Sony v CCS ('the Betamax case') was another tight-run thing, a 5-4 decision where the other side started out with the majority and lost it during the opinion-writing stage. A world in which anything that records video can and will be outlawed looks a lot different than ours, no?
Supreme Court Cases as PoDs
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
Paul V McNutt
Banned
There is always Bush vs Gore.
2001 - 2009 Al Gore
2009 - 2013 Mitt Romney
2013 - Barack Obama
2001 - 2009 Al Gore
2009 - 2013 Mitt Romney
2013 - Barack Obama
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I assumed that McCain would have been the unsuccessful Republican nominee in 2004. Since McCain would not be running In 2008, I saw Romney winning the bulk of his support.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Which Justice would be most likely to vote the other way? Kennedy (who wrote the OTL opinion)? And what kind of effect would overturning a ban on partial birth abortions have?
Japhy
Banned
No thoughts on this one? it took until 1972 to get overturned (By Brown III) While it was a 9-0 decision its argument is rather weak, as it for all practical intents and purposes negates the more famous decision. By ordering desegregation cases down to the lower courts and to school districts with the order only that they proceed with "All Deliberate Speed", the ruling completely allowed the Southern States to not implement meaningful desegregation for decades.
Its also worth mentioning that the 9-0 ruling was in part due to the severe pressure the enraged Eisenhower administration placed on the court after Warren lead it to the original Brown decision that Ike had opposed. Without the pressure the ruling could easily have gone 5-4 differently.
There's not much to say if Ike's still President, because he's going to push for Civil Rights to be implemented as little as he can.
Following an idea here, can I put a suggestion, or a request?
Have a city or developer challenge tax breaks for a competitor under the Commerce Clause. There was a case that went to the Supreme Court over one state taxing another's riverboat traffic (IIRC). So, can you get a suit to prevent tax incentives? Was there any hope of it getting to SCotUS, & succeeding? This could help stop sprawl. It could also discourage establishing branch plants of foreign car companies...
Have a city or developer challenge tax breaks for a competitor under the Commerce Clause. There was a case that went to the Supreme Court over one state taxing another's riverboat traffic (IIRC). So, can you get a suit to prevent tax incentives? Was there any hope of it getting to SCotUS, & succeeding? This could help stop sprawl. It could also discourage establishing branch plants of foreign car companies...
Japhy
Banned
Hard to do that when the court has mandated he do the job though, no? At that point its a federal job and all of his racism aside he did send the 101 to Little Rock.
Thats a very good one. I was mostly thinking of civil rights cases and forgot about Betamax. The ruling had two parts, one was whether making home copies for personal use constituted infringement and the other was if the manufacturers of recording equipment were liable for infringement. Initially Brennan and O'Connor were in favor of upholding the Ninth Circuit and it wasn't until the opinion circulating phase that they were convinced to switch, turning a 6-3 court into a 5-4 one. It seems to me that it wouldn't be hard to get one or both of Brennan and O'Connor to stick with their original opinions. Additionally, the court did not have to resolve the issue of whether home-use was copyright infringement.
As to the affects I'd say the biggest impacts would be with the recording equipment manufacturers and the film industry as film studios make significantly more from selling copies of movies than they do in theaters.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
Could Plessey vs Fergusen have gone the other way?
It would have ended segregation but Congress would not have passed a Voting Rights act. tThere would much less discrimination. African Americans children would get better schools but Black people would not have political power.
It would have ended segregation but Congress would not have passed a Voting Rights act. tThere would much less discrimination. African Americans children would get better schools but Black people would not have political power.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
In the world of our retrospective elections, Dred Scott could have gone the other way. If there were enough Birney and Smith apointees on the court.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Not really -- it was 8-1 OTL, with five of the pro-segregation votes coming from other Presidents (and even prior to Cleveland's first election in 1884, you have at least two of them). It's not enough to take out one President -- if you're going to solve this with the guy making the appointments (a risky venture, since Supreme Court appointments of the 19th Century had a complex sort of politics), you'd have to at least start with seeing a pro-Civil Rights President in office at the time.
How about this then -- Cleveland still wins in 1884, and gets to appoint Muller to Chief Justice (so that's three anti-votes, to Harlan's); however, in 1888, Republicans decide to nominate somebody other than Harrison (which was very possible), who is also an old friend to the ideals of Reconstruction (maybe John Sherman?). This President wins and is re-elected, meaning come 1896, he's appointed five justices to the court.
Even with all this, you still have the Civil Rights Cases to deal with as precedent, and the fact is Harlan's position in Plessy may well be, by this point in legal history, to be considered an extreme position.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
In the world of our retrospective elections, Dred Scott could have gone the other way. If there were enough Birney and Smith apointees on the court.
Exactly the point. I had the sketch of a TL where Gresham gets the nod in '88 and wins, so I know how volatile the Court was during that period (although chance, with a side of no Democrats elected, rather than Gresham in Harrison's stead, is the best bet for Plessy being butterflied away).
Dred Scott can be butterflied away by the Buchanan Administration not pressuring the Court to finish off the issue of slavery so Buchanan would be free to be the greatest President since Washington.
Suppose Northern Securities goes the other way, & James J. Hill retains an effective monopoly on rail traffic in the U.S.
Does it encourage Roosevelt to break the monopoly after McKinley's assassination anyhow? Does it make doing it harder? Or does it make him even more eager to break it, & others?
Does it encourage Roosevelt to break the monopoly after McKinley's assassination anyhow? Does it make doing it harder? Or does it make him even more eager to break it, & others?