Nixon’s Supreme Court nominee Harrold Carswell becomes an unlikely hero ? ! ?

[Dancing Fool]

Race and Education 50 Years After <I>Brown v. Board of Education</I>

May 17 marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the <i>Brown v. Board of Education</i> case. A review of Gallup Polls shows that most Americans endorse the court's ruling on the <i>Brown</i> case, and believe that educational opportunities for blacks are far better...

news.gallup.com

from 2003 —

“Eighty-seven percent of all Americans say they are satisfied with their educations, including 53% who are very satisfied. . . . .This compares with 78% of blacks who are satisfied, of which, 48% are very satisfied.”

———————————————

These are incredibly good, optimistic numbers.

I’m just looking for ways things could have been even better.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Brown at 60 and Milliken at 40

Sixty years after Brown v. Board of Education and 40 years after Milliken v. Bradley, many consider these cases to be two of the most pivotal decisions related to education made by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 20th century.

www.gse.harvard.edu

“School finance reform . . . . . has made less difference than one would have hoped”

—————————————

1. Maybe relatively small numbers regarding teacher salaries translate to bigger outcomes?

2. Maybe kids need to know in their gut that they’re appreciated as regular and first-class members of society?

3. Maybe kids coming from families who typically don’t go to college need to rub elbows with those who do?

* not that all jobs need to be “professional”-ized and made college required. And yes, I know that professionalized can be written as one word. But there’s more than one way to language!

 

[Dancing Fool]

And I want to pull some numbers on the unpopularity of school busing in 1973 and 1974. These days I’m all about “embracing the tension.”

Dear Reader,

Please dive in and help if you’d like!

 

[Rafi_T]

View attachment 904607

View attachment 904597

View attachment 904601

Wait a minute. Wasn’t this guy the crummier of Nixon’s two nominees who were rejected by the Senate.

Yes.

Didn’t he make a statement in favor of “white supremacy” when he was running for an office like 20 years before?

Yes.

In addition, he was involved in some scheme to lease a city-owned golf course to a private club for $1 a year. Plus, he lied and said he couldn’t remember the details.

And finally, wasn’t this the guy about whom a Senator famously said “there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation” ? ? ?

Yes on all counts!

But sometimes people rise to a job and becomes a better person.

Let’s say Harrold does this. In particular, let’s suppose he becomes a centrist on the vital issue of school desegregation and helps steer the Supreme Court through the 1970s.

That just sounds like a way of getting late career Hugo Black on the court without any of the previous New Deal goodness.

 

[Rafi_T]

G. Harrold Carswell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

“In 1976, Carswell pled guilty to battery for advances he made to an undercover police officer in a Tallahassee men's room. Then, in September 1979, Carswell was attacked and beaten by a man whom he had invited to his Atlanta, Georgia, hotel room in similar circumstances.”

————————

Okay, so it sounds like Harrold was gay or bi- . And it sounds like he liked anonymous sex, and at times, commercial sex.

He had a wife he had married as a young man. And it’s still somewhat common even today for lesbian or gay persons to be in a conventional marriage. A person doesn’t always figure themselves out when young.

Let’s suppose Harrold and his wife have a reasonably amicable divorce.

Let’s suppose Harrold comes out of the closet around 1976.

And instead of the state of Vermont . . .

View attachment 904608


View attachment 904609

Let’s suppose it’s Harrold Carswell who comes up with the idea and concept of “Civil Unions” ! ! ! — which would be years ahead of its time in the 1970s.

<the commercial sex angle is going to be tough>

If you get a court filled with clones of William O. Douglas and have them rule on Baker v. Nelson (in favor of Baker), and you get gay marriage in late 1972/early 1973.

 

[Dancing Fool]

you get gay marriage in late 1972/early 1973

too far ahead of where the general public is at

 

[Rafi_T]

too far ahead of where the general public is at

"I know what I have to do but I don't know if I have the strength to do it." - Kylo Ren

 

[Rafi_T]

That just sounds like a way of getting late career Hugo Black on the court without any of the previous New Deal goodness.

Allow me to apologize to Justice Black with this: regardless of his tragic conservative shift in later years, to my understanding, he was not mediocre, and certainly not to the degree Carswell would've been. (Depending on the arguments made, and evidence provided, I could even see myself wholeheartedly endorsing him being Chief Justice after the death of Harlan F. Stone.)

To more directly touch on Carswell, I could hardly think of any worse potential nominees other than J. Edgar Hoover, a Robert Byrd who never became a liberal, or Robert Bork.

 

[Dancing Fool]

"I know what I have to do but I don't know if I have the strength to do it." - Kylo Ren

I love discussions of ethics!

Now at one point, Immanuel Kant said that if a maniac came to the door and asked you if the person he was trying to kill was inside, you were duty-bound to tell the maniac the truth.

Not even a “super-hero lie!”

Well, I’m glad Kant stated his position so clearly. But to me, whether things work out or not is crucially important. And therefore, I’m much more inclined to agree with John Stuart Mill.

 

[Dancing Fool]

To more directly touch on Carswell, I could hardly think of any worse potential nominees

perhaps Bill Rehnquist?

 

[Rafi_T]

perhaps Bill Rehnquist?

Not familiar enough with Rehnquist to comment, though in terms of corruption and conservatism, Carswell would be solidly in the Thomas camp, though for purposes of example, I'll leave it at proposed/unsuccessful nominees.

 

[Rafi_T]

View attachment 906927

I love discussions of ethics!

Now at one point, Immanuel Kant said that if a maniac came to the door and asked you if the person he was trying to kill was inside, you were duty-bound to tell the maniac the truth.

Not even a “super-hero lie!”

Well, I’m glad Kant stated his position so clearly. But to me, whether things work out or not is crucially important. And therefore, I’m much more inclined to agree with John Stuart Mill.

"You do what you think is right and let the law catch up." - Thurgood Marshall

“I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees." - William O. Douglas in Sierra Club v. Morton

Kant was (partially) correct in that we should (generally) view people as ends, and not means, but the absolutism is certainly not helpful day to day.

 

[Rafi_T]

From the wiki list: Lyndon B. Johnson Supreme Court candidates (Only counting those not confirmed)

For Chief Justice, you have: Abe Fortas and Arthur Goldberg

Associate Justices: A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., Homer Thornberry, Henry H. Fowler, Cyrus Vance, Lorna E. Lockwood, Shirley M. Hufstedler, Edmund Muskie, and Albert E. Jenner, Jr..

From the wiki list: Richard Nixon Supreme Court candidates (Only counting those not confirmed/G. Harrold Carswell)

For Chief Justice: Potter Stewart, and Thomas E. Dewey

Associate Justices: Walter Mansfield, William H. Mulligan, Clement Haynsworth, David W. Dyer, Charles Clark, Paul Roney, Shirley M. Hufstedler, Edward Thaxter Gignoux, Frank Minis Johnson (also candidate for FBI Director under Carter), Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy, Harold R. Tyler Jr., Sylvia Bacon, Robert Braucher, Charles D. Breitel, Harry D. Goldman, Mildred Lillie, Paul Reardon, Susie Marshall Sharp, Howard Baker, Robert Byrd, Martha W. Griffiths, Margaret M. Heckler, Richard H. Poff, Spiro Agnew, William H. Brown, Robert Bork, Caspar Weinberger, Alexander M. Bickel, Soia Mentschikoff, Dorothy Wright Nelson, Ellen Peters, Constance E. Cook, Herschel Friday, Jewel Lafontant, William Pullman, Charles S. Rhyne, William French Smith, Arlen Specter, and Col. Arthur P. Ireland.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Kant was (partially) correct in that we should (generally) view people as ends, and not means, but the absolutism is certainly not helpful day to day.

Here are two formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative:

CIa: Always treat persons (including yourself) and as ends in themselves, never merely as a means to your own ends.

CIb: Act only on that maxim that you can consistently will to be a universal law.

================================

To me, this is more motivational and inspirational. And not specific skills which can make a difference in various situations.

For example —

• If someone is choking, the state of the art is 5 HARD upward thrusts using the Heimlich Maneuver and 5 HARD hard blows to the back. Keep alternating between the two, and naturally let yourself go HARDER as you keep going. You are fighting for that person’s life.
If you don’t know this stuff, there’s a good chance the person will die.

Another example —

Skills for handling a boss who’s a bully. And frankly, I’ll be happy to have a game plan which has a two-thirds chance of working!


• really trying to illustrate specific skills, not just abstract principles

 

[Dancing Fool]

Not familiar enough with Rehnquist

Rehnquist was a westerner, a transplanted westerner.

He practiced law in Arizona and he supported Goldwater in 1964. And therefore, he’s more likely to take the position that Civil Rights laws too much infringe on the liberty on business owners.

It’s better to have a southerner who wants to show he’s not prejudiced.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Homer Thornberry, Henry H. Fowler, Cyrus Vance, Lorna E. Lockwood, Shirley M. Hufstedler, Edmund Muskie

Too many names!

I’m sorry, but as an analogy I see why we essentially never do a thread about Congress. Other than a member of Congress becoming President.

 

[Rafi_T]

Rehnquist was a westerner, a transplanted westerner.

He practiced law in Arizona and he supported Goldwater in 1964. And therefore, he’s more likely to take the position that Civil Rights laws too much infringe on the liberty on business owners.

It’s better to have a southerner who wants to show he’s not prejudiced.

That’s a fair point.

Yeah, problem is that not many southerners are like that, most don’t care or even use the lifetime appointment to really let it all out.

 

[Rafi_T]

Too many names!

I’m sorry, but as an analogy I see why we essentially never do a thread about Congress. Other than a member of Congress becoming President.

Yeah, LBJ’s list is reasonably concise, but it seems that for Nixon, they were just throwing names af the wall and seeing what stuck.

Yep, you only really highlight: celebrities (the ones who always get media attention), leadership, and your personal faves (if they hold your policy positions, if they have a cool hobby/life story, or if you’re from their state/district.

Spiro Agnew on the Court would be a hell of a thing tho (bad). I think Robert Byrd/Arlen Specter could make damn good, if not purging great, Justices.

 

[Dancing Fool]

problem is that not many southerners are like that

This might be a hinge point in which we fundamentally disagree.

I think—

Even back then, most southerners would bend over backwards to say they’re not prejudiced.

They’re just against affirmative action . . .

against outside agitators

against “black radicalism”

etc

etc

 

[Dancing Fool]

or even use the lifetime appointment to really let it all out

We can discuss Justice Clarence Thomas, but to avoid our thread being locked, maybe we need to stop around 2014 ?

Yes, the guy’s an ideologue and yes, he likes to pal around with rich people being a big shot. And he’s failed to sit out cases, legal term is “recuse,” he really should have.

But to me, the guy’s an outlier. Or, at least he used to be.