staying moderate seems more influential than Rehnquist being replaced by a more moderate judge.
In 1975 TTL there are...
6 Moderates (Stewart, White, Haynsworth, Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens)
2 Liberals (Brennan and Marshall)
1 Conservative (Burger)
OTL was 4 Moderates, 3 Liberals, 2 Conservatives by 1975. A 7-2 Moderate/Conservative Bloc is bigger than a 6-3 one.
Thanks for replying to my 2022 idea.
On exactly what grounds do you think Roe would have been decided?
The Court's opinion decides that a State may impose virtually no restriction on the performance of abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. Our previous decisions indicate that a necessary predicate for such an opinion is a plaintiff who was in her first trimester of pregnancy at some time during the pendency of her lawsuit. While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others. Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163 (1972); Sierra, Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727 (1972). The Court's statement of facts in this case makes clear, however, that the record in no way indicates the presence of such a plaintiff. We know only that plaintiff Roe at the time of filing her complaint was a pregnant woman; for aught that appears in this record, she may have been in her last trimester of pregnancy as of the date the complaint was filed.
What if all Justices had to face reconfirmation say every five years?Assuming Bork and Scalia get on the court I can think of two cases that go the other way. Lee V. Texas which with Bork on the court would've banned flag burning and Lawrence V. Texas in which ITTL homosexuality would be a criminal offense until a more liberal court came along. The latter may go the other way. If he nominates a conservative woman like Edith Jones, then what I laid out doesn't change. Needless to say, but both cases would be disastrous as the former undermines freedom of speech, but I doubt it'll change anything in the long run. The Alien and Sedition Acts were upheld, and we didn't become a dictatorship and the latter IMO doesn't need an explanation.
The Supreme Court in 1969 (Nixon wins in 1960).
1953: Earl Warren (Liberal)
1937: Hugo Black (Liberal)
1939: William O Douglas (Liberal)
1949: Tom Clark (Moderate)
1955: John M Harlan II (Conservative)
1956: William J Brennan (Liberal)
1958: Potter Stewart (Moderate)
1962: Warren Burger (Conservative)
1962: Henry Friendly (Conservative)
[4] Liberals
[2] Moderates
[3] Conservatives
Burger was considered for the Whittaker seat historically under Eisenhower, so he seemed like a probable choice for Whittaker's replacement here. Friendly seemed like a straightforward Republican choice.
Cases which go the other way:
Cases which come out similarly but not the same:
- Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963) - A weaker right of First Amendment Associational privacy
- Malloy v. Hogan (1964) - States do not have to abide by the privilege against self-incrimination
- Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) - No right to counsel during police interrogations
- Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) - No right to trial by jury in the states
- Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) - Historically Douglas's opinion commanded 4 votes initially (Douglas, Clark, Brennan, and Goldberg). Warren was intent on joining White's opinion. Goldberg brokered a compromise, convincing Douglas to include the Ninth Amendment and Goldberg would write a concurrence explaining it so Warren could join on Goldberg's grounds. No Goldberg means Griswold [1] doesn't mention the Ninth Amendment and [2] probably is a split opinion. My guess is Warren joins Harlan's opinion. Friendly might join it too, but Burger likely wouldn't.
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - Even with the Fifth Amendment not incorporated, there were a line of cases based on the Due Process Clause having to do with coercive means of interrogation. Something like that might pop up as a rationale. Justice Clark pointed to the 1963 Due Process Case Haynes v. Washington as a narrower alternative rationale for Miranda, and so something like that would win out instead. Instead of a hard and fast rule like Miranda, it would be a 'totality of the circumstances' analysis.
What if Sandra Day O'Connor hadn't retired? Let's suppose Bush nominates somebody more controversial than Alito who has to be withdrawn like with Harriet Miers. By that point, O'Connor's husband is too far gone mentally for O'Connor to spend any meaningful time with him and O'Connor decides it would be better to continue serving on the Court.
O'Connor's continued drift left might halt with Roberts on the bench. OTL Breyer was very effective at persuading O'Connor to join narrow opinions and tilt left. Scalia and Thomas irked her in Breyer's direction. But in the six months they served together, she apparently adored John Roberts as another Conservative with a preference for moving the law slowly and ruling narrowly. Whatever effect Roberts has on O'Connor would likely be dampened by Kagan joining the Court though. But Sotomayor might irk O'Connor.
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) probably goes the same as OTL. Five Justices narrowed the McCain-Feingold law, but three (Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) wanted to overturn a prior opinion in the process. Roberts didn't, nor did Alito. The Court ultimately overruled that opinion a bit in Citizens United (2010). My guess is Citizens United wins its case in 2010, but with O'Connor as the pivotal vote the decision is a narrower one (probably exempting nonprofits and newspapers entirely from McCain Feingold).
In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, named for the eccentric rogue Pitchfork Ben Tillman, the South Carolina senator who sponsored the legislation. The law barred corporations from contributing directly to federal campaigns, and established criminal penalties for violations. Loopholes proliferated, allowing, for example, individuals to give as much as they wanted to political campaigns and to be reimbursed for the contributions by their employers. Still, the Tillman Act was a first step toward what Congress described as its goal: elections “free from the power of money.”
