Democratic 80s' effect on the Supreme Court

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 1973 and Souter, in 1990, turned out to be liberals.
So it's likely with HHH there would be no Blackmun or Stevens nominated
 
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.
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.
So if we assume that Democrats manage to keep OTL's pattern and win a third consecutive term in 1988 (before losing in 1992), that would mean at least three of the four Justices who OTL were appointed 1986 to 1991 will be appointed by a Democrat; if Burger manages to hold on, maybe the next Republican President gets another nominee.

As to White and Blackmun, can we safely assume they hold onto office for as long as possible as OTL? If so, I'd say we're trading five GOP appointments and two Democratic appointments, for cumulatively four GOP appointments and three Democratic ones; and considering that only two of those OTL five GOP appointments were Right Wing (with two being swing votes, and the other joining the liberals of the court), that may not change much the overall ideological composition of the court from 1994 to 2005.
 
So if we assume that Democrats manage to keep OTL's pattern and win a third consecutive term in 1988 (before losing in 1992), that would mean at least three of the four Justices who OTL were appointed 1986 to 1991 will be appointed by a Democrat; if Burger manages to hold on, maybe the next Republican President gets another nominee.

As to White and Blackmun, can we safely assume they hold onto office for as long as possible as OTL? If so, I'd say we're trading five GOP appointments and two Democratic appointments, for cumulatively four GOP appointments and three Democratic ones; and considering that only two of those OTL five GOP appointments were Right Wing (with two being swing votes, and the other joining the liberals of the court), that may not change much the overall ideological composition of the court from 1994 to 2005.

I think White and Blackmun would have retired earlier. In our timeline, both continued as Supreme Court Justices until a Democratic President was around. White was a rather conservative Democrat but still a Democrat and wanted to retire during a Democratic administration, so that his successor was nominated by a Democratic President. Blackmun wanted his successor to be pro-choice. However, some would argue that, in this timeline, the Republicans would be more neutral on abortion than in our timeline.

They'd win 1992 imo.

Do you mean the Democrats or the Republicans?
 
As to White and Blackmun, can we safely assume they hold onto office for as long as possible as OTL? If so, I'd say we're trading five GOP appointments and two Democratic appointments, for cumulatively four GOP appointments and three Democratic ones; and considering that only two of those OTL five GOP appointments were Right Wing (with two being swing votes, and the other joining the liberals of the court), that may not change much the overall ideological composition of the court from 1994 to 2005.

I don't really see any reason why White and Blackmun would hold on for as long as possible. I think in a politically favourable atmosphere they're more likely to retire before Brennan and Marshall.

I think if a Democrat is elected in 1980, and re-elected in 1984, then they'll get to fill Stewart's seat with pretty much whoever they like - assuming he dies around the same time he did IOTL - but beyond that it's murky and you're dealing with a lot of unknowns. Powell may go on longer, or he may not. The senate might flip in the second term, or it may not. Post-Bork nomination politics may creep in, or they may not. The Democratic appointees might behave predictably on the court, or they may not.

I think Stewart being replaced by a Democratic president would push the court in a more liberal direction for a while, but beyond that you're dealing with a world of unpredictability.
 
Last edited:
So we’ve talked a lot here about when vacancies would show up, but no real talk about who would fill them. So let me ask - who would Ford appoint if he got another chance to fill a SC seat? Who would be on the shortlist for a Democratic Administration in the 1980’s and early 90’s? And who might a Republican elected in 1992 consider?
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
If Potter Stewart retires earlier TTL, than the Court has roughly the same composition in 1986 as OTL; if his replacement is more Conservative than O’Connnor, Goldman would be 6-3. And by the time of Lopez, the Democratic Court will be, to some extent, counteracted by Republican appointments.

On McClesky and Casey, on the other hand, I think you’re right - assuming the former isn’t decided earlier, that is.
 
So we’ve talked a lot here about when vacancies would show up, but no real talk about who would fill them. So let me ask - who would Ford appoint if he got another chance to fill a SC seat? Who would be on the shortlist for a Democratic Administration in the 1980’s and early 90’s? And who might a Republican elected in 1992 consider?

If Potter Stewart retires earlier TTL, than the Court has roughly the same composition in 1986 as OTL; if his replacement is more Conservative than O’Connnor, Goldman would be 6-3. And by the time of Lopez, the Democratic Court will be, to some extent, counteracted by Republican appointments.

On McClesky and Casey, on the other hand, I think you’re right.

There's no reason to believe that Potter Stewart would retire earlier, in this timeline. He was more of a conservative than liberal Justice but he considered retiring in 1980, in our timeline, and only didn't do so in order not to cause controversy over whether a President should nominate a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. In addition, he only became eligible for full retirement benefits in 1980.
 
There's no reason to believe that Potter Stewart would retire earlier, in this timeline. He was more of a conservative than liberal Justice but he considered retiring in 1980, in our timeline, and only didn't do so in order not to cause controversy over whether a President should nominate a Supreme Court Justice in an election year.
I’m not necessarily saying he will; but I think at the very least, it’s possible enough for it to be worth talking about who Ford would nominate in that scenario.

Looking at the Wikipedia on Ford’s shortlist, I think the most likely looking names are Arlin Adams or Cornelia G Kennedy; Robert Bork being a distant possibility, in the event that Ford is feeling really ballsy (which, as you alluded, is unlikely). I think in the event that Stewart decides to try to leave in an election year (allowing at least the possibility of a Republican naming his successor), Ford probably goes with a safe bet like Kennedy.
 
There's no reason to believe that Potter Stewart would retire earlier, in this timeline. He was more of a conservative than liberal Justice but he considered retiring in 1980, in our timeline, and only didn't do so in order not to cause controversy over whether a President should nominate a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. In addition, he only became eligible for full retirement benefits in 1980.

If you're just going to lift what I've already said earlier in the thread then I'd appreciate an acknowledgement, or at least a friggin' like.
 
I, actually, planned to ask that in the original post but forgot to.
I honestly don’t have any ideas for this - literally the only name I could find Carter was considering (aside from a friend of his) was Shirley Hufstedler, who would be around 60 by the mid-80’s. And by the time of Clinton OTL, pretty much all the judges he considered for the Supreme Court had been appointed to the bench by Carter - which won’t be the case TTL. So I have literally no ideas here.
 
Top