AHC: Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Byron White, etc — the center holds in the Supreme Court from the 1970s to 90s ? ! ?

[Rafi_T]

Adding on to the latest news about ”Justice” Thomas… the Federalist Society is blight upon the legal profession, and you literally can’t have a “moderate” court with a Republican president nominating justices in the 21st century, and considering Thomas comes from H. W. Bush, then even then it was too late.

Dude literally went “I don’t think I can remain on the court on my low salary” (making over $300K/yr), and then Republican politicians put him in contact with billionaires who lavished him in gifts.

 

[Rafi_T]

I’m just going to say it. The fact that you’re focusing on getting the beginning right [instead of seeing what a golden opportunity both Little Rock and the ‘57 Civil Rights Act were], tells me you like the idealistic and perfectionist methd. Of course just one data point of info!

With Bill Douglas, Okay, he was a Westerner, with a big heart, supported the rights of Native American Indians and was proud of it, as a young man supported at least in word the people and ideas of the “Wobbles,” meaning the IWW, a big circa 1910 union, and since it was one for all, all for one, this made it among the most radical of the American unions, at least those in the big time.

And yet . . .

As a boss to his law clerks, Bill was a First-Rate Asshole! just no other way to say it

Yeah, kindness ≠ goodness. Some of history’s greatest monsters were perfectly kind to those around them, and some of history’s greatest people were dicks or incredibly flawed.

I take O. Douglas like I take MLK. Is the plagiarism and philandering bad? Yes. Does it negate his work for civil rights? Not at all.

I’m not perfectly familiar with that potential, but the issue is Eisenhower wasn’t a Civil Rights president, and the ‘57 Civil Rights Act was incredibly watered down, and I don’t think there’s many ways to strengthen it without needing some big PoDs, plus this is a thread about the Supreme Court, though I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Personally, the biggest pro-Civil Rights PoDs would be Johnson and Kennedy having earlier careers in the senate. Have Johnson enter the senate on April 9, 1941 after Morris Sheppard dies, while Kennedy enters on June 11, 1947 (a fortnight after Kennedy’s 30th birthday) after David I. Walsh dies in office after defeating Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. in 1946. Johnson gets almost 8 extra years in the senate, and Kennedy about 6.5. Have a Johnson/Kennedy ticket win in 1956, and you have a damn good case for a much stronger Civil Rights Act in ‘57.

 

[TheMaskedDiscombobulator]

Actually, the American middle class is not near as bad as people think. But if a guy in a sports bar tells me it’s been “decimated,” doesn’t make for a productive conversation for me to tell him that he’s wrong. So, I try to embrace that tension between number facts, which certainly are facts, and lived experienced.

“Let me ask you, has the workplace been feminized, or just corporatized?” <— that’s one question I might experiment with asking my fellow bar patrons

Well yeah, but that's not really about "governing from the center" so much as "trying to get people to recognize that the reality framework in which their problems can be talked about usefully and the reality framework they're using to understand it right now are two different things.

"Embracing tension" is basically a matter of trying to poke people with cognitive dissonance in hopes that something will crack.

Isn’t Constitutional government an attempt to split the difference by having majority rule with minority rights? With imperfections of course.

See, that's the classical civics school narrative, but that narrative doesn't really prescribe how to provide good governance in a society where one side is like [literally exists] and the other side is like "STOP IMPOSING FIFTEEN MINUTE WOKEISM CITY CAPITALISM ON US AND DIE ALREADY!"

You can't split the difference with a group whose entire idea of how good policy should even look anymore has degenerated into a frothy mass of "other people shouldn't have rights."

 

[Dancing Fool]

about ”Justice” Thomas… the Federalist Society is blight

Just to show that turnabout is fair play, Justice Abe Fortas pretty much had to resign in May 1969 because he’d accepted a $20,000 yearly retainer to provide legal advice to some businessman— and this while he was a Supreme Court Justice ! ! !

Abe Fortas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the liberal Fortas had stayed on the Court, we might well have had school busing in the 1970s. Or perhaps the better alternative of redrawing school lines. That way, you avoid the dynamic of “these other” kids coming to “our” schools. Instead, we’re all members of the district together and we’re going to have to learn to get along.

 

[Dancing Fool]

the ‘57 Civil Rights Act was incredibly watered down

But focusing on the Court, the perception of the Civil Rights Act is one of 3 things which make the Fall of 1957 just a golden opportunity.

Of their large docket of cases, they should have found a desegregation case and maybe even written “RIGHT NOW” in the decision.

The 3rd thing was almost too perfect, with the Soviet Sputnik satellite was lavishly covered in the news starting Friday, Oct. 4, 1957 — with even ham radio amateurs being able to pick up the steady “beep”of the world’s first artificial satellite — and the Supreme Court’s new term beginning on Monday, Oct. 7.

Equal teacher salaries [within a state] is really the golden path forward. Especially since we’re going to be increasing the math and science money anyway.

—> Sputnik going to be a topic of casual conversation among the Justices, just like the 1957 World Series between the Milwaukee Braves and the New York Yankees will be.

 

[Rafi_T]

But focusing on the Court, the perception of the Civil Rights Act is one of 3 things which make the Fall of 1957 just a golden opportunity.

Of their large docket of cases, they should have found a desegregation case and maybe even written “RIGHT NOW” in the decision.

The 3rd thing was almost too perfect, with the Soviet Sputnik satellite was lavishly covered in the news starting Friday, Oct. 4, 1957 — with even ham radio amateurs being able to pick up the steady “beep”of the world’s first artificial satellite — and the Supreme Court’s new term beginning on Monday, Oct. 7.

Equal teacher salaries [within a state] is really the golden path forward. Especially since we’re going to be increasing the math and science money anyway.

—> Sputnik going to be a topic of casual conversation among the Justices, just like the 1957 World Series between the Milwaukee Braves and the New York Yankees will be.

I’m a bit lost on this.

It also leads into my criticism of the SC. As Brown II showed when it said “with all deleitarte speed”, the court, even when liberal, is still quite conservative and as such, to get ideal outcomes, needs a radically different membership.

 

[Dancing Fool]

"Embracing tension" is basically a matter of trying to poke people with cognitive dissonance in hopes that something will crack.

I’ll go with this. And the United States political system has been in tough scapes before. Back in the 1950s, members of the John Birch society believed President Eisenhower was a “communist dupe” and that water fluoridation was a “communist plot.” And regarding race, some people believed blood banks should keep “black blood” separate from “white blood.” The truth is different and more complicated. We now know there are blood groups A, B, O, and AB, and that Rh factor can be either + or - .

I’m not saying “governing from the Center” works in all cases, or even that it should. I’m saying it’s an open field which has worked in many cases, and perhaps can in a surprising number of other cases.

We should split the public’s views by median, not mean. And therefore, citizens with extreme views are counted as 1, but not more than 1.

 

[Dancing Fool]

As Brown II showed when it said “with all deleitarte speed”, the court, even when liberal, is still quite conservative and as such, to get ideal outcomes, needs a radically different membership.

I think just more realistic and practical Justices may help. And this dimension might be even more important than the liberal-conservative dimension.

Another golden opportunity for the Court to roll forward might have been when new President Johnson put equal rights front and center in his first speech to Congress 5 days after President Kennedy was assassinated.

 

[Rafi_T]

Just to show that turnabout is fair play, Justice Abe Fortas pretty much had to resign in May 1969 because he’d accepted a $20,000 yearly retainer to provide legal advice to some businessman— and this while he was a Supreme Court Justice ! ! !

Abe Fortas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the liberal Fortas had stayed on the Court, we might well have had school busing in the 1970s. Or perhaps the better alternative of redrawing school lines. That way, you avoid the dynamic of “these other” kids coming to “our” schools. Instead, we’re all members of the district together and we’re going to have to learn to get along.

I get your point, but Fortas’ conflict of interest is nowhere near that of Thomas’. Fortas could simply recuse himself if any cases from that businessman came up, Thomas hasn’t, even when it comes to cases involving Jan 6/Fraudulent Elector scheme (which his wife was an active participant in).

Plus, Fortas would’ve made a great Chief Justice, can’t say the same for Thomas.

Finally, the controversy with Fortas came up because LBJ tried to replace him in an election year were he/HHH was super weak, and Nixon had a clear path to victory. If LBJ/HHH had won in ‘68, Fortas would’ve been Chief Justice, and we’d be talking about Justice Thornberry as well. (Possible Goldberg comes back once Black/John Marshall Harlan II die.)

(Remember, House Minority Leader Gerald Ford had spent a good amount of time trying to impeach O. Douglas.)

 

[Rafi_T]

I think just more realistic and practical Justices may help. And this dimension might be even more important than the liberal-conservative dimension.

Another golden opportunity for the Court to roll forward might have been when new President Johnson put equal rights front and center in his first speech to Congress 5 days after President Kennedy was assassinated.

From the wiki article on Brown v. Board II (III is even worse iIrc)

In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ordered the states to start trying to obey the Brown decision and de-segregate their schools. It ordered the states to start making plans about how they were going to integrate their schools.

However, the Court refused to order the schools to integrate right away, like the NAACP had wanted. It also did not set any clear deadline for when schools needed to be de-segregated. In the Court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the states should integrate "with all deliberate speed."

To many people, it was not clear exactly what this meant. It also meant that the Court was denying relief to the black students in the Brown lawsuits. As constitutional law scholar Steven Emanuel explains:

“

A plaintiff whose constitutional rights have been violated by state action would normally be entitled to immediate relief. But, apparently ... it feared the chaos and violence that might develop if attempts were made to carry out desegregation instantly[.]

”

Instead of ordering the states to de-segregate right away, the Court created a slower plan. It gave federal district courts the power to look after whether schools were de-segregating. Justice Warren wrote: "[These] courts will [make sure] that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start" toward obeying Brown.



It’s not about practicality, but about bravery, and doing what needs to be done. As Marshall said: "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

 

[Dancing Fool]

It’s not about practicality, but about bravery, and doing what needs to be done.

Yes indeed, the classic debate between . . .

Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) and John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

I go back and forth in this debate. I suspect you do as well. In fact, I suspect that these two guys! — even though they’re used as “placeholders” — went back and forth, too. At least in their personal lives.

At the end of the day, school desegregation needs to work. And I really think equal teacher salaries is the royal road forward.


* Back in the 1980s, when I took “Ethics” taught by the Philosophy Department, this debate made up 80% of the class

 

[Rafi_T]

View attachment 904180

Yes indeed, the classic debate between . . .

Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) and John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

I go back and forth in this debate. I suspect you do as well. In fact, I suspect that these two guys! — even though they’re used as “placeholders” — went back and forth, too. At least in their personal lives.

At the end of the day, school desegregation needs to work. And I really think equal teacher salaries is the royal road forward.


* Back in the 1980s, when I took “Ethics” taught by the Philosophy Department, this debate made up 80% of the class

I’d say when it comes to school desegregation, you have to start with a charted path and follow it through, even if it takes lying, cheating, and stealing to get there.

The Supreme Court should’ve given the immediate relief as requested by the NAACP (and that is precedent in all other cases).

Boosting teacher’s salaries, as good as a proposal that is, is an entirely legislative thing, and outside of the scope of de jute segregation and the law. (Though don’t get me wrong, I’m 1,000% in favor of Senator Sanders’ proposal to raise the baseline pay for teachers to $60K/yr nationwide, and an actual Prietos al at the time to improve schools would’ve helped as well.)

 

[Dancing Fool]

school desegregation, you have to start with a charted path and follow it through,

So, even my idea of the Supreme Court seeing the opportunity of 1957 — starting with Eisenhower sending the 101st Airborne to Little Rock — and the Court aggressively looking for cases with which to roll forward, may be in fact too late.

For starters, “Massive Resistance” led and championed by Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia may have already been entrenched, probably was.

 

[Rafi_T]

So, even my idea of the Supreme Court seeing the opportunity of 1957 — starting with Eisenhower sending the 101st Airborne to Little Rock — and the Court aggressively looking for cases with which to roll forward, may be in fact too late.

For starters, “Massive Resistance” led and championed by Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia may have already been entrenched, probably was.

Yeah, you have to attack it from all angles.

Kill the Byrd machine, get the Court to fully side with the NAACP, and get a fully pro-Civil Rights President (with the capacity to move Congress, especially the Senate) to act on it.

That or butterfly the 1883 Civil Rights Cases and keep the 1875 Civil Rights Act in place. (Also butterflies Plessy v. Ferguson if I’m not mistaken.)

 

[Dancing Fool]

That or butterfly the 1883 Civil Rights Cases and keep the 1875 Civil Rights Act in place. (Also butterflies Plessy v. Ferguson if I’m not mistaken.)

Okay, if I were to pick my top 3 on equal rights —

1) Northern troops during Reconstruction do not allow southern authorities to disarm freedmen,

2) Teddy Roosevelt doesn’t run as a “Bull Moose” candidate. President Taft comfortably wins re-election in 1912. We thereby avoid Woodrow Wilson, who both slid backwards on civil rights and over-sold World War I. Less disappointment. The damn Treaty of Versailles might still be punitive. But in most replays, the small, little Nazi Party never rises to any kind of power.

3) The Supreme Court follows up on their 1950 case Sweatt v. Painter about equal admissions in grad school, with one about equal college admission. And the Court instructs lower courts to attach monetary penalties for “less than a good faith effort.” And maybe this only passes with a 7-2 decision.

Meaning, Chief Justice Earl Warren doesn’t over-buy his 9-0 unanimous decision by watering-down the need to comply by the start of the next school year.

 

[Rafi_T]

Okay, if I were to pick my top 3 on equal rights —

1) Northern troops during Reconstruction do not allow southern authorities to disarm freedmen,

2) Teddy Roosevelt doesn’t run as a “Bull Moose” candidate. President Taft comfortably wins re-election in 1912. We thereby avoid Woodrow Wilson, who both slid backwards on civil rights and over-sold World War I. Less disappointment. The damn Treaty of Versailles might still be punitive. But in most replays, the small, little Nazi Party never rises to any kind of power.

3) The Supreme Court follows up on their 1950 case Sweatt v. Painter about equal admissions in grad school, with one about equal college admission. And the Court instructs lower courts to attach monetary penalties for “less than a good faith effort.” And maybe this only passes with a 7-2 decision.

Meaning, Chief Justice Earl Warren doesn’t over-buy his 9-0 unanimous decision by watering-down the need to comply by the start of the next school year.

I’d would also use the ones from my TL The American Civil War: The Rule of the Radical Republicans:

1) The 13th Amendment is the one proposed by Charles Sumner: All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave; and the Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry this declaration into effect everywhere in the United States.

2) The combination of the 14th and 15th Amendments. (They include the Ironclad Oath and the Wade-Davis Bill is approved requiring 50% of the states to sign loyalty pledges rather than 10% before they’re re-admitted.)

3) The Civil Rights Act of 1875 is passed in 1870 (when first proposed) and the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down thanks to Chief Justice Roscoe Conklin. (As well as President Grant forcefully enforcing it rather than passively accepting it.)

4) President Grant serves 5 terms (1865-1885).

 

[Dancing Fool]

President Grant serves 5 terms

too jarring to American politics