The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: November 22, 1963
11/22/1963: President Lyndon B. Johnson takes the oath of office. He would appoint two Justices to the Supreme Court: Abe Fortas and Thurgood Marshall.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A race hustler and a crook. Good show, LBJ.
Race hustlers can only exist because racism exists. If there were no racism, there could be no race hustlers. Perhaps you could be as indignant about the underlying problem as you are about those attempting to fix it.
That racism exists may enable race hustling is no excuse for being one.
But if you spent as much energy being indignant at the underlying problem of racism rather than at those you call race hustlers, you might actually see some change. Had there been no Jim Crow there would have been no Thurgood Marshall.
I've already seen more "change" than I want. Race hustler racism is more of a problem than Jim Crow racism by a factor of at least 100 to 1.
A race hustler, LBJ? You do know his background and home state, right?
Dude was a sonuvabitch, but he sure he had to spend his political capital to get the great society and civil rights acts passed.
Funny you didn't go after him for Vietnam.
Actually, not surprising at all you chose to yell about them blacks instead.
Yes, he spent his political capital SO WELL. So well, that, in fact, he could not even rely on his own party to vote for the Civil Rights Acts.
Wait, you mean that generations ago the Democratic Party included racists?
Whatta revelation!
It includes racists now.
If by racists you mean people who are trying to fix racism, that nonsensical argument has already thoroughly been debunked every time someone makes it. I don't doubt you'll find an occasional Democrat here or there who's a racist, but unlike the GOP, we don't typically actually elect them to public office.
"we don't typically actually elect them to public office"
Sure you do.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/noah-green-farrakhan-nation-of-islam-democrats-waters-clyburn-davis
I said typically. Compare the number of overt racist Democratic office holders with overt racist Republican office holders. You'll see a clear pattern, with some outliers.
"Compare the number of overt racist Democratic office holders with overt racist Republican office holders."
I'd say it is about the same but a very small number in both.
Of course Clyburn is #3 House dem and Biden's kingmaker so his ties to the Nation of Islam are more significant than a GOP backbencher.
I'm not sure that meeting with Farrakhan, while unfortunate, necessarily makes one an overt racist. Farrakhan brings his followers votes to the table, so the practicalities of it is that someone in the Democratic Party is going to meet with him.
But I don't think Farrakhan himself would be electable as a Democrat, unlike, say Marjorie Taylor Greene or Steve King, who are themselves open racists.
Our racist are not as bad as *your* racists!
Dear Lord, sometimes I hate the Punch-and-Judy show.
"If by racists you mean people who are trying to fix racism"
As for myself, by racism I mean "racial prejudice or discrimination," as the pre-woke Merriam-Webster defined it.
Are you willing to disavow all forms of racial discrimination?
Is the Volokh Conspiracy ready to disavow its discrimination against non-White, non-male content providers?
More generally, why not wear your bigotry proudly, clingers? Better Americans are going to ensure that conservatives and Republicans wear it one way or another.
Carry on, bigoted clingers. We'll let you know how far . . .
"More generally, why not wear your bigotry proudly, clingers? Better Americans are going to ensure that conservatives and Republicans wear it one way or another."
Maybe as a yellow star?
You misread. Our neighborhood racist actually was calling Thurgood Marshall a "race hustler."
Ah, now I see it.
Oy.
His pre-court career included explicitly campaigning in court for color-blindness in the law, which was a controversial proposition at the time.
On the court, he "evolved," or devolved (depending on whether you think race discrimination is racist or not).
Equality under the law for blacks is not the same as colorblind,
Hope this helps.
Attorney Thurgood Marshall v. Justice Marshall, a debate:
http://www.debatingracialpreference.org/MarshallvsMarshall.htm
Does your fondness for Jesus Christ incline you to be such a bigot, Cal Cetin . . . or are you freelancing as an abomination unto your Lord?
You've got the Abomination slot locked up, Rev. Asshole.
Your usage is an example of why "racist" has no sting left.
Damn, you're a dumbass, Sarcastr0. It was Thurgood Marshall that I called a race hustler, not LBJ, because... Blackman's post was about his SCOTUS appointments, not his idiotic mishandling of Vietnam!
"crook"
Fortas may have been a crook but his replacement was a mass baby killer.
I'd rather have a crook.
Well, then, perhaps the GOP senators should have permitted LBJ to appoint his replacement rather than filibuster until Nixon had the chance to put in Blackmun. Blackmun's appointment is one of the all too rare examples of GOP dirty tricks coming back to bite them in the butt. Granted, LBJ wouldn't have appointed a Rehnquist or a Scalia either, but I doubt the GOP would have done worse with LBJ making the appointment than they did with Blackmun.
"Fortas resigned from the Court on May 14, 1969."
I'm talking about his earlier nomination as CJ.
"19 Democrats voting against cloture. The 12 other senators, all Democrats, were absent. "
It was not the GOP that upheld the filibuster.
19 Democrats and how many Republicans?
"45 to 43 cloture vote to end the Fortas debate included 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting for cloture, and 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture. The 12 other senators, all Democrats, were absent. "
Only 34 total GOP senators. Barely, just barely enough to maintain a filibuster. But only 24 voted to do so which would not nearly be enough.
Justice Homer Thornberry, that would have been cool. We would have had justices named "Earl" and "Homer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Thornberry#Aborted_Supreme_Court_nomination
The first of a long unbroken line of Democratic Presidents (extending to the present day) who grew up in modest and sometimes desperate circumstances. Compared to the last three millionaire babies who the Republicans gave us.
Class hatred, like any other kind of group hatred, is wrong.
FDR was a millionaire baby. You probably think he was ok.
Interesting, I suppose FDR was inauthentic due to his privileged background. And JFK of course.
Forgot about JFK, his dad's fortune was based on stock fraud and bootlegging.
Clinton came from a divorced family, but he way overstated what was going on in his early life and made it sound like he grew up poor when he didn't. His mother both had a pretty lucrative career and socialized with Hot Springs high society (and Hot Springs is actually a place that has a fair amount of high society). I don't know exactly what her net worth was, but she had access to plenty of money as well as social capital which helped launch Bill Clinton on his way to elite private American universities and Oxford.
"Hot Springs is actually a place that has a fair amount of high society "
Watch out, Manhattan . . . here come the Arkies!
As to "modest", I guess it's relative. Obama was raised by his grandmother, whose gig was as a Bank of Hawaii VP. Dunno what that paid, exactly. His mother was a flower chld turned academic, iirc.
" A race hustler "
Does this White, male, fringe blog generate so many bigoted, tone-deaf, obsolete culture war casualties . . . or merely attract them?
Carry on, Republican-conservative-Federalist Society bigots . . . but just so far and so long as better Americans permit.
Why don't you call it a Jewish blog, too? Or would that be racist?
I strongly doubt the content of this blog is provided nearly so uniformly Jewish as it is by White males, but I am open to education in that context.
Keep flailing, bigots.
"I am open to education in that context."
I'm not sure you're open to education in any context.