This is actually a major contingency point in US history. LBJ convinced Goldberg to resign so he could appoint his friend Abe Fortas to the Court, knowing that Fortas would give him a heads' up if the Court was going to find his legislation unconstitutional. 1/
By the end of LBJ's second term, there was an overwhelming liberal majority: Warren, Marshall, Fortas, Douglas, and Brennan. Yes, Brennan was the swing justice on that Court, which did things like declaring shopping malls to be state actors subject to the 1st Amendment. 2/
Warren was afraid he wouldn't make it through Nixon's term if he won, so in June of 1968 he announced his retirement. LBJ quickly nominated Fortas for the position. But the Fortas nomination ran into trouble over allegations of impropriety and 3/
LBJ offended majority leader Russell by not nominating a district court candidate he favored. Plus, the "conservative coalition" of Rs and Southern Ds thought that they might prefer Nixon's choice over LBJ's. 4/
So, the Fortas nomination failed on a vote held October 1 of 1968. As it turned out, Fortas actually was a crook, though not because of the concerns raised pre-vote. So ultimately, he had to resign, and Nixon got to name two justices in his first year. 5/
That wasn't quite the end of the Warren Court, but replacing two of its more liberal members with Burger and Blackmun did move the Court rightward (and Potter Stewart decided that he wouldn't overrule any Warren Court precedent 5-4). 6/
So if LBJ doesn't pressure Goldberg to head over to be UN Ambassador so he can appoint a crony (who *was* an outstanding lawyer and good justice aside from poor judgment outside of his decisions), LBJ probably names Warrens' replacement. 7/
And here's the rub: Goldberg lived until 1990. So you probably have a very, very liberal Supreme Court majority, with William Brennan as the swing justice, until Douglas' retirement in 1975. Heck, 8/
Douglas might well have refused to retire -- senility and incontinence be damned! -- until 1977 in this scenario, enabling Carter to name his replacement. And that is how LBJ's replacement of Arthur Goldberg changed the course of history, bigly.
(9/10) 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People are going to react strongly to this comparison, so I really do mean this narrowly. But when you read about first 100 days of the New Deal, you hear about Congress just being totally overwhelmed with new legislation and orders, things being broken or rebuilt every day. 1/
I wonder if the sense was the same as we are feeling today (and yes, a lot of people ((mostly) Southern) Democrats and Republicans alike, were concerned FDR was trying to make himself a dictator). That's not (at all) to predict this will be as successful as the New Deal 2/
or that it will be remembered nearly as fondly. That's just the only time I can think of where so many things have been blown up so radically quickly in politics. 3/3
The move to allow podcasters and bloggers into the Press Corps is part of a broader shift on the Right, that really starts with @elonmusk's acquisition of X. Before that, when conservatives complained about bias and censorship on social media, the left/lib response 1/
was "well go ahead and build your own social media site." Which everyone knew was very difficult. And then there would be moves to get whoever hosted the new site to refuse to host it and the response would be "well build your own hosting platform" and so forth. 2/
Musk's acquisition of Twitter/X really looks increasingly like an important turning point in the conservative approach, which in the face of this became "well what can you do?" It was a realization "no, actually we can take these institutions and make them ours." 3/
To understand the Right re J6: They believe that the reason the dividing line between J6 getting prosecuted and, say, Portland rioters not is because norms are set by liberals to protect liberal ingroups while allowing the prosecution of outgroups. 1/
This is also the dividing line between Trumpy populists and GOP establishment types; the latter says "well we should prosecute the goons in OR too" while the former says that is hopelessly naive bc, again, the lines are set by liberals to protect their ingroups. 2/
This isn't a defense of the populists at all. This is just to explain the "burn it down" mindset: "it" is a rigged game with rules set by liberals. If this sounds like left critiques of the past decade, well, it's why we're getting this horseshoe effect of, say, RFK & Trump. 3/3
So there's been a lot of talk about Justice Barrett and Supreme Court ideology in general, which happened to occur as I'm getting a paper on Supreme Court ideology ready for publishing. The answer, unsurprisingly, is Justice Barrett is no Souter (much less Stevens). 1/
This relies on a computer program that looks at the frequency with which justices vote with which other. It then uses these pairs to rank Justices by ideology and to estimate where the ideological fissures on the Court are. Here's where things stood in 2016-18. 2/
This should be familiar to anyone with a passing acquaintance with the Court. You have the four libs, with a divide between Ginsburg/Sotomayor and Kagan/Breyer, a BIG divide, and then the conservative justices. Note that I pool terms together to smooth out noise. 3/
Since we're doing the autism anecdote thing, I'll share some. During law school I coached high school debate at Chapel Hill High School and Durham Academy (my star student, one @JeffJacksonNC, who I won't embarrass with stories). There was a student, John, diagnosed w/ ADHD. 1
(not his real name btw). John was...strange. He sort of mumbled his speech, had weird facial expressions, had trouble writing in straight lines, and would say bizarre things. Once on a trip he just busted out "once I found a CD in the snow. It had no scratches, except Track 1."
Then complete silence. I just thought John was weird, as did the kids, and that debate wasn't for him, but his doctor had suggested doing speech activities to overcome his difficulties so whatever. Anyway, I was talking with my sister,who was getting a Master's in Special Ed. 3/
One of the lessons from the past month or so is that people don’t understand the podcastverse, its ideological ecosystem, and/or how men/boys < 30 get their information/news these days.
Like seriously there is an entire genre of podcasters dedicated to this dude’s worldview. The whole loosely interrelated UFC/Rogan/manosphere/plant medicine genre/genres don’t map onto modern politics in any way that seem obvious to people over 30 but make perfect sense to youngz
If you have teen kids, particularly boys, you really need to pay attention to their tik-tok/podcast consumption (a) because there are some deeply disturbing worldviews promoted there but also