If it were otherwise

If the Supreme Court was liberal, would Senate Republicans have a problem with Obama naming Scalia's successor. To help you think this over, I will supply the one of my many Supreme Court TLs that gives us the most liberal Supreme Court. The first POD is in 1946, when Truman changes his mind about his pick for Chief Justice. He decides to keep Treasury Secretary Fred Vinson in the cabinet and nominate Attorney General Tom Clark instead. He wants to get rid of Clark and since Clark has good political skills, he can help with the bickering in the Supreme Court. in 1949, Truman choose for the court two Appeals Court judges: Sherman Minton replaced Frank Murphy and Peter Woodbury took the place of Wiley Rutledge. In 1953, the Court outlawed school segregation in Brown vs Board of Education. The multiple opinions invited further litigation. In 1955, Solicitor General Earl Warren joins the court to take the place of Robert Jackson. In December of that year, Warren writes a school desegregation opinion the entire court can agree on. Warren is praised for his political skill with his flexible deadline of All Deliberate Speed. In 1956, Eisenhower makes an election year compromise choice with Democrat and New Jersey Supreme Court Justice William Brennen to replace Sherman Minton. In 1957, Appeals Court Judge John Marshall Harlan II took Stanley Reed's place on the court. The next year Appeals Court Judges Charles Evans Whitaker took the seat of Harold Burton. In 1961, Earl Warren bored with his role as an Associate Justice, but not wanting to give school desegregation opponent Dwight Eisenhower another vacancy to fill resigned and gave John Kennedy his first Supreme Court pick. Kennedy choose Deputy Attorney General Byron White. The next year, Solicitor General Archibald Cox replaced Charles Whittaker and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg joined the court, replacing Felix Frankfurter. In 1965, Peter Woodbury retired and Johnson named his close friend Attorney Abe Fortas. Later that year LBJ convinced Arthur Goldberg to resign and become UN Ambassador. He was replaced with Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Justice. In 1967, Chief Justice Clark retired fearing conflict of interest after his son Ramsey Clark was named Attorney General. The Clark Court was remembered for its liberal decisions like Mapp vs Ohio, Engle vs Vitale, Baker vs Carr, Gideon vs Wainright, Escobedo vs Illinois Griswold vs Connecticut and Miranda vs Arizona. Amid charges of cronyism Johnson elevated Fortas to Chief Justice and named another friend, Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas. In 1969,it was revealed that Chief Justice Fortas had taken money from the foundation of Louis Wolfson, who would later be convicted of stock fraud. After pressure from the Nixon Justice Department, Fortas resigned and was replaced with Appeals Court Judge Warren Berger. In 1971, John Marsahll Harlan retired and was replaced by Appeals Court Judge Potter Stewart. Nixon had a much more frustrating time with his efforts to replace Hugo Black. The Senate rejected his first two picks Clement Haynesworth and G Harold Carswell. Warren Berger's friend Harry Blackmun won confirmation. In 1973, Blackmun authored the Row vs Wade decision that allowed for legal abortion in the first trimester. In 1975, Appeals Court Judge John Paul Stevens replaced William O Douglas. In 1978, the court would uphold the affirmative action plan in question in Bakke vs University of California. This decision inspired the Civil Rights Act of 1981, that outlawed quotas but allowed use of race in the selection process. Later in 1978, Homer Thornberry would retire and be replace by the first women Justice Shirley Hoffsteder. In 1985, Appeals Court Judge Antonin Scalia replaced Potter Stewart. In the Bowers vs Hardwick case of 1986, the court ruled that Sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Later that year, Vice President George HW Bush would cast the tie breaking vote that made Appeals Court Judge Robert Bork the new Chief Justice. In 1990, William Brennen would retire and by replaced by Appeals Court Judge David Souter. Bill Clinton would name four Supreme Court Justices. In 1993, Harry Edwards would replace Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsberg would replace Byron White and Bruce Babbit would take the place of Archibald Cox. In 1994, Stephen Breyer would replace Harry Blackmun. In 2000, the Supreme Court would play an important role in that year's presidential election. When the court's decision in Boy Scouts vs Dale required the Boy Scout's to obey the New Jersey anti Gay discrimination law, members of the religious right were angered. George W Bush was able to use the Supreme Court as an issue to inspire social conservative turnout. He was able to win the popular vote and the key states of Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Oregon and the election. Bush would become the first President since Andrew Johnson not to name a Supreme Court Justice. In the last year of his presidency the liberal court, in Heller vs District of Columbia ruled that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right of gun ownership. Barack Obama would name more Justices than any other President except Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington. In 2009. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomeyer replaced David Souter and former Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court Leah Sears replaced Harry Edwards. In 2010, Elena Kagan would take the place of John Paul Stevens and Diane Wood would take the place of Shirley Hoffsteder. In 2012 Jacqurline Nugyen Would become the new Chief Justice. During the Obama years, the court would reaffirm the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and 2012, In 2013, overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and uphold the Voting Rights Act. In 2015, the court legalized gay marriage. So what does Mitch McConnell think of Obama naming the new Supreme Court Justice ITTL?
 
You probably could have just left it at the question without engaging in the (increasingly implausible) scenario.

But it's an easy question. I would say that the Republicans would still try to delay Barack Obama or any Democrat the opportunity to appoint a supreme court justice in an election year, just as I suspect Democrats would attempt to prevent a Republican president from doing the same. Whether the Court is liberal or conservative, putting one of "your guys" on the bench has significant potential to change jurisprudence. This is true even if that individual will be a lone voice crying out in the wilderness on 95% of the cases heard by the Court. Those other 5%, where he or she could change a close outcome, would justify either party's leadership digging in to fight the President's nominee until after the election. It's tribalism at its finest.
 
Correct, Any opposition party will try and hold off a lame duck from placing another Justice on the court. While the President can nominate the Senate doesn't have to confirm. It happens all the time.
 
It happens all the time.[/QUOTE]

The only times I know of when the Senate has refused to approve a President's Supreme Court nominee are George Washington's recess appointee,I don't remember the name, in 1795, Abe Fortas in 1968, Haynesworth and Carswell in 1971 and Bork in. 1987.
 
The only times I know of when the Senate has refused to approve a President's Supreme Court nominee are George Washington's recess appointee,I don't remember the name, in 1795, Abe Fortas in 1968, Haynesworth and Carswell in 1971 and Bork in. 1987.

Off of the top of my head you've forgotten Douglas Ginsberg, who was nearly nominated by Reagan, and Harriet Miers during the administration of George W. Bush.

And there were more, according to Wikipedia (so consider the source when weighing the evidence):

Unsuccessful Nominations to the Supreme Court said:
As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful on at least the first try.

So then approximately 20% of all Supreme Court nominees have failed to make it to the bench. That's a pretty significant trend, and it doesn't even take into consideration potential nominees who were rejected before the president could make his nomination.

Point is that a party in control of the Senate is never going to make life easy on an outgoing president of the opposing political party, even if the stakes are seemingly low.
 
Off of the top of my head you've forgotten Douglas Ginsberg, who was nearly nominated by Reagan, and Harriet Miers during the administration of George W. Bush.

ITTL Reagan only gets two Supreme Court vacancies. So only the two favorites Bork and Scalia are chosen. George W Bush gets zero. So Harriet Miers is not chosen.
 
When the Massachusetts Supreme Court established gay marriage, they mentioned Lawrence vs Texas( The OTL Supreme Court decision that declared that sodomy laws were unconstitutional the year before. ) in their decision. ITTL do we get the same gay marriage revolution in the 80s, when the public would not have been ready for it. Do we get a constitution amendment establishing marriage as between one man and one women ITTL?
 
Top