Lyndon Johnson became President suddenly in 1963 then won a landslide in 1964. He had an agenda to radically change America and tried his hardest with his "Great Society" program, but he also wanted to impact America more thoroughly through Supreme Court decisions. The question was how. In 1965 the senior Justice on the court was Hugo Black. He was the first of Franklin Roosevelt's appointees, joining a very elderly court in 1937. They were all gone by 1946 making him senior justice and he wielded much influence. Though approaching 80 he was healthy with no wish to retire and Johnson didn't want him to retire. Johnson was permitted another term and in 1965 it seemed likely he would get it and almost surely replace Black before 1972. Next in seniority at 26 years but a decade younger than Black was William O. Douglas. Black and Douglas were a tag-team that got much of what they wanted and were almost always on the winning side of cases. Johnson loved them and wanted them to stay. Third in seniority was Tom Clark, Harry Truman's last remaining appointee. He was 66 and in good health. Though a Democrat, he was a practical man like Truman and did not choose sides for partisan reasons. Johnson wanted to replace him with a more reliable vote. Next was Chief Justice Earl Warren. He was an apparently conservative Republican when Eisenhower appointed him 12 years earlier, but became the most liberal Chief Justice ever. He was 76 and could be counted on to retire during Johnson's last term. (What happened with him is a different but equally important tale.) The senior Republican on the court was John Harlan. He was in his 60s but his grandfather was an important justice who died on the job after 33 years. Harlan would not retire healthy. William Brennan was a Democrat appointed by Eisenhower hastily just before the 1956 election. He hoped to get more Democratic votes. Brennan was as liberal as Black and Douglas and better at convincing fellow jurists to join their side. He pressured an underqualified justice named Charles Whitaker into a nervous breakdown in 1962. Johnson loved him. Potter Stewart and Byron White were both in their forties. That left Arthur Goldberg. Goldberg was the same age as Johnson, 57, and had served three years replacing Felix Frankfurter as the court's token Jewish member. (Louis Brandeis was the first, appointed by Woodrow Wilson in 1916 looking for Jewish support to give him a second term. Roosevelt appointed Frankfurter in early 1939 and Brandeis took the hint and retired, opening his seat for Douglas.) Johnson wanted two specific people on the court: his Jewish friend Abe Fortas and Thurgood Marshall, the only qualified black person at the time. Both were approaching 60, so waiting four years was not an option. Fortas was a talented lawyer and longtime friend who would not only be a guaranteed vote for anything Johnson wanted, but a spy on the other members. Marshall would be a guarantee of many votes in 1968 and a historical appointment as well as yet another secure vote. The Senate was still full of bigots. Fortas could only replace Goldberg. How could that happen. 65-year-old men still die of heart attacks so often it is not a surprise, so no one suspected foul play when Adlai Stevenson, Ambassador to the United Nations, died suddenly in 1965. That was just the type of prestigious job that would be a promotion for Goldberg, and he took it gladly, allowing Fortas to take his seat without serious opposition. Clark's son Ramsay Clark was also a lawyer and very much respected by the President. Johnson made him Attorney General in 1967, meaning that his father would have a conflict of interest in most cases. Clark would not do such a thing, so he promptly retired at 68, giving Johnson a chance to make history by appointing Marshall and impacting the court for over 20 years past his retirement.
Just saw this thread. May I offer an excellent link to an online book by Rosalie M Gordon, titled, Nine Men Against America. http://sovereignstates.org/books/NMAA/NineMen_Cover.html Published in 1958, it shows how the Nine Liberal Unelected Supremes For Life, screwed America and drastically changed the lives of most Americans.
How much do you know about this lady? She might be a Jim Crow racist or NAZI sympathizer. Didshe live past Roe Versus Wade, see the slowchange back that began in the 1980s, celebrate the deaths of Brennan and Blackmun? Is she still alive but hoping to die before the next vacancy? I like new opinions, but reasonable ones like mine.
I would presume, almost as a certainty, she was a conservative. I think, from the reading of your post, you really are not looking for another viewpoint. My bad. My apologies for presuming you may be interested.
I'm interested, but I want facts, not propaganda. If she thinks Harlan, Clark and Whitaker are part of the conspiracy she knows less than I do and doesnot represent an improvement. I havetwo books nearly completed but in need of illustrations and charts. They're called Senior Justice (short biographies of the justices who reached first in seniority, and Junior Justice, about the members appointedin each decade who had the shortest tenures. The above would be in a third book in the series: Tales from the Supreme Court. I want to see the revised edition with White, Goldberg, Fortas, Marshall, Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist and Stevens, her detailed essays on the sex decisions and Times versus Sullivan, her ejaculations of joy upon the deaths of Black, Douglas and Brennan and her hymn of praise for Potter Stewart. Do such works exist?
Don't know- don't care. The book was published in '58. To my knowledge, it was the extent of her work. She documents quite a few SCOTUS cases and decisions that she used. If you so choose, don't read her work.
I have read the book. It isn't big on documentation, but drifts over decisions based on: "Starting with 1937, Miss Gordon shows how the makeup of the Court has gradually but noticeably been changing." Well of course Dorothy, the decisions and make up of the court have been changing....with the times. Since 1937 they have given up wearing facial hair too, and like nations around the globe have accepted such radically progressive ideas as granting women the right to vote, the eight hour work day, right to strike, recognition of the bill of rights and], gasp, equal rights for Jews, Hispanics and blacks! A true conspiracy if there ever was one. What will the world come to?
Supreme Court Cases cited by Ms Gordon http://sovereignstates.org/books/NMAA/NineMen_Cases.html Bibliography http://sovereignstates.org/books/NMAA/NineMen_Index.html#A Possibly you overlooked the documentation for her thesis. If I am reading you correctly, as long as some perceived miscarriage is corrected, modern authority, 'changing times', and SCOTUS making law is okay. If not, you have my aplology. A hundred years of States Rights precedents can ( and I am sure, must ) be thrown out. SCOTUS held yesterday certain decision, SCOTUS holds today, the same decision, SCOTUS holds tomorrow an entirely decision in the same case. What changed? Did SCOTUS make law? Possibly 170-180 years of precedent mean nothing. Possibly, the Constitution means nothing. If that seems like a conspiracy, so be it.
Let's settle a few things so we are all agreed on basic facts. Black, Douglas and Brennan believed that they should decide what was right in each case, then make the Constitution fit. Cases decided in this fashion include Brown versus the Board of Education, Roe versus Wade, the school prayer decision and Times versus Sullivan. If either of you wishes to add to both lists, or dispute any part of the above, please do so with your next post. The more things we agree on, the better we can reason out disagreements.
