New Deal Coalition Retained: A Sixth Party System Wikibox Timeline
Hey, America survived President Wallace. It'll survive Justice Schlafly.Schlafly on the Supreme Court?
Making Schlafly a SCOTUS Justice seems like its entire purpose would be to provoke this kind of reaction.
That's a good point. It's entirely possible this is related to the Equal Rights Amendment, and Schlafly's role in it.
You know me guys, I like hitting normally dystopian archetypes, which end up being alright in the end
I expect Roy Cohn to be Speaker when Bill Brock retires.You know me guys, I like hitting normally dystopian archetypes, which end up being alright in the end
Since a Speaker's main job is to whip votes, Cohn would be the perfect speaker
Reagan’s Second Term
“Let’s go big.”
-Gerald Ford-
“Let’s go big.”
-Gerald Ford-
As 1980 shifted into 1981, and people across the nation celebrated the New Year, the federal government released the 1980 Census. The results signaled a new era in the American republic. The population had increased by a significant thirteen percent to a cumulative total of 247,782,135 persons. New York was the largest city, while Los Angeles overtook Chicago as the second largest and Houston barely edged out Detroit as the fifth largest (Detroit grew thanks to the Reagan boom, but most of the massive growth that compared to Houston was concentrated in the suburbs). According to racial demographics – the census created a new category, Spanish-American – the results were staggering to demographic observers, the outcome of the Indian Diaspora and the Cultural Revolution/Jiang Qing’s expulsions becoming known:
· White: 80.0%
· Black: 10.7%
· Spanish-American: 4.2%
· Asian/South Asian: 4.0%
· Other: 1.1%
Ronald Wilson Reagan was a man with a mandate. Reelected in the largest landslide since FDR in 1936, equipped with massive congressional majorities and a strong approval rating, the President possessed immense political capital for his second term and was determined to use it before he inevitably lost it. In a pre-swearing in meeting of the senior cabinet, Reagan and Vice President Ford reiterated their desire to “go big” in terms of legislation. They would seek consensus across the aisle, but informed Speaker Brock and Majority Leader Murphy that they were expecting to play hardball if need be. Congressional leadership understood, and planned accordingly.
To avoid major fights and public relations defeats (even with the GOP supermajorities), Reagan, Ford, and the rest of his team decided to pursue the bipartisan and consensus legislation first. Talks between Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Senator Larry MacDonald (D-GA), and Representative George W. Bush (R, TX-18) had resulted in a proposal to reorganize the United States Military and Defense Department according to recommendations made by the Webb Commission after problems and military SNAFUs during the Nicaraguan Civil War – the legislation would have created a Joint General Staff Council headed by one Five Star officer and comprised of him and the other service heads, designated to develop military strategy and advise the President and SecDef on war policy. Actual command would trickle down from the National Command Authority to the actual Army and Fleet commanders in the field. The bill was endorsed by Secretary Teller and the Service Chiefs, and the house and senate leadership of both parties were committed to its passing. It passed the House 349-21 and the Senate 95-2, Reagan signing it into law in March 1981.
Efforts were also made on a broad reform of tax rates. Meeting with leaders of both parties (including inviting Progressives like Senator Leahy and Congressman John Anderson), Reagan sought a consensus compromise on the issue that could please a wide majority of congress rather than forcing through a bill on Republican votes alone – though all knew he and the leadership were willing to do it. With that threat hanging over everyone, progress on the reform was promising and officials were confident it would be ready by June.
With these bipartisan victories on his belt, Reagan hoped to use the momentum to push for the legislative holy grail, amending the constitution with several priorities of his. He had the will, had the popular support – most likely – and was confident in having the votes. However, national attention and political focus would soon shift to the Supreme Court, halting any further legislative action for the time being.
---------------------------
California’s Briggs initiative had a long and complicated judicial history following its passage in 1978. Banning the hiring of homosexuals in public schools, numerous challenges were filed in both state and federal courts to both restrict it and outright eliminate it. The first major challenges to reach their conclusions were two decisions by the California Supreme Court. In one decision Chief Justice Roger Traynor limited the Briggs Initiative (a constitutional amendment) to “Positions that are involved in teaching or that involve educational contact with students.” Administrative or non-educational jobs weren’t affected by the Initiative. Second, another ruling by Justice Dan Lungren extended the Initiative’s reach to both sexes.
The federal suits were far more watched by the general public, sought to strike the Initiative down on 14th Amendment grounds. Additionally, while most proponents in other states were waiting for the court cases to conclude, the state of Georgia had passed an even more wide ranging ban regarding several different government positions. As a result, two major lawsuits proceeded to the Circuit courts: Klein v. Fowler in the 4th and Milk v. Deukmejian in the 9th. The result was a split decision, the 9th Circuit striking down California’s law while the 4th Circuit affirmed Georgia’s. Granting certorai, the Supreme Court decided to argue both cases.
The victory for gay rights groups was coupled with a stinging defeat. Announced right after was the decision in Milk v. Deukmejian. After his concurrence in Klein, Justice Meredith took the opposite approach in Milk, writing for the majority including Dewey, White, Carswell, Baxley, and Burger. The California Briggs Initiative, unlike that in Georgia, was not discriminatory under the 14th Amendment due to its narrowed scope. Meredith stated that the focus on “one specific profession in the Government platter of offered employment” did not show a broad pattern of discrimination. “A gay or lesbian individual could still find employment in any other government employment, and the law of California would protect him from being asked about his or her sexual predilections.” The restrictions imposed by the law counted as something concerning fitness for the job, and although he disagreed with legislation he believed the state had the power to decide the opposite for reasoning not grounded in arbitrary notions. “One cannot call it discrimination to prevent a person bound in a wheelchair from taking a job as a construction worker. I disagree with the conclusion that a homosexual individual is not fit for teaching impressionable minds, but this is a decision best left to the democratic process.” Justice Dewey, joined by Chief Justice Bork, wrote a concurrence stating that the California’s Supreme Court limitation of the Initiative convinced him to vote to uphold. Had the law applied to all jobs in schools rather than just to teachers, he might have gone the other way. Justice Marshall and Stewart’s dissents went with the same reasoning in the majority in Klein.
The backlash was swift. Social conservatives saw this as a massive win despite the Georgia statute’s defeat (most of them weren’t thrilled at the scope of that law). Televangelist Pat Robertson, the son of a Democratic Senator himself, praised the decision in announcing his run for Senate as a Democrat against freshman John Warner (R-VA). Sam Yorty and Barry Goldwater Jr. claimed “Democracy won” and George Wallace stated “The will of the Court must be respected.” However, liberal groups were even more vociferous in their opposition. Jerry Brown was “greatly disappointed,” while Ramsay Clark called it a “Black stain upon the republic.” Protests took to the streets, with many justices burned in effigy. Justice Dewey got much of the heat – previously a gay rights icon for the decision striking down sodomy laws in Henry, he was called a turncoat, Benedict Arnold, or Hanoi Jane by many, activist Gloria Steinem labeling him “Worse than Hitler.”
His health not being the best for the past few years – and considered the most likely retirement prospect of all the members of the court since John Marshall Harlan died nearly a decade before – Dewey took a three week sabbatical to his resort home in Palm Beach, Florida to recuperate with his second wife. Justices Brennen, Stewart, and Burger, whom he was closest to on the Court, all wished him well and recommended he retire. Dewey demurred, promising to think it over while resting in the Florida sun. His wife would later say he planned to wait until the current case load was completed before finally retiring after a life in the spotlight.
Reagan was faced with his third vacancy to fill, and unlike the other two he was boxed in by a campaign promise – to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court. There weren’t many candidates, unfortunately due to the cadre of woman lawyers being appointed to high courts being rather sparse until recently. The President’s advisors were split on who to choose. Gerald Ford suggested Deputy Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole, White House Counsel Edwin Meese pushed for District Judge Carol Mansmann, and Attorney General Brooke thought Arizona Attorney General Sandra Day O’Connor was the best choice. Reagan assessed his options at Camp David.
In the end, Chief of Staff Dick Cheney came up with who Reagan would eventually choose, given to him from his friend Illinois Governor Donald Rumsfeld. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Phyllis Schlafly.
Aside from the nomination of John Rarick – which was opposed strenuously due to the special circumstances of his divisiveness and the Wallace Court expansion scheme, Bill Baxley seen as more consensus choice – judicial nominees had a longstanding tradition of presidential deference attached to them. They weren’t politicized, and the Senate largely only inquired into the temperament and qualifications of the nominees. Opposition to Schlafly from many interest groups and advocates, however, was fierce. Feminist organization, still seething over the defeat of the ERA, attacked her nomination intensely. They were joined by the ACLU and other liberal groups, who put immense pressure on them. The Eastern Establishment, noting her advocacy against President Rockefeller during the 1964 primaries, also opposed her and managed to convince many moderate Republicans (and Independent Joe Biden) to oppose her nomination.
However, the sheer size or the Republican majority and the support of Strom Thurmond and the right-wing of the Democratic caucus in the senate killed the opposition before it could form. Schlafly’s hearings were contentious, the nominee calmly debating judicial theory with the Senators in a move breaking with that of previous nominees (though James Meredith had been famously acerbic toward his critics). Senator Medgar Evers, who had been given a plum spot on the Judiciary Committee, defended her nomination, convincing a skeptical NAACP to endorse Schlafly’s confirmation. Even with the opposition, she managed to pass the senate 63-33 and make history as the first woman on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Conservatives and southerners hailing Schlafly’s appointment as the final cementing of the first judicially restrained SCOTUS since Willis van Devanter had retired and broke up the Four Horsemen opposing FDR’s policies. Bill Baxley always had been moderate on economic regulatory issues, but the replacement of Dewey gave a solid six vote majority: Bork, Stewart, Burger, Carswell, Meredith, and now Schlafly. However, the Democratic support of Schlafly (mostly by Minority Leader Thurmond, Helms, Stennis, Maddox, and Exon) had been the final straw for many on the left of both parties. It was increasingly obvious that the minaprogressives and social liberals had no home in either major party. It was not a question of if it would boil over any more, but now when it would boil over.
While I have approved of much of Reagan's regime so far, I think that Reagan did something that was needlessly controversial by nominating Schlafly, alienating some moderate Republicans (not to mention the liberals) that would have likely backed him any other way. In terms of the Supreme Court rulings regarding the LGBT cases, its regrettable that the California law was declared constitutional, but once again, I judge it by the standards of the time.
Should have gone with Sandra Day O'Connor or Elizabeth Dole. Then again, Reagan did promise to go big. Lets hope it doesn't end up biting him, and the country, in the ass.
Should have gone with Sandra Day O'Connor or Elizabeth Dole. Then again, Reagan did promise to go big. Lets hope it doesn't end up biting him, and the country, in the ass.
Bulldoggus
Banned
Speaking of which, I could see Silber as a Gingrich-esqe speaker of the house. A rowdy backbencher nobody listens to until he shocks everybody by bringing his party to the promised land.
I think the Progressives are going to fall into the same trap the OTL McGovernites ran into- white liberals alone can't win an election, so outside of really liberal states the Progressives are never going to get much of the vote.
A lot of the Progressive base is also composed of rural La Follette-types
I'm sorry, I have to call BS on this one. Detroit had a shrinking population since its peak in the 1950 Census IOTL. There's no amount of economic boom that reverses a trend like that.
Don't be scared. Schlafly will basically be Scalia (may he rest in peace) in a dress.
I feel like the more conservative justices, at least one of them should've said it was under Privileges & Immunities, not Due Process.