Unit 5 Pushback Notes
Pages 3-7, 35-45
Historical Context of Senate Voting Manipulation
Senator Robert Kerr (D-OK)
Faced a vote on a bill to restrict the Supreme Court's authority regarding cases related to communists' rights.
Had conflicting pressures: liberal party leaders pushed for a "nay" vote, while conservative constituents pushed for a "yea".
The primary reason for his feeling of entrapment was Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (D-TX)’s intimidating presence.
Johnson’s Political Maneuvering
Johnson's Motivations
Wanted to preserve the Democratic Party by preventing its division, as the bill would create cross-partisan alliances.
Aimed to redirect Senate focus towards other critical business: debt limit and defense spending.
Had presidential ambitions and wanted to enhance his national reputation by appearing more moderate than other Southern Democrats.
Concerned about the implications of the bill on judicial independence.
Senate
Johnson’s Actions on the Senate Floor
After losing a tabling motion unexpectedly (39-46), Johnson experienced chaos on the Senate floor, prompting him to adjourn for the day.
Spent the night lobbying and promising favors to secure the votes needed, including persuading colleagues to either support or avoid voting based on their political interests.
Utilized strategic ploys such as disingenuous pairing of votes to secure the outcome he desired.
Engaged in physical restraint to keep Kerr from voting, using a combination of political charm and charismatic pressure (the "Johnson Treatment").
The Bill's Outcome
Voting Results and Aftermath
The final outcome was the bill’s failure by a single vote, 40-41.
Kerr never cast his vote; had he done so, the result could have been 40-40, leading to a tie decided by Vice President Richard Nixon, potentially placing him in a politically vulnerable position.
The Vice President's role was defined when he declared, "The motion is not debatable," moving on from the contentious vote.
Impact on Supreme Court Decisions
Legal and Political Repercussions
Although the bill to curb the Supreme Court did not pass, it had significant short-term ramifications.
Justice Felix Frankfurter postponed the Court's communism cases following the Senate vote.
Judicial shifts were noted, where justices moved to limit protections for communists’ rights with cases such as:
Uphaus v. Wyman (1959)
Seemingly limited earlier protections established in Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957).Barenblatt v. United States (1959)
Upheld actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee, seemingly overruling Watkins v. United States (1957).Frankfurter’s change was influenced by internal Court dynamics and critiques from colleagues.
Coalition Dynamics within the Democratic Party
Reactions within Political Coalitions
The Democratic Party faced fissures as legislative challenges to judicial independence could have exacerbated divisions between liberal and southern Democrats.
Southern Democrats were motivated by differing reasons for opposing communism: national security concerns versus fears of integration.
Senator James Eastland (D-MS) voiced connections between win over desegregation and communist influence, illustrating the ideological lines in political discussions.
Implications of Constrained Judicial Power
The Role of the Supreme Court in Political Alliances
The uncertainties surrounding the Supreme Court’s stance on communism and its electoral implications provided a complex backdrop for political negotiations between parties.
The Republican and southern Democrat coalitions opposed communism but did so for varying reasons, lacking a coherent electoral alliance on this issue.
Previous legislative attempts to curb courts have been characterized as successful or not based on direct outcomes; however, the effects of this bill can be assessed through indirect influence and shifts in judicial culture.
Pages 53-78
Engel v Vitale
As the Supreme Court justices took their seats, the marshal proclaimed, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"
State-sponsored prayer in public schools was declared a violation of the establishment clause.
Theme of Discussion: Examination of the response and effects of the court's rulings in school prayer cases.
Implications of Antipray Decisions
Countermajoritarian Nature of Rulings: The decisions did not result in immediate electoral gains for the GOP but established the court's narrative as one that prioritized factional preferences.
Impact on Democratic Party: The rulings split liberal Democrats from conservative southern and northern Democrats, primarily Catholic, highlighting a new social issues fault line.
Long-term Political Strategy: Insights gained by the GOP during the 1960s informed future strategies after Roe v. Wade (1973).
Historical Background
Prayer in NY Schools: In 1951, the New York Board of Regents adopted a nondenominational school prayer composed by a group of clergy, voted unanimously by the board.
Board Chairman's Initial Outlook: John Brosnan viewed the prayer as a nonissue, unaware of the controversy it would ignite.
The Engel v. Vitale Case
Court's Perspective on Religious Neutrality: Justice William O. Douglas argued that the establishment clause aimed for neutrality towards religion, deeming the regents' prayer unconstitutional.
List of Unconstitutional Practices Identified: This included congressional and military chaplains, religious services in prisons, using a Bible for oaths, and more.
Subsequent Cases: Abington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett
Engel Precedent Extends: After Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court considered two cases involving Bible readings in Pennsylvania and daily prayer in Baltimore.
Ellery Schempp's Objection: A student objected to Bible readings, prompting ACLU involvement and resulting in rulings against the practice on constitutional grounds.
Madalyn Murray: Murray's active lawsuit highlighted her opposition to religion in public schools, bringing the issue into the spotlight.
Court's Decision: In an 8-1 ruling affirming that Bible readings violated the establishment clause. The law must have (1) a secular purpose and (2) not advance or inhibit religion.
Public and Political Response
Expectation #1: Surface-Level Indicators
Polls: 70-80% of Americans disagreed with the Supreme Court's rulings. 94% of white southerners supported prayer in schools.
Cajority of Catholics, irrespective of party affiliation, also opposed the rulings.
Numerous lawmakers expressed concern over the decisions being countermajoritarian.
Expectation #2: Nonleading Faction Response
Court-Curbing Legislative Proposals: Significant number of court-curbing legislation aimed at reversing Engel and Schempp were proposed, especially by southern Democrats.
Arguments Used by Southern Democrats:
Eliminating prayer harms students' moral education.
Establishment clause does not prohibit school prayer.
Violates states' rights.
Links to desegregation and communism.
Party Switching: Instances of Democratic lawmakers switching to the GOP, though not directly attributed to school prayer incidents.
Republicans’ attempt to get more votes
Shift in Northern Democrats' Position: These members began introducing court-curbing amendments reflecting significant changes in party dynamics.
Republican Leadership on Prayer Issues: Key figures include
Frank Becker (R-NY): Leading efforts for amendments.
Everett Dirksen (R-IL): Engaged in cross-partisan collaboration.
Chalmers Wylie (R-OH): Organized alongside grassroots groups for prayer amendments.
Jesse Helms (R-NC): Took control of prayer legislation through the 1970s.
Grassroots and Congressional Pushback
Resistance to Court Decisions: Noncompliance reported in many states referring to the Supreme Court's rulings.
Mechanisms of Resistance:
Bold defiance of the court's ruling.
Potential acts of non-enforcement by local educators.
Creative circumvention through "moments of silence" policies.
Effectiveness of Grassroots Opposition: Community actions upheld the status quo often disregarding the directives from Engel and Schempp.
Congressional Pushback and Attacks
Introduction of Prayer Amendments: Over 150 amendments proposed to overturn rulings, reflecting a growing pro-prayer coalition.
Obstruction in Committees: Key committee chairs strategically block pro-prayer proposals.
Coalition Building in the 1970s: Successful attempts to garner bipartisan support for amendments advocating for prayer rights.
Electoral Pushback
Prayer decisions did not directly alter electoral outcomes, but they showed dividing lines in party affiliation within a previously cohesive coalition.
Over time, northern catholics began to align with the Republican Party, influenced by issues of social conservatism and school prayer debates.
Pages 79-109
Impact of Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade not only had significant implications for its ruling but also shaped coalitional politics within the United States.
Key points about Roe v. Wade:
It was a transformative factor in political party dynamics, particularly between the Democratic and Republican Parties.
The ruling enabled the emergence of single-issue voters, with traditionally Democratic voters considering Republican options due to pro-life policies.
Contributed to conservative frustration leading to calls for changes on various issues, including prayer, crime, busing, and abortion.
Background of the Roe Case
Originated in Texas, with legislation dating back to 1854, criminalizing abortion with severe penalties.
Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe) became pregnant in 1970 and sought to challenge Texas laws through a lawsuit against Henry Wade, a Dallas district attorney.
District Court Proceedings
Three significant questions arose during the oral arguments at the district court:
The relevance of a woman's pregnancy timeline to the legality of abortion restrictions.
The constitutional arguments presented, chiefly the right to privacy linked to multiple amendments (First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth).
The procedural misstep regarding the defendant, Henry Wade, as others in Texas could still enforce laws.
The district court eventually struck down the Texas law based on Ninth Amendment principles regarding privacy, creating a pathway to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Hearing and Decision
The Supreme Court accepted both Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, another abortion-related case from Georgia, for review.
With just seven justices present (due to two recent retirements), differing views emerged:
Judges Douglas, Brennan, and Stewart opposed Texas' law.
Justice White emphasized the state's interest in protecting potential life.
Justices Marshall and Blackmun proposed that the state's interest in potential life changes over the course of pregnancy.
Chief Justice Burger, despite initial equivocation, ultimately suggested he would join the majority decision and assigned Justice Blackmun to draft the opinion.
Blackmun's Majority Opinion
The opinion divided pregnancy into trimesters, each with different regulatory authorities for states:
First Trimester: Women could terminate pregnancy in consultation with a doctor.
Second Trimester: States could regulate abortion concerning the mother’s health.
Third Trimester: States could prohibit abortion unless the mother's health was at risk.
Justices Berger, Douglas, and Stewart concurred, while Rehnquist and White dissented.
Rehnquist criticized the lack of explicit right to privacy in the Constitution.
Justice White objected to restrictions that denied states the right to decide based on fetal development versus maternal impact.
Public Opinion on Abortion Post-Roe
The national perspective on abortion in the early 1970s was multifaceted, with an anti-Roe majority rather than a strict pro-life majority.
Public sentiment indicated dissatisfaction with the particulars of Roe v. Wade's ruling.
Polling data before the ruling demonstrated:
46% opposed and 42% supported first-trimester abortions (Harris poll).
Gallup indicated 58% against liberalizing positions on abortion.
Broad opposition existed concerning funding abortions or liberalizing second and third-trimester policies.
Majorities against Roe
Post-decision, a discord emerged among pro-life and pro-choice factions, revealing sectional divides regarding abortion laws.
Some districts evidenced strong majorities opposing Roe, advocating for state-by-state abortion regulation.
Moral arguments dominated congressional discussions surrounding abortion, with members of Congress citing widespread disapproval of Roe’s implications.
Reactions from Conservative Democrats
Distinct reactions emerged among southern and northern conservative Democrats concerning abortion.
Southern Democrats were hesitant to adopt vocal anti-abortion positions for fear of losing constituent support.
Likely, a majority of southern Democrats supported procedural changes rather than outright bans on abortion.
Catholic Church
The Catholic Church had a longstanding commitment to anti-abortion stances before Roe, galvanizing its position post-decision.
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) protested against abortion and promoted pro-life laws and lobbying efforts.
Significant community mobilization occurred as Catholic churches engaged parishioners to resist pro-choice legislation.