Democratic 80s' effect on the Supreme Court

Say, that, Gerald Ford wins in 1976 and a Democrat wins in 1980, leading to Democrats ruling in the 80s.
What would this timeline's U.S. Supreme Court look like? It would be much more liberal than our timeline's. Potter Stewart would, doubtless, still retire in 1981, because he wanted to spend more time with his grandchildren and to retire while was still in good health. Would Chief Justice Warren Burger still retire in 1986 because of the constitution's bicentennial celebrations or would he continue as Chief Justice until a Republican President was around? Regardless, in this timeline, Rehnquist would almost certainly never become Chief Justice and, thus, Scalia would almost certainly never join the Court. Lewis F. Powell, Jr. would almost certainly still retire in 1987 because of his declining health. William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall would almost certainly also retire during this timeline's Democratic 80s. Brennan's retirement wouldn't affect the ideological composition of the Supreme Court compared to our timeline but Marshall's would.
Byron White and Harry Blackmun may retire earlier, too, but those retirements wouldn't affect the ideological composition of the Supreme Court compard to our timeline.
Off the top of my mind, one important case that would go the other way in this timeline would be Bowers v. Hardwick.
Thoughts?
 
Stewart would likely retire before 1980 while Ford was still in office, so that'll still be a conservative replacement. As for the others, as is the case with HHH winning in 1968, you'd be looking at generational liberal control over the Supreme Court, at least until the '90s.
 
Stewart would likely retire before 1980 while Ford was still in office, so that'll still be a conservative replacement. As for the others, as is the case with HHH winning in 1968, you'd be looking at generational liberal control over the Supreme Court, at least until the '90s.

I'm not sure, that, Stewart would retire during the Ford administration. He may have been more of a conservative than liberal justice but, in our timeline, he considered retiring in 1980, while Carter was President, and only didn't do so because he didn't want to stir up controversy over whether a President should nominate Supreme Court Justices in an election year.
I think he would retire in 1981, like in our timeline. What do you think?
I'm more uncertain about Chief Justice Warren Burger. In our timeline, he retired in 1986, because of the constitution's bicentennial celebrations, but he only died in 1995. Would he still retire because of the constitution's bicentennial celebrations or would he continue as Chief Justice until a Republican President was around?
Another question: What people may be nominated by the Democratic President to fill the vacancies, in this timeline?
 
Last edited:
The question is, what kind of Democrat is President?

If it's Lloyd Bentsen, for example, we're going to get neoliberal centrism.
If it's Jerry Brown, expect lots of social liberalism but also a shift towards balanced budgets and some deregulation.
It it's Ted Kennedy, expect liberalism.
If it's Henry Jackson, I'd expect liberal judges who are a bit conservative on stuff like civil rights.
I'm not sure about Hugh Carey. Carey seems like a strong 1980 contender.
 
The question is, what kind of Democrat is President?

If it's Lloyd Bentsen, for example, we're going to get neoliberal centrism.
If it's Jerry Brown, expect lots of social liberalism but also a shift towards balanced budgets and some deregulation.
It it's Ted Kennedy, expect liberalism.
If it's Henry Jackson, I'd expect liberal judges who are a bit conservative on stuff like civil rights.
I'm not sure about Hugh Carey. Carey seems like a strong 1980 contender.

I don't think Bentsen has any chance to win the Democratic presidential nomination on 1980. His 1976 campaign was an utter failure, he was too conservative for the Democrats' taste and the Democrats would be unwilling to nominate a Southern moderate, again, after Carter's defeat.
Ted Kennedy wouldn't run. In our timeline, he only ran because of Carter. In addition, there's the Chappaquidick incident wrecking his chances.
I think Jerry Brown was a too strange figure to ever win the Democratic presidential nomination.
Scoop Jackson wasn't conservative on civil rights, he was conservative on law and order and busing.
Regardless, considering that the neoliberal centrist Bill Clinton nominated the very liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, I don't see why a Democratic President in the 80s wouldn't do the same.
 
Stewart would likely retire before 1980 while Ford was still in office, so that'll still be a conservative replacement.

Stewart only became eligible for full retirement benefits in 1980, and given the aversion justices had - and have - to retiring in an election year, something Stewart certainly shared, it's unlikely he'll retire any earlier than he did IOTL.
 
. . . William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall would almost certainly also retire during this timeline's Democratic 80s. Brennan's retirement wouldn't affect the ideological composition of the Supreme Court compared to our timeline but Marshall’s would. . .
I don’t quite get this, as I think Marshall respected Brennan and often voted with him.

And on the two-dimensional spectrum, both were on the liberal side (obviously, I think there are real problems with the two-dimensional spectrum!)
 
I don’t quite get this, as I think Marshall respected Brennan and often voted with him.

And on the two-dimensional spectrum, both were on the liberal side (obviously, I think there are real problems with the two-dimensional spectrum!)

You misinterpreted what I wrote. In our timeline, Brennan was succeeded by Souter, another liberal, while Marshall was succeeded by Thomas, a conservative and his polar opposite. In this timeline, both would be succeeded by liberals.
 
With a different lineup:

How different does Citizens United (2010) go?

And some less publicized cases since the 2000s that corporations making a condition of “binding arbitration” for either customers and/or employees is just fine. Which is example of corporations getting more power, you can’t even sue the damn things.
 
I think Bush, Sr., who appointed Souter, expected a largely conservative Justice.

Yes, but that isn't, really, relevant to what I wrote. George H.W. Bush expected Souter to be a conservative but he turned out to be a liberal, just, like, his predecessor, Brennan.
His other nominee, Thomas, was, indeed, a staunch conservative and the polar opposite of his predecessor, Marshall.
In this timeline, though, Marshall would also be succeeded by a liberal.
 
Brennan won't retire until his health breaks. He wanted to go on and on and on, and regretted being 'forced off' the court when he was IOTL. (He was 84!)

Marshall's health was pretty appalling, and he could conceivably have been forced to stand down, or even died, as early as under Carter IOTL. But again, he had a limpit-like attachment to remaining on the court - he stated publicly he wanted to die on the court, and won't be in any hurry to retire, particularly if there's a Democratic president in office. A two-term Democrat is going to make these two less likely to retire early, not more.

It's really not as simple as 'President of this or that party is in office, justice stands down around the time they did IOTL' as people like to assume in these threads. It's more complex than that. I think it's possible if a Democrat wins in 1980, they might end up filling Stewart's seat, but neither of Marshall or Brennan's.
 
Last edited:
Brennan won't retire until his health breaks. He wanted to go on and on and on, and regretted being 'forced off' the court when he was IOTL. (He was 84!)

Marshall's health was pretty appalling, and he could conceivably have been forced to stand down, or even died, as early as under Carter IOTL. But again, he had a limpit-like attachment to remaining on the court - he stated publicly he wanted to die on the court, and won't be in any hurry to retire, particularly if there's a Democratic president in office. A two-term Democrat is going to make these two less likely to retire early, not more.

It's really not as simple as 'President of this or that party is in office, justice stands down around the time they did IOTL' as people like to assume in these threads. It's more complex than that. I think it's possible if a Democrat wins in 1980, they might end up filling Stewart's seat, but neither of Marshall or Brennan's.

Then, I think they will still retire at the same time as in our timeline. However, due to the prosperity of the 80s, it's likely that whatever Democrat was Vice-President from 1981-1989 would be elected President in 1988 and he would nominate Brennan and Marshall's successors. As for the Democratic President from 1981-1989, he would nominate Stewart and Powell's successors. What about Chief Justice Warren E. Burger? In your opinion, would he still retire in 1986, for the Constitution's bicentennial celebrations, or would he continue as Chief Justice until a Republican President was around? After all, in our timeline, he only died in 1995.
 
Last edited:
Then, I think they will still retire at the same time as in our timeline. However, due to the prosperity of the 80s, it's likely that whatever Democrat was Vice-President from 1981-1989 would be elected President in 1988 and he would nominate Brennan and Marshall's successors. As for the Democratic President from 1981-1989, he would nominate Stewart and Powell's successors. What about Chief Justice Warren E. Burger? In your opinion, would he still retire in 1986, for the Constitution's bicentennial celebrations, or would he continue as Chief Justice until a Republican President was around? After all, in our timeline, he only died in 1995.

I don't think Burger or Powell would retire when they did IOTL, under a two-term Democrat. Burger certainly wouldn't, Powell is more of a question mark, but I'd say about 70-30 against. He wasn't in a huge hurry to retire IOTL, and was very equivocal about retirement. I think he'd at least wait until the outcome of the 88 election.
 
I don't think Burger or Powell would retire when they did IOTL, under a two-term Democrat. Burger certainly wouldn't, Powell is more of a question mark, but I'd say about 70-30 against. He wasn't in a huge hurry to retire IOTL, and was very equivocal about retirement. I think he'd at least wait until the outcome of the 88 election.

Powell did discuss a lot with his family regarding whether to retire or not but he also said that for him, age 80 suggested retirement and his health, though not very bad, was in decline and made him miss some Supreme Court cases, read https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/0...-a-surprise-move-announced-his/6614551678400/. I'm inclined to think he would still retire in 1987 and, if he didn't, he would almost certainly retire during the next administration, which is likely to also be Democratic because of the prosperity of the 80s.
Also, it should be noted that while Powell was nominated by Nixon and a mostly conservative Justice, he was a registered Democrat.
 
Last edited:
As for the others, as is the case with HHH winning in 1968, you'd be looking at generational liberal control over the Supreme Court, at least until the '90s.

Don't forget that some Judges aren't as Liberal or Conservative as they were during confirmation, once they get on the Bench.
 
Don't forget that some Judges aren't as Liberal or Conservative as they were during confirmation, once they get on the Bench.

But, the Democrats have better luck with their Supreme Court nominees than the Republicans. To find a Democratic Supreme Court nominee that turned out to be conservative, you need to go back to Byron White, in 1962. Meanwhile, after that, 3 Republican nominees: Blackmun, in 1970, Stevens, in 1975, and Souter, in 1990, turned out to be liberals.
 
Last edited:
With a different Chief Justice, the choice of cases would be different, but the same general concepts may still be debated. First and Fourth amendment, interstate commerce clause, and in general death penalty cases were common in the 80s and early 90s.

Bowers v. Hardwick
(1986): likely reversed
Goldman v. Weinberger (1986): could go either way, but could see allowing religious headware in the military
McCleskey v. Kemp (1986): racial discrimination could reverse death penalty earlier
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): likely more pro-choice decision, would see less loophole and state rollbacks since then to current date
United States v. Lopez (1995): Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 likely upheld
 
Powell did discuss a lot with his family regarding whether to retire or not but he also said that for him, age 80 suggested retirement and his health, though not very bad, was in decline and made him miss some Supreme Court cases, read https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/0...-a-surprise-move-announced-his/6614551678400/. I'm inclined to think he would still retire in 1986 and, if he didn't, he would almost certainly retire during the next administration, which is likely to also be Democratic because of the prosperity of the 80s.
Also, it should be noted that while Powell was nominated by Nixon and a mostly conservative Justice, he was a registered Democrat.

I suspect he'd probably end up retiring some time after 88, whatever the outcome there. There was certainly a partisan quality to his considerations of retirement IOTL and he didn't much want to retire under a Liberal Democrat - I wouldn't read too much into a southerner of this era being a Democrat. He'd probably feel more comfortable retiring under a moderate or someone who had put a moderate onto the court, as Reagan had - albeit inadvertently - done with O'Connor. So what type of Democratic president was in office would probably inform things.
 
Last edited:
Top