Understandable. But I'm simply asking this question without any regards to a specific POD. Simply put "What changes would occur after 1896 if only the outcome of this one case was changed ?"
Simple, you would have a constitutional crisis when many southern states and a few northern states ignored the ruling. The North also had a high degree of segregation. So the Supreme court would have been fixed by impeachment, retirement, FDR like expansion, or some other means. It would be much like the Supreme court ruling today that Plessy versus Fergerson was still valid, and throwing out all the civil rights laws. The court would get fixed.
The supreme court reads the opinion polls, just like Congressmen. It can't get too far out from public opinion on major issues. It can get away with strange decision on minor issues, but not on something like race. Even something like Roe V. Wade is probably supported by 60%+ of America, and probably never was below 40%.
This might be one of the most ridiculous things ever said on this forum and that's saying something.Actually, I'm expecting the Roberts Court to rehabilitate Plessy the first chance they get
This might be one of the most ridiculous things ever said on this forum and that's saying something.
I'm sure I can beat it.
But seriously, the Roberts Court is unspeakably regressive. They chug a lug the crazy juice, and they spew it right out. Look at the disaster that is the Citizens United Not Timd ruling.
Maybe some inconvenient justice or two dies or retires earlier, leading to a different outcome?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
The decision was 7-1, so you'd need more than one or two though.
You'd need 3 to be exact...as you could conceivably butterfly away the illness of David Brewer's daughter with an earlier POD. This got me thinking...
Admittedly it's a stretch but it isn't impossible
Let's say that after his first term, Cleveland notices a soreness on the upper part of his mouth. After consulting his doctors they discover that it's an abnormal growth and Cleveland opts to remove it. Unfortunately, in TTL the operation goes awry and Cleveland dies shortly thereafter due to complications from the surgery.
Furthermore you'd have to give Harrison and the GOP a firmer commitment to Civil Rights in order to have Harrison appoint the requisite number of judges. If you give Harrison all of his OTL picks in addition to the 2 in Cleveland's 2nd term he'd appoint 6 judges before Plessy v. Ferguson. Assuming all of them are pro-civil rights that means you could have a 7-2 result (Harrison's picks + Harlan v. the rest). It's possible, but the trick is getting the GOP to actually push for civil rights instead of try halfheartedly to keep the African-American vote.
I fear you have a higher opinion of the US Supreme Court than I do.
Roberts and Alito are essentially corporate shills, and their only ideology is to support the wishes and intent of the American elites. Thomas and Scalia are lunatic reactionaries. Between that four, its a powerful collective voice for what most people would call evil.
Furthermore you'd have to give Harrison and the GOP a firmer commitment to Civil Rights in order to have Harrison appoint the requisite number of judges. If you give Harrison all of his OTL picks in addition to the 2 in Cleveland's 2nd term he'd appoint 6 judges before Plessy v. Ferguson. Assuming all of them are pro-civil rights that means you could have a 7-2 result (Harrison's picks + Harlan v. the rest). It's possible, but the trick is getting the GOP to actually push for civil rights instead of try halfheartedly to keep the African-American vote.
I am not sure it is such a high opinion. I am simply saying that the Supreme court tends not to rule something unconstitutional without 40% public support, and prefers 60%, if the issue is high profile, high emotion.
This might be one of the most ridiculous things ever said on this forum and that's saying something.
Calling it ridiculous in a political tactic, nothing more. Frankly, at this point in history, with the Voting Rights Acts coming under political assault by republicans constantly, I think it's fair....and more importantly fair minded...to allow open discussion on where people stand on the issue of what rights are and are not tied to skin color.
So, you belive if the Voting Rights Act is repealed, there will be no orchistrated campaign to disenfranchise colored voters launched by the southern governments?
It would be an interesting TL.
IMO, even with more pro-civil rights justices on the court, you would not get a straight up different decision, they would be more likely to write a longer opinion that included lots of test on what was "equal". Then there would be a long series of legal battles dealing with bathrooms being dirtier, smaller seats in black sections of railroad cars, and the use of the commerce clause.