Great over all article Erik. I’m going to address your points in order of strength.
On RBG you’re simply correct. She should have retired under Obama and been replaced. Alas, the cult of personality that sprang up around her, the fact that being a Supreme Court Justice is a very fun job and the fact that liberal justices are simply not as driven and focused on goals as Conservative justices are (though now, in the post Roe era perhaps that shall change) combined to make her simply unwilling to retire. RBG hoped she could be replaced by the first Woman President and also get in a bunch of additional years in the limelight. It simply was not to be.
Garland is an interesting but, I suspect, a weaker case. I feel like saying “constitutional crisis” might be over stating it but a President saying “Garland is the Justice now, screw what the Senate says” would have arguably have precipitated one. It would have ended up in front of an even numbered Supreme Court with 4 Liberals and 4 Conservatives. Assuming the court cases would have moved at the normal court speeds then Hillary would have lost and, likely, the new Trump administration would have declared the matter moot by nominating his own candidate and having it confirmed by the Senate.
The ”Hillary should never have been nominated” hindsight cases is weaker but in an odd way. I think that it is indeed likely that a non-Hillary candidate might have won against Trump but with two caveats. Caveat A: the next most likely candidate after HRC, Bernie, would have lost against Trump even worse that Hillary would have. Caveat B: It would have been astronomically difficult to prevent HRC from winning the Democratic nomination. This is not because of some nefarious plot but because of brutal political logistics. It is easy to forget, now, in the bleak light of her astronomical failure against Trump but HRC was viewed extremely positively within the party during the run up to 2016. From a Democratic Party perspective HRC had been a loyal soldier for decades. In 2008 when she lost the nomination the Clintons fell into line and pulled for Obama dutifully. You may recall how wistfully the GOP at that time hyped the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) line. The Clintons could have tried spoiling things- they didn’t. Then she served in Obama’s administration while the Clintons generally traversed the party fundraising and campaigning for Democrats for eight years and racking up favors. This included a master class performance by Bill Clinton at the Democratic convention in 2012 where he utterly eviscerated Mitt Romney while at the GOP convention Clint Eastwood was yelling at a chair. A grateful Obama and Democratic Party leadership took note. In the run up to 2016 Hillary put all these favors and good will to work effectively clearing the Democratic nomination field for herself- only the irascible Bernie mounted any serious challenge. Those political actors who didn’t feel grateful or kindly towards HRC still chose not to run out of fear of being run over by the political juggernaut that she had assembled. It was easily the strangest nomination contest of the modern Democratic era.
A time traveler wanting to prevent HRC for taking that nod would have a serious challenge confronting them- how would one go about doing so? Each step the Clintons took towards 2016 was incremental and unobjectionable. Do you teleport to 2008 and demand a fresh minted Candidate Obama spurn HRC and look like a sore winner? Obama would refuse and for good reason- why enrage women voters and risk splitting his coalition after a long and hard fought nomination contest? Do you run around from 08-12 and demand the Clintons be treated as pariahs? Why on earth would any Democratic Party actors agree to spurn a popular (within the left) and capable political couple with clout and fund raising chops? They wouldn’t do such a thing. Do you teleport to ’12 and insist Clinton be frozen out of the Democratic Party convention? Again, why would anyone accede to this? HRC had, at this point, served honorably as Secretary of State and Bill was a known epic political performer. You don’t bench assets like that in national contests “because I don’t want to be grateful to them”.
I agree, in hindsight, that nominating Hillary Clinton in ’16 was an error. What I do not see, however, is how one would prosecute preventing it. HRC’s nomination in ’16 was a feat of political logistics like I have never seen or read about before. She cashed in a lifetimes’ worth of political favors to accomplish this nomination feat. Now, as a disgraced losing has-been her name is understandably mud and she is finished in politics so it’s easy to forget just how formidable she was within the Democratic Party during the nomination fight leading up to ’16.
1. The only reason The Donald got to the point where ANY Democratic candidate had to worry about him was that Republican national leaders, the people Trump needed to best before he could face Hillary or whomever, were such loathsome phonies that when Trump dialed the "Maverick Outsider" knob to 11 and went after them, he energized the Right in ways no Bush, Romney, etc ever could.
Had there been even one Republican of substance not afraid to punch back equally hard, who understand that Trump had completely thrown out the Respectable Politics rulebook, he or she could have shut Trump down in the primaries.
But there wasn't, because they were all jokes. Everyone knew it, you knew it, my cat knew it.
And when nominee Trump seized the moment(um) by then going right-between-the-eyes against the MSM, the Republican base just caught fire. "Finally," they thought, "someone who actually fights back against the necrotic DC political-media Establishment. Yeah, he's a psycho but... fuck it, sign me up."
But it was the Republican elite who enabled this. Decades of incestuous, hypocritical panderers and liars in their leadership paved the way for Trump.
2. Roe v Wade was never going to be secure because the underlying moral and philosophical issues it skirted (yes, skirted) never went away.
The heart of the matter is not "choice" but WHAT is being chosen. If you believe that personhood and protection from wrongful harm should apply before birth, at some point during fetal development, then you can't just accept "it's a private decision between a woman and her doctor" and all the rest of the rhetoric.
Note that Roe itself acknowledged this and did not mandate unrestricted access to abortions at any point in a pregnancy.
Even so, multitudes of Americans, not just Rightist ideologues, still think Roe went too far. They vote, run for office, go to law school, become judges, etc.
A serious challenge to Roe was coming. Casey (1992) kicked that can down the road, but even then four justices went on record that Roe should be overturned.
So... yeah, this day or something like it was inevitable. *Thanos snap*
You are absolutely right, but I could also detail scenarios where conservatives could have seven seats (if you count Roberts as a conservative and not a political opportunist).
I like alternative histories, but once you start that game, the only limit is the intelligence that you are willing to assign to politicians.
Maybe cynical, but I don't think that our best and brightest go to Washington. (Best in this case are moral people.)
Great over all article Erik. I’m going to address your points in order of strength.
On RBG you’re simply correct. She should have retired under Obama and been replaced. Alas, the cult of personality that sprang up around her, the fact that being a Supreme Court Justice is a very fun job and the fact that liberal justices are simply not as driven and focused on goals as Conservative justices are (though now, in the post Roe era perhaps that shall change) combined to make her simply unwilling to retire. RBG hoped she could be replaced by the first Woman President and also get in a bunch of additional years in the limelight. It simply was not to be.
Garland is an interesting but, I suspect, a weaker case. I feel like saying “constitutional crisis” might be over stating it but a President saying “Garland is the Justice now, screw what the Senate says” would have arguably have precipitated one. It would have ended up in front of an even numbered Supreme Court with 4 Liberals and 4 Conservatives. Assuming the court cases would have moved at the normal court speeds then Hillary would have lost and, likely, the new Trump administration would have declared the matter moot by nominating his own candidate and having it confirmed by the Senate.
The ”Hillary should never have been nominated” hindsight cases is weaker but in an odd way. I think that it is indeed likely that a non-Hillary candidate might have won against Trump but with two caveats. Caveat A: the next most likely candidate after HRC, Bernie, would have lost against Trump even worse that Hillary would have. Caveat B: It would have been astronomically difficult to prevent HRC from winning the Democratic nomination. This is not because of some nefarious plot but because of brutal political logistics. It is easy to forget, now, in the bleak light of her astronomical failure against Trump but HRC was viewed extremely positively within the party during the run up to 2016. From a Democratic Party perspective HRC had been a loyal soldier for decades. In 2008 when she lost the nomination the Clintons fell into line and pulled for Obama dutifully. You may recall how wistfully the GOP at that time hyped the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) line. The Clintons could have tried spoiling things- they didn’t. Then she served in Obama’s administration while the Clintons generally traversed the party fundraising and campaigning for Democrats for eight years and racking up favors. This included a master class performance by Bill Clinton at the Democratic convention in 2012 where he utterly eviscerated Mitt Romney while at the GOP convention Clint Eastwood was yelling at a chair. A grateful Obama and Democratic Party leadership took note. In the run up to 2016 Hillary put all these favors and good will to work effectively clearing the Democratic nomination field for herself- only the irascible Bernie mounted any serious challenge. Those political actors who didn’t feel grateful or kindly towards HRC still chose not to run out of fear of being run over by the political juggernaut that she had assembled. It was easily the strangest nomination contest of the modern Democratic era.
A time traveler wanting to prevent HRC for taking that nod would have a serious challenge confronting them- how would one go about doing so? Each step the Clintons took towards 2016 was incremental and unobjectionable. Do you teleport to 2008 and demand a fresh minted Candidate Obama spurn HRC and look like a sore winner? Obama would refuse and for good reason- why enrage women voters and risk splitting his coalition after a long and hard fought nomination contest? Do you run around from 08-12 and demand the Clintons be treated as pariahs? Why on earth would any Democratic Party actors agree to spurn a popular (within the left) and capable political couple with clout and fund raising chops? They wouldn’t do such a thing. Do you teleport to ’12 and insist Clinton be frozen out of the Democratic Party convention? Again, why would anyone accede to this? HRC had, at this point, served honorably as Secretary of State and Bill was a known epic political performer. You don’t bench assets like that in national contests “because I don’t want to be grateful to them”.
I agree, in hindsight, that nominating Hillary Clinton in ’16 was an error. What I do not see, however, is how one would prosecute preventing it. HRC’s nomination in ’16 was a feat of political logistics like I have never seen or read about before. She cashed in a lifetimes’ worth of political favors to accomplish this nomination feat. Now, as a disgraced losing has-been her name is understandably mud and she is finished in politics so it’s easy to forget just how formidable she was within the Democratic Party during the nomination fight leading up to ’16.
Good stuff. I'd add two other things...
1. The only reason The Donald got to the point where ANY Democratic candidate had to worry about him was that Republican national leaders, the people Trump needed to best before he could face Hillary or whomever, were such loathsome phonies that when Trump dialed the "Maverick Outsider" knob to 11 and went after them, he energized the Right in ways no Bush, Romney, etc ever could.
Had there been even one Republican of substance not afraid to punch back equally hard, who understand that Trump had completely thrown out the Respectable Politics rulebook, he or she could have shut Trump down in the primaries.
But there wasn't, because they were all jokes. Everyone knew it, you knew it, my cat knew it.
And when nominee Trump seized the moment(um) by then going right-between-the-eyes against the MSM, the Republican base just caught fire. "Finally," they thought, "someone who actually fights back against the necrotic DC political-media Establishment. Yeah, he's a psycho but... fuck it, sign me up."
But it was the Republican elite who enabled this. Decades of incestuous, hypocritical panderers and liars in their leadership paved the way for Trump.
2. Roe v Wade was never going to be secure because the underlying moral and philosophical issues it skirted (yes, skirted) never went away.
The heart of the matter is not "choice" but WHAT is being chosen. If you believe that personhood and protection from wrongful harm should apply before birth, at some point during fetal development, then you can't just accept "it's a private decision between a woman and her doctor" and all the rest of the rhetoric.
Note that Roe itself acknowledged this and did not mandate unrestricted access to abortions at any point in a pregnancy.
Even so, multitudes of Americans, not just Rightist ideologues, still think Roe went too far. They vote, run for office, go to law school, become judges, etc.
A serious challenge to Roe was coming. Casey (1992) kicked that can down the road, but even then four justices went on record that Roe should be overturned.
So... yeah, this day or something like it was inevitable. *Thanos snap*
You are absolutely right, but I could also detail scenarios where conservatives could have seven seats (if you count Roberts as a conservative and not a political opportunist).
I like alternative histories, but once you start that game, the only limit is the intelligence that you are willing to assign to politicians.
Maybe cynical, but I don't think that our best and brightest go to Washington. (Best in this case are moral people.)