President William Douglas

FDR had written that in 1944, he was choosing "Harry Truman or Bill Douglas" as VP. He obviously went with Truman, but what if he chose Douglas? Douglas was a very respected figure, Truman even offered him vp in 1948, but Douglas was also the furthest left SCOTUS Justice the US has ever had. He suspended the execution of the Soviet spies that sold the Atomic bomb plans to Stalin, was a prominent pre-Stonewall gay rights supporter, and even went as far as to say that nature such as trees should have standing to sue in court over their destruction. He also defended the IWW and opposed the Vietnam war. With the Republican supermajorities, I doubt that he would be able to get much done, but iirc, Truman went farther than not just Republicans, but most in his party in his Cold War hawkishness and helped the Cold War take shape to the level that it did. What would be the effects or achievements of a William O. Douglas Presidency, if FDR chose him for VP, and still died in 45?
 
Last edited:
FDR had written that in 1944, he was choosing "Harry Truman or Bill Douglas" as VP. He obviously went with Truman, but what if he chose Douglas? Douglas was a very respected figure, Truman even offered him vp in 1948, but Douglas was also the furthest left SCOTUS Justice the US has ever had. He suspended the execution of the Soviet spies that sold the Atomic bomb plans to Stalin, was a prominent pre-Stonewall gay rights supporter, and even went as far as to say that nature such as trees should have standing to sue in court over their destruction. He also defended the IWW and opposed the Vietnam war. With the Republican supermajorities, I doubt that he would be able to get much done, but iirc, Truman went farther than not just Republicans, but most in his party in his Cold War hawkishness and helped the Cold War take shape to the level that it did. What would be the effects or achievements of a William O. Douglas Presidency, if FDR chose him for VP, and still died in 45?

Douglas probably makes the same major foreign policy decisions that Truman did. He would be less confrontational with labor, which would probably benefit the Democrats in 1946. But I do think that the GOP would still regain both Houses.

Douglas apparently treated his clerks like garbage and he did not have very good relations with his fellow Justices. So I do not think he would be particularly successful working with Congress.

As for 1948, Douglas and Dewey were actually classmates at Columbia Law. They even wanted to start their own firm together. So 1948 may end up being a pretty civil election. Without Truman's no holds barred campaign style, I am not confident that the Democratic ticket would win.
 
I think that with Douglas as POTUS there is no Wallace Progressive candidacy but that either a) Thurmond draws considerably more support in the Upper South and maybe even the border states or b) Instead of the 'Dixiecrats' as we know them there is a broader movement of Southern and other conservative Democrats running a ticket featuring James Byrnes or Harry Byrd. This may well send the election to the House and Senate. I also think that without Truman's centrist stands and enthusiastic denunciations of the Do-Nothing Congress the GOP may have held thin majorities in both houses. Ah the butterflies, the butterflies!
 
As for 1948, Douglas and Dewey were actually classmates at Columbia Law. They even wanted to start their own firm together. So 1948 may end up being a pretty civil election.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson co-wrote the Declaration of Independence. But the 1796 election was not very civil.

Bill and Hillary Clinton were guests at Donald Trump's wedding to Melania. But the 2016 election was not civil at all.
 
Mr. Truman stroked up the Democratic turnout and in those days of straight ticket voting that was the main difference. I don't see Douglas animating the same surge in turnout and depending on if he can dampen centrist distrust at the convention. Of course he could pick Truman as his VP which would be great for party unity but would veep candidate Truman be as decisive as Give 'em Hell Harry the incumbent POTUS?
 
Mr. Truman stroked up the Democratic turnout and in those days of straight ticket voting that was the main difference. I don't see Douglas animating the same surge in turnout and depending on if he can dampen centrist distrust at the convention. Of course he could pick Truman as his VP which would be great for party unity but would veep candidate Truman be as decisive as Give 'em Hell Harry the incumbent POTUS?

I doubt that a substantial number of people would even pay attention to Truman as the VP nominee, let alone change their votes because of his presence on the ticket.

I think Douglas would probably govern as closely to FDR as possible. This would mean a more pro labor stance during the 1946 strike wave (so no threat to draft striking workers). However, if Douglas does not propose a loyalty oath program or use aggressive anti-Communist rhetoric like Truman then he would likely start as the underdog in 1948.
 
I consider this a major character flaw, as well as poor business, poor delegation, etc.

Do you happen to remember where you read this? [often I can’t remember where I read something! :p ]

"Once on the Supreme Court, Douglas was cantankerous, seeming to relish terrorizing his assistants and clerks. Douglas once said: "Law clerks are the lowest form of human life." On the bright side, as one Douglas clerk mentioned, "When you left the judge's office as a clerk, you were prepared for anything."

Source: https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-life-of-justice-douglas.html
 
I consider this a major character flaw, as well as poor business, poor delegation, etc.

Do you happen to remember where you read this? [often I can’t remember where I read something! :p ]
A lot about Douglas' late tenure on the Court, including his particularly contentious relationship with one of his clerks during the 1972 term, Carol Bruch, is described in the Bob Woodward book, The Brethren.
 
A lot about Douglas' late tenure on the Court, including his particularly contentious relationship with one of his clerks during the 1972 term, Carol Bruch, is described in the Bob Woodward book, The Brethren.
and back then, Carol could be the name of either a man or a woman. Shabby treatment or bullying behavior against a female employee seems worse, or at least more against the societal norm. I guess Bill Douglas could say he’s treating her the same (bad!) way he’s treating everyone else.

It hasn’t yet come up . . .

But I think it’s terrible to work young adults in either law or medicine monster hours, like 80+ hours a week. It destroys marriages and everything else. And of course it gives lower quality work to clients or patients. It would be the purest wishful thinking to think otherwise.
 
and back then, Carol could be the name of either a man or a woman. Shabby treatment or bullying behavior against a female employee seems worse, or at least more against the societal norm. I guess Bill Douglas could say he’s treating her the same (bad!) way he’s treating everyone else.

It hasn’t yet come up . . .

But I think it’s terrible to work young adults in either law or medicine monster hours, like 80+ hours a week. It destroys marriages and everything else. And of course it gives lower quality work to clients or patients. It would be the purest wishful thinking to think otherwise.
Well, Douglas did treat pretty much every clerk that way, male or female. In Carol's case, she stood her ground with him, which wound up being a mistake because she interpreted a Douglas apology as sarcasm. After that, he simply ignored her and worked through the other clerk and a male clerk who had been brought in to help with Douglas' punishing workload.

Indeed, while many Justices (such as Thurgood Marshall) simply told the clerks how they wanted the cases to come out and entrusted the writing to them (in fact Marshall instructed his clerks to just follow along with whatever Justice Brennan was going to do most of the time), Douglas was such a personally prolific writer that Harry Blackmun called him a "paper factory". Most of his clerks struggled to keep up with it and at the end of the day, Douglas was just a rather mean individual who preferred the solitude of nature to people. One of the few actual friends he ever made was Harry R. Truman, who is probably most well known today as the crotchety old man that refused the evacuation order when Mt. St. Helens blew and ended up entombing him and his 26 cats under the lava. Anyway, Truman was the owner of a lodge that Douglas frequented and their friendship formed when Truman once refused to rent a cabin to Douglas dismissing him as an "old coot", but when he learned who he was, he chased after Douglas and formed a friendship with him.
 
FDR had written that in 1944, he was choosing "Harry Truman or Bill Douglas" as VP. He obviously went with Truman, but what if he chose Douglas? Douglas was a very respected figure, Truman even offered him vp in 1948, but Douglas was also the furthest left SCOTUS Justice the US has ever had. He suspended the execution of the Soviet spies that sold the Atomic bomb plans to Stalin, was a prominent pre-Stonewall gay rights supporter, and even went as far as to say that nature such as trees should have standing to sue in court over their destruction. He also defended the IWW and opposed the Vietnam war. With the Republican supermajorities, I doubt that he would be able to get much done, but iirc, Truman went farther than not just Republicans, but most in his party in his Cold War hawkishness and helped the Cold War take shape to the level that it did. What would be the effects or achievements of a William O. Douglas Presidency, if FDR chose him for VP, and still died in 45?
I think that Douglas certainly became more "progressive" over the years. Early in his tenure he supported Korematsu, introduced the Eisenhower administration to Diem, and was a relatively standard New Dealer-- which was why the Democratic bosses in 1944 were willing to entertain him in the first place. Later on in his career he became much more progressive, becoming one of the foremost advocates of civil rights on the Court (largely after a visit to India, where he was asked why America tolerates the lynchings of the negroes), environmentalism, civil liberties, etc. Part of that was insularity on the Court combined with changing politics within the US; as Douglas became more liberal, the country was becoming more conservative, and his staunch opposition to judicial restraint in an era where many found the Warren Court to be overly progressive led to a lot of controversial actions.
 
(largely after a visit to India, where he was asked why America tolerates the lynchings of the negroes),
Valid question.

And the answer’s going to be something like: in the heat of passion, if no one is willing to come forward as a witness, etc, etc [even if various officials did often participate].

We could also ask, Why did judges allow convict leasing? And often for bullshit offenses such as vagrancy. This is a slow-motion injustice in which judges are centrally involved. And plus, it seems a huge betrayal of the goals of both the Civil War and of Reconstruction.
 
as Douglas became more liberal, the country was becoming more conservative,
I think the country was more liberal when it was mainly about economics, and less liberal when it was mainly about equal rights for black Americans [esp. from the 1966 election forward. Now, the Democrats still held the majority in both houses of Congress, but this was with the “Dixiecrats” from southern states. The American South was a 1-party region but in the D column]
 
Top