So what I'm getting from all this is that Buckley appears to be a moderate compared to Reagan OTL. Is that why Sandra Day O'Conner is not even considered for SCOTUS, because nominating her would be a major rocking of the boat?
If this is the case, I think the Republicans are quite certain to be facing a Democratic controlled House and Senate. The Republican Senate majority went away OTL after all, and Buckley's relative moderation will mean the Democrats will be all the more credible.
{EDIT--to reinforce my belief that a comprehensive strike down of Roe V Wade is not in the cards despite putting a conservative man in O'Connor's OTL place, consider this--if the Senate in particular is a bit more Democratic than OTL, will Buckley be able to put in Scalia at the next opportunity? Will he even want to? Without Scalia, perhaps the damage done versus OTL to feminist interests is offset and court outcomes might be much as OTL--a weaker "liberal" side on some issues offset by a weaker conservative one. And actually SDO'C was pretty broadly conservative herself OTL, and only on issues where she had a different perspective as a woman would she break left. On the whole, even if Clark himself is a fire-eater, without Scalia the court will be distinctly more moderate on average.}
Unfortunately I could not find out much in the way of speculation on what Clark would be like on SCOTUS. Most OTL attention on him is on his role in the White House after all, with little commentary on extrapolation from his California court record since OTL he wasn't a Court nominee. After all in California a strong liberal bloc, somewhat in disarray in the 1980s to be sure but increasingly assertive after reaching a nadir with Deukmejian's reelection, would tend to buffer any decisions Clark made and countermand them; on the US Court he might be decisive.
My guess is, comparable to O'Conner except on feminist issues, but if any thread author contrives to have Roe V Wade definitively and comprehensively overturned, I would feel compelled to watch closely what is deemed to happen next, and if it does not involve an effective feminist backlash of some kind that effectively restores abortion access in some form within a few years, I would probably call bullshit and, either with explanations or just walking away quietly, abandon the TL as lacking all credibility. I firmly believe that if sweeping and tight abortion restrictions were within the realm of the politically possible in the USA, we'd have seen the counteraction to RvW decades ago and it would stand today. I do not think it is ASB that a SCOTUS could arise that flat on repudiates RvW, but I do think that the reaction to that would be convulsive and major, and probably would destroy the US conservative coalition. So from my POV it might actually be a good thing to happen, leading to a better world in the long run, but I observe this thread is favored by a lot of conservatives, and I would caution that there is probably a reason that neither the Reagan, Bush I, nor Bush II ascendencies ever made push come to shove on this issue, and that the court justices involved have probably done their own political assessments and have some idea where the limits are.
So on feminist issues in general and probably other gender issues such as gay rights, I suppose the ATL SCOTUS will be distinctly harsher than OTL, and fairly subtle and peripheral, though effective, restrictions on abortion access may be worse than OTL, but Clark will either make judgements himself or listen to advice that actually striking down RvW would open Pandora's Box. Or he does shift the vote on some key case O'Conner held the line on OTL and hark what discord follows!
If this is the case, I think the Republicans are quite certain to be facing a Democratic controlled House and Senate. The Republican Senate majority went away OTL after all, and Buckley's relative moderation will mean the Democrats will be all the more credible.
{EDIT--to reinforce my belief that a comprehensive strike down of Roe V Wade is not in the cards despite putting a conservative man in O'Connor's OTL place, consider this--if the Senate in particular is a bit more Democratic than OTL, will Buckley be able to put in Scalia at the next opportunity? Will he even want to? Without Scalia, perhaps the damage done versus OTL to feminist interests is offset and court outcomes might be much as OTL--a weaker "liberal" side on some issues offset by a weaker conservative one. And actually SDO'C was pretty broadly conservative herself OTL, and only on issues where she had a different perspective as a woman would she break left. On the whole, even if Clark himself is a fire-eater, without Scalia the court will be distinctly more moderate on average.}
Unfortunately I could not find out much in the way of speculation on what Clark would be like on SCOTUS. Most OTL attention on him is on his role in the White House after all, with little commentary on extrapolation from his California court record since OTL he wasn't a Court nominee. After all in California a strong liberal bloc, somewhat in disarray in the 1980s to be sure but increasingly assertive after reaching a nadir with Deukmejian's reelection, would tend to buffer any decisions Clark made and countermand them; on the US Court he might be decisive.
My guess is, comparable to O'Conner except on feminist issues, but if any thread author contrives to have Roe V Wade definitively and comprehensively overturned, I would feel compelled to watch closely what is deemed to happen next, and if it does not involve an effective feminist backlash of some kind that effectively restores abortion access in some form within a few years, I would probably call bullshit and, either with explanations or just walking away quietly, abandon the TL as lacking all credibility. I firmly believe that if sweeping and tight abortion restrictions were within the realm of the politically possible in the USA, we'd have seen the counteraction to RvW decades ago and it would stand today. I do not think it is ASB that a SCOTUS could arise that flat on repudiates RvW, but I do think that the reaction to that would be convulsive and major, and probably would destroy the US conservative coalition. So from my POV it might actually be a good thing to happen, leading to a better world in the long run, but I observe this thread is favored by a lot of conservatives, and I would caution that there is probably a reason that neither the Reagan, Bush I, nor Bush II ascendencies ever made push come to shove on this issue, and that the court justices involved have probably done their own political assessments and have some idea where the limits are.
So on feminist issues in general and probably other gender issues such as gay rights, I suppose the ATL SCOTUS will be distinctly harsher than OTL, and fairly subtle and peripheral, though effective, restrictions on abortion access may be worse than OTL, but Clark will either make judgements himself or listen to advice that actually striking down RvW would open Pandora's Box. Or he does shift the vote on some key case O'Conner held the line on OTL and hark what discord follows!
Last edited:
