Democratic Eisenhower SCOTUS Nominations

If Eisenhower ran as a Democrat in 1952, who would he nominate to SCOTUS?

How would the court's ideological balance fare over time?
 
Well, Byron White might be the closest we have to a model of a Democratic SCOTUS judge from that era. He was one of JFK's appointees, and ended having a pretty conservative(ie. restrictive) approach to the courts' powers. However, I think this might have been a reaction on his part against the more expansionist SCOTUS during the New Deal, when a near-majority of the judges wanted to block progressive legislation put forward by Roosevelt.

Conversely, IOTL, Warren and Brennan were Ike's appointees, but my understanding is he didn't much care for their opinions. Not sure what sort of jurisprudence, if any, he was hoping to advance by putting them on the court.
 
in OTL, I think Eisenhower missed a significant opportunity in not putting his political capital behind Brown v. Board of Education, esp. in not playing the card that African-American soldiers and sailors had served honorably during WWII. He may have felt ambushed by a newly-appointed Earl Warren not giving him enough of a heads up.

in an ATL, maybe the psychology plays out differently and Eisenhower does put his political capital behind school desegregation.
 
Last edited:

bguy

Donor
Conversely, IOTL, Warren and Brennan were Ike's appointees, but my understanding is he didn't much care for their opinions. Not sure what sort of jurisprudence, if any, he was hoping to advance by putting them on the court.

OTL Eisenhower went with Brennan because he wanted to put a Catholic on the Supreme Court. A Democratic Eisenhower will be under similar pressure to appoint a Catholic (the Supreme Court having lost its last Catholic judge in 1949 with the death of Justice Murphy), so maybe Ike nominates New York District Attorney Frank Hogan or California Attorney General Pat Brown (both prominent Catholic lawyers with strong law and order credentials that would appeal to Ike.)

Otherwise what about Clark Clifford.
 
Anecdotes are dangerous to biographers and truth

Mistakes: When essential little stories are distorted, vast damage is done.


Baltimore Sun, September 07, 1997 | Theo Lippman Jr., SPECIAL TO THE SUN

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1997-09-07/news/1997250003_1_brennan-eisenhower-eisler

' . . . The two Brennan biographies that have appeared since his retirement in 1990 both give credence to the quote. In "A Justice for All" (Simon & Schuster, 1993), Kim Isaac Eisler writes that Eisenhower didn't actually say it in so many words but implied it in a 1957 conversation with retiring Justice Harold Burton.

'Burton kept a diary, and Eisler, who used no footnotes, said in his text that that was his source. But what Burton actually wrote was this: "[Eisenhower] expressed disappointed at the trend of decisions of Chief Justice and Brennan." Hardly the same things as "Two mistakes." . . . '
This 1997 Baltimore Sun article is saying that the supposed Eisenhower quote to the effect, I've made two mistakes and they're both on the Supreme Court, well, that quote may not quite be the case.

On page 2 of this article, it says Eisenhower barely mentions Brennan in his memoirs. And the Stephen Ambrose biography of Ike talks about Earl Warren, but Brennan not at all.

*in the Ambrose biography, the former president does refer to "that dumb son of a bitch Earl Warren"
 
Last edited:
OTL Eisenhower went with Brennan because he wanted to put a Catholic on the Supreme Court. . .
For political reasons to help with the 1956 election

(giving Bill Brennan a recess appointment to the Court less than a month before the election; and frankly, I'm not sure what a recess appointment to the Court is, nor the significance of it, maybe that Eisenhower could have waited if he wanted to)

Dwight D. Eisenhower very much a human being and certainly not perfect.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1997-09-07/news/1997250003_1_brennan-eisenhower-eisler/2

This same Baltimore Sun article (page 2) is saying President Eisenhower wanted a nominee who was relatively young (Brennan was 50), who was a state court judge with a good administrative and procedural record, and who was a Democrat, a Catholic, and a Northeasterner.

What they didn't look at was placement on the liberal-conservative spectrum. And Brennan was liberal as a state judge and remained liberal as a Supreme Court Justice. Meaning, it should not have been a surprise.
 
Top