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.

President Johnson appointed Justices Fortas and Marshall

Comments

[AmosArch]

“I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years”: LBJ one of the titans of the party of tolerance, compassion, and equality.

[Dan Schiavetta]

While “losing the entire South for the next two generations” (it turned out to be longer than that). You don’t often see a politician doing the right thing, knowing the political cost.

[Brett Bellmore]

LBJ served as President from 1963 to 1969.

The GOP didn't have a majority of Southern Congressional seats until the 1994 election, 30 years later.

But that's federal, how about state?

My own state, South Carolina, switched control... in the 1990's!

North Carolina didn't switch hands until 2010!

Georgia? 2002. Alabama? 2010. Mississippi? About 2010.

I'm noting a pattern here; Rather than "losing the South for the next two generations", Democrats didn't lose the South for at least another generation or two...

[Magister]

One could quibble that Johnson did not indicate which generations were lost; incumbent legislators would be of a previous generation and they have a lot of staying power. And they can often effectively run as a maverick within their own party; this is easier the smaller their district, so easier for Representatives than Senators and Presidents. With term limits, the presidential election is not as subject to incumbents holding on. But even so the US Senate switched hands in 1980 despite incumbency and six year terms; it had eroded from two thirds to less than three fifths Democratic (with a brief resurgence in the wake of Watergate) from 1966 on.

In the 1968 presidential election, George Wallace immediately won 5 states and beat Humphrey in three more states (without which Nixon would have fallen short of an electoral college win). Kennedy won all those states except Tennessee in 1960. Democrats have won back those states only rarely, and have had that success mostly when their candidate was from the South.

[Brett Bellmore]

He did specify the next two generations, and it was more like "not for another two generations".

[Magister]

The South was reliably Democratic before the Civil Rights era, and increasingly Republican after that. Nixon was all over the Southern Strategy. Not knowing what Johnson actually said, if anything, this version of Johnson's observation seems correct if "next generation" starts with voters born after 1964.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett:
'The south's politics are not motivated by white resentment after the CRA and Great Society!'

Also Brett:
'I think the CRA and Great Society are impositions on liberty, if not explicitly fascist. This is how the Democratic Party is oppressing white people on behalf of its new 'client race' blacks.'

Seems a weird flex to argue the south is better than he is.

[Brett Bellmore]

I generally am just saying what I'm saying. And what I was saying here is that, objectively, the Democratic party didn't "lose the entire South for the next two generations"; It actually took them 2-3 generations BEFORE they lost the South. They may have actually held onto the South longer than they otherwise would have!

Yes, I think the CRA of 1964 went too far, in as much as the 14th amendment only prohibited state discrimination, and the CRA prohibited private discrimination. And people have the right to do all sorts of things they really ideally shouldn't do, so long as they don't violate others' rights. And you don't, constitutionally, have a right to not be subject to private discrimination. So the government should leave people the hell alone when they racially discriminate, leave it to the private sector to deal with.

We went from mandating that people behave in one way in regards to race, to mandating that they behave in the opposite way in regards to race, without trying to see what would happen if we just let them be free. From a libertarian standpoint, that's offensive, even if mandating that people act sensibly is less offensive than mandating that they act obnoxiously.

And in practice the anti-discrimination mandates have gotten as screwed up as you'd expect; On the one hand being warped to demand discrimination where simply not discriminating doesn't produce equal results. On the other hand being extended to topics where there isn't remotely a societal agreement that discrimination is bad.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re arguing that because the shift was gradual, it couldn’t have been caused by the LBJ’s bringing his party along on race.

But you also say that LBJ went too far in bringing his party along on race.

These two positions are in ideological tension. You’re defending the south by arguing it didn’t do a thing that you yourself advocate for.

And once again, you’re a bad libertarian.
Jim Crow included lots of private action with large effects on liberty for everyone, and a serious libertarian would grapple with that fact if they wanted to maximize freedom.
You not only deny this history, you declare that True Libertarians must agree with you.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You’re arguing that because the shift was gradual, it couldn’t have been caused by the LBJ’s bringing his party along on race."

No. I'm arguing that the shift was so long after the Democrats tried to do the right thing on race, that it's even possible that by trying to do the right thing they'd actually delayed Republicans taking over the South. Are we going to pretend that it's safe to assume that Democrats would otherwise have forever controlled the South, when Republicans were gaining in the North, too?

I think that Kennedy DID do the right thing on race, by prohibiting racial discrimination. LBJ perverted Kennedy's affirmative action to avoid racially discriminating into racial quotas, mandating rather than prohibiting governmental discrimination.

I think that if Democrats had stuck with Kennedy's vision of government neutrality on race, instead of LBJ's plan of affirmatively discriminating in the favor of blacks, it's entirely possible they'd be in a much stronger political position now, and our race relations would be far less toxic.

And, Sarcastr0, you're about the last person I'd go to for a critique of whether somebody was being a good libertarian.

[Sarcastr0]

LBJ perverted Kennedy’s affirmative action
Taking this as it lies, you are arguing that while the south was cool with that, you're not.

if Democrats had stuck with Kennedy’s vision of government neutrality
It wouldn't have mattered in the south, but you're like them more.

you’re about the last person I’d go to for a critique of whether somebody was being a good libertarian
While I am not a libertarian, that doesn't mean I don't think about liberty. I read and listen and talk to people about it a decent amount. Crafting arguments for you to not listen to has really refined my thinking!

You don't refine your thinking. You have way too much unearned confidence to change your mind on anything ideological (I do note you'll change your mind to defend Trump).

[not guilty]

"Yes, I think the CRA of 1964 went too far, in as much as the 14th amendment only prohibited state discrimination, and the CRA prohibited private discrimination. And people have the right to do all sorts of things they really ideally shouldn’t do, so long as they don’t violate others’ rights. And you don’t, constitutionally, have a right to not be subject to private discrimination. So the government should leave people the hell alone when they racially discriminate, leave it to the private sector to deal with."

Brett, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not (only) Fourteenth Amendment legislation; its application to private businesses was upheld under the Commerce Clause in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).

The only thing that has had a greater impact than desegregation on bringing the South into the economic mainstream is air conditioning.

[Brett Bellmore]

I realize it was upheld under the Court's abbreviated reading of the interstate commerce clause. (The one where they stopped reading after "to regulate".)

It was justified under the 14th amendment, politically and morally.

[Sarcastr0]

Beyond your apocryphal quote, you sarcastically claim: LBJ one of the titans of the party of tolerance, compassion, and equality.

Kind of an amusing avenue for you to take, since by all acounts you don't much care for policies, parties, or people that espouse tolerance, compassion, or equality.

But yeah, LBJ domestically absolutely was champion of Civil Rights. Compassion? That's a stretch.
But 2/3 for sure.

[AmosArch]

Beyond your apocryphal quote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hey if its good enough to close the book on Gaetz its good enough to close the book on LBJ.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
since by all acounts you don’t much care for policies, parties, or people that espouse tolerance, compassion, or equality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I believe in tolerance when logical, compassion when called for, and equality of opportunity. Which I agree is quite different from Dems who preach all three unnuanced to the point of nonsense but actually don't believe in any of them.

[Sarcastr0]

You cry for nuance, which is the exact opposite of where your OP was coming from. Also your entire posting history. Your hypocrisy is equaled only by your constant accusations of hypocrisy against liberals based on the leftists in your head.

You spend most of your time yelling about the left based on your personal take on what the left thinks.
Logic doesn't really hang out where you do.

Neither does compassion, you being in an angry froth literally every day I've seen you post.

And equality of opportunity is what we're all here for, just you think the ones below the line are white people and I think that's demonstrably hogwash.

[David Nieporent]

The quote is dubious — it was first reported decades after he supposedly said it — and what's your point anyway?

[AmosArch]

I like how you guys act like its something that randomly appeared out of nowhere on 4chan when it was from a traceable eyewitness and fits with his known character and other incidents. If only you guys marched with the banner of skepticism as boldly for everyone else as you do for the guy you claim to distance yourself from but reflexively defend betraying that he's one of your own.

[Sarcastr0]

Who the fuck is you guys?

DMN and I disagree on just about everything policy-wise, we just both like our facts to be reality-based.

[Swede425]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Good one, Gaslighto!
"We just like our facts to be reality-based".
You think men can be women by magically saying so.
GFY.

[Drewski]

This is the worst Bumble sockpuppet account.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wrong as usual. I only have one account and also no longer engage with Il Douche.

[BrotherMovesOn]

At least he doesn't call you a dumb Polack this time. Remember that?
(or was it stupid Polack and dumb Mick?)
Good times.

[David Nieporent]

I like how you guys act like its something that randomly appeared out of nowhere on 4chan when it was from a traceable eyewitness

It is from something that randomly appeared in a book that was written thirty years after the events in question. Nobody is saying that the author made it up; he did identify a specific person who said it. But the issue isn't whether the author did so; it's whether his source did so. Or just got it wrong, decades later.

The use of the n word itself does fit with LBJ's known behavior, yes. (And it's much less shocking that someone would have used the word in the era than now.) But if you mean that it shows that LBJ was racist or insincere, it neither fits with his known character nor with the context.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Ronaldus Maximus’s “Welfare Queen”, that LBJ quote reminds me of the Yogi Berra line, “he didn’t say most of the things he said”

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448 (decided November 22, 1926): judge can’t ask a jury foreman during deliberations where the vote currently stood (even though he doesn’t ask which side is winning); conviction for violation of Volstead Act (transporting alcohol) reversed

Mississippi v. Tennessee, 142 S.Ct. 31 (decided November 22, 2021): in original jurisdiction case, upholds Special Master’s finding; though Tennessee owns all the water under it, it could be equitably liable to Mississippi for pumping that depletes downstream state aquifers (supplying water for Memphis reduced groundwater pressure in northern Mississippi) (though oddly Mississippi won’t make this argument; case dismissed)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Did the master have a genie named Jeannie?

[Frank Drackman]

Or an annoying Shrink always nosing in, why didn’t Tony just get Jeannie to make him disappear?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Johnson was sworn in by Judge Sarah Hughes, a federal judge who served on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. She was a Kennedy appointee at Johnson’s request. JFK was wary, including because of her age.

She wrote the district court ruling in Roe v. Wade, released as a per curiam. A co-counsel involved, Linda Coffee (still alive), was previously her law clerk.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/314/1217/1472349/

The opinion rested on vagueness (a problem that lingers on in multiple strict anti-abortion laws) and Ninth Amendment grounds.

Justice Goldberg’s concurrence (worked on by his law clerk, Stephen Breyer) in Griswold v. Connecticut concerned the Ninth Amendment. President Johnson asked him to resign & replaced him with Abe Fortas.

[Commenter_XY]

Curious, how often does a POTUS ask a sitting SCOTUS justice to resign? How did that come about?

[Bob from Ohio]

"How did that come about?"

He appointed him Secy. of Labor. I don't think he liked being on scotus too much.

[Bob from Ohio]

Correction: It was UN ambassador.

He had been JFK's Secy of Labor

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...what a huge step down.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As noted, LBJ wanted him to be UN ambassador & supposedly played to Goldberg’s pride regarding how essential he was for such a position, including to address Vietnam. Goldberg also felt that LBJ promised him another Court seat, particularly Warren’s, when a suitable opening arose.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Blackman is omitting something else which happened on November 22, 1963 – the death of a significant historical figure.

https://ivpress.com/between-heaven-and-hell

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’m old enough to remember that, though just barely. I was almost 7 years old, and I remember several days of adults being disoriented, watching TV, talking on the phone. I was in Catholic school and it must have been especially traumatic for the people there.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That was my first thought also. Simply stating "...Johnson takes the oath of office" radically understates the craziness of that moment.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In defense of Josh (for a split second) it was LBJ’s swearing in which had more of an effect on the Supreme Court.