Over on the "What Happen to Richard Nixon if he loses in 68" thread, some one pointed out that "Nixon wanted to be a supreme court justice as a young adult. just throwing that out there. "
Harriet Miers (Center-Right): Appointed to the Texas Supreme Court by Governor Bush in 1995 (This seat went to Priscilla Owen, now an appellate judge for the Fifth Circuit, IOTL), she is able to build up a strong enough judicial record to get her confirmed.
Merrick Garland (Center-Left): With both Miers, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor serving on the Supreme Court, President Obama faces less pressure to nominate a woman for John Paul Stevens' seat, and goes with Garland.
Thomas Hardiman (Right): Nominated by President Jeb Bush (who narrowly defeated Donald Trump in the 2016 primaries after receiving endorsements from a number of religious right figures), to fill the seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia, following the refusal of Senate Republicans to hold a vote on President Obama's nomination of Jane L. Kelly.
Amul Thapar (Right): Nominated by President Bush to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, the first Asian-American justice.
Nice list! However, I would think (at least in my opinion) that Jane Kelly would at least get a hearing. Jane Kelly was someone who Chuck Grassley, then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, highly praised when Obama first nominated her in 2013 for a Circuit Court position. She was confirmed 96-0 and was seen as someone who was a consistently bipartisan, truly moderate judge. A lot of people would put pressure on Grassley to give her a hearing given the fact that he so highly praised her. Whether or not she gets confirmed is another story altogether.
I could see her getting a hearing but not a vote - If McConnell had scheduled a vote, it would have put alot of senators up for reelection in a bad position.
I mean, the best they could do is reject her nomination. Then whoever the incoming Republican President nominates wouldn’t be seen as stealing the seat. Again, it would also depend on which Senators cross over and vote yes. I could see Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mark Kirk voting yes, and maybe Lindsey Graham.
Out of curiosity, why would Powell nominate Elizabeth Warren? Did she remain a moderate-to-liberal Republican in TTL? (And I assume you do mean Colin Powell, correct?)![]()
(POD: The Gulf War drags on for longer, giving Bush a "rally-round-the-flag" effect. Events proceed from there.)
![]()
(POD: The Gulf War drags on for longer, giving Bush a "rally-round-the-flag" effect. Events proceed from there.)
Out of curiosity, why would Powell nominate Elizabeth Warren? Did she remain a moderate-to-liberal Republican in TTL? (And I assume you do mean Colin Powell, correct?)
Cool lineup, although I do have to ask why Powell would appoint Elizabeth Warren? Also, what would the conservative and liberal wings look like on this Court?
Ok. So an earlier, more effective version of Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism?"It is Elizabeth Warren, who ITTL remained a Republican (the Quayle administration pushed for some of her proposed bankruptcy reforms as part of an effort for a "kinder, gentler conservatism") and was able to get through the Senate by way of a lot of horse-trading on the part of Colin Powell's administration.
The conservative wing is made up of Chief Justice Jones, Justice Thomas, Justice Luttig, and Justice Sykes, while Justices Warren, Lessig, and Sotomayor make up the liberal wing. Callahan and Sandoval are the court's swing votes, but both of them are significantly more conservative than liberal.
More of a continuation of the first Bush's similar efforts - just as Clinton felt the pressure to pass "tough-on-crime" measures as a perceived liberal, Quayle (and Bush before him) wanted to break the "heartless" line of attacks against Republicans. It had mixed success.Ok. So an earlier, more effective version of Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism?"
As I said in the other thread (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/dbwi-douglas-ginsburg’s-nomination-withdrawn.463991/#post-18629077) Ginsburg's nomination had all but collapsed, and Janice Rogers Brown is way too extreme to pass muster with the closely divided Senates of the early 2000s, particularly for as symbolic a role as CJ. (In Jan Crawford Greenburg's memorable phrase, she was 'thermonuclear') Edith Jones' nomination would also have been extremely problematic.
Changed Douglas Ginsburg and Edith Jones with Bill Wilkins and Clarence Thomas. However, I feel that Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination might slip through with a few changes, even as I see her judicial philosophy as far too extreme. For example, you could have a few more Republican Senators win re-election in 2000, preferably the ones that came within less than 3% of winning (Slade Gorton, John Ashcroft, Bill McCollum. Maybe Rod Grams, but not William Roth). Plus, you could either have the Gang of 14 form earlier or have Trent Lott use the nuclear option. However, the vote would definitely be close.