Sandra Day O’Connor has retired from the Supreme Court and John Roberts will almost certainly replace her. History might have been different. As part of the Robert’s confirmation process, the National Archives have released a huge number of previously privileged memorandum compiled by the Department of Justice during the Reagan administration. One of those memos mentions the possible appointment of two Mormons to the spot on the Court ultimately occupied by Justice O’Connor.
During his presidential campaign in 1980, President Reagan promised that he would appoint the first woman to the United States Supreme Court. Upon coming into office, Reagan’s Attorney General, Ed Meese, began looking for potential nominees. Among the memos released is one from Hank Habicht, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General, to Kenneth Starr, then a Counselor to the Attorney General. In the memo Habicht describes the background research that he did on Justice O’Connor, including a semi-clandestine trip to Arizona to investigate her political past. Although the bulk of the memo is on O’Connor, Habicht mentions in passing that the DOJ had also considered “Dallin Oaks” as a potential nominee.
In 1981, Justice Potter Stewart retired. Steward had been one of the consist conservative dissenters from many of the Warren Court’s decisions, and he had been the most intelligent and articulate internal critic of many of the Court’s leftward lurches in the 1960s and 1970s. He was passed over by Nixon for the slot of Chief Justice, when Warren resigned. This sleight apparently embittered him, and he eventually became the chief confidential source for Bob Woodward’s 1979 expose of the Supreme Court The Brethren. (At the time of its publication, most people assumed that The Brethren was based on off-the-record interviews with clerks. After Stewart’s death in the mid-1980s, however, Woodward revealed in a Playboy article that his chief source had been Stewart, who actually contacted Woodward and arranged a secret meeting in suburban Washington, D.C. to share nasty stories about his colleagues. I swear that I only read Playboy for the articles.) Stewart had not been the swing vote on the Court — that honor went to Louis F. Powell — and O’Connor’s nomination ultimately sailed through. When Powell did retire in 1987, there was thermonuclear war in the U.S. Senate over the nomination first of Robert Bork and then of Douglas Ginsburg. Anthony Kennedy ultimately got the slot.
In 1981, Dallin Oaks was a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, which traditionally has not been a breeding ground for U.S. Supreme Court short-listers. However, by that time he had a very impressive resume. An honors graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, he had clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren on the U.S. Supreme Court and had then gone on to practice law with the Chicago firm of Kirtland & Ellis. After a couple of years, he was contacted by Edward Levi, then Dean of the Univeristy of Chicago Law School, and was invited to become a professor. (How is that for sailing through the academic job market!) At Chicago he gained national prominence for conducting and publishing a very influential study attacking the Warren Court’s criminal procedure jurisprudence and purporting to show that it resulted in the release of otherwise guilty defendants without having any major impact on the behavior of law enforcement. From Chicago, Oaks became head of the American Bar Foundation, which was the research arm of the American Bar Association. In this way he came to know Louis F. Powell, a Virginia lawyer who was then president of the ABA. A short time later, Richard Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court. After a stint as the head of the Public Broadcasting Corporation, Oaks — who hadn’t lived in Utah since before law school — was called to be President of BYU, where he served until the late 1970s. After a very brief stint as a professor at BYU Law School he was put on the Utah Supreme Court.
In 1981 there was no real chance that Oaks would have gotten the slot. However, the fact that he was seriously considered suggests that he would have been very competitive for the slot to which Antonin Scalia was appointed to a few years later. In the intervening time, however, Elder Oaks was called into the Quorum of the Twelve.
Interestingly, the Habicht memo also reveals that in 1981, Rex Lee’s name was also being considered as a potential nominee and that Lee — then Solicitor General — was involved (not surprisingly) in vetting potential nominees. A final fun bit of trivia from the memo. Lee was from Arizona, as was O’Connor. The memo is silent about the importance of this connection, but I suspect that it was not accidental. It does mention, however, that on his background trip to Arizona Habicht spoke about O’Connor with one of Lee’s old law partners: John Kyl, who is now the junior Senator from that state.
Here is the entire memo, if you would like to read it.
Lewis Powell
Nate: Is The Brethren any good as an intrdocution to behind-doors politics at the court? I have this weird interest in the Supreme Court, but not being a lawyer, I’m not really sure how to satiate it…
When Elder Oaks was called as an Apostle in ’84, several reporters called from Washington to see if this calling would preclude any potential appointments to the Supreme court. He confirmed that it would. He was apparently still being tossed around as a future nominee.
I find Ben’s post interesting, as both Smoot and Clark both served in high levels of government while being members of either the twelve or the first presidency. Different eras, I suppose.
jimbob – The new DOM biography (Prince/Wright) has wonderful detail on Ezra Benson’s service as the US Secretary of Agriculture while an Apostle and some of the difficulties that resulted from his dual roles. It became pretty clear towards the end that it just doesn’t work to mix a high calling like that of Apostle with a political office. I recommend reading this if your interested.
It is not clear if an Apostle could also serve as a Supreme Court justice consistent with the cannons of judicial ethics. Judges are severly limited in the extent to which they can have outside employment and associations. The legal status of the cannons, of course, is a bit murky.
Nate: The legal status of the cannons, of course, is a bit murky.
Which cannons are you speaking of. Is artillery no longer allowed the Army? And what does artillery have to do with the big guns of the Supreme Court?
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist–I need to go tithe my mint.)
Great, now Jim is doing it…
You took the words right out of Prudence’s mouth, Jim F.
I wonder what the hearings would be like if a Mormon was appointed to the Supreme Court? I suspect what we’ve heard directly and indirectly from Kennedy against Romney would be small compared to the insinuations the left would engage in.
Jim,
If you look carefully in the nooks and crannies of that marble monument that is the Supreme Court building, you’ll spot a couple of howiters aimed across the plaza at the capitol. But, try to do it on a non-murky day (January to April is the best season for cannon watching).
Nate, I’m also curious as to what you think about Woodward’s book. Worth a read for someone like myself who’s interested in government and politics, but less so in the law?
BTW, Nate. You’ve had some great posts lately. Keep ’em coming.
I read The Brethren in college, before I went to law school, and enjoyed it. I’d assumed Brennan’s clerks were the most involved, given that most of the episodes end with Brennan heroically securing an uncertain victory for the righteous, and hadn’t heard about Stewart’s involvement until today. Thurgood Marshall is portrayed as a comparative dolt (it’s said the other chambers could immediately discern if Marshall or his clerks had written a memo or draft opinion), which led Martha Minnow, an HLS professor who clerked for Marshall, to distrust the book. It’s also clear that Woodward and his sources have no affection for Burger.
If you’re only willing to commit a half-dozen hours, just read the first half.
The Brethren is definitely worth reading. I had forgotten that Marshall was portrayed as a dolt, but I distinctly remember the book containing plenty of Burger bashing. I think every book written about the Supreme Court leans in one direction or the other. You simply can’t discuss the court without ideology playing some role. Nonetheless, I found The Brethren fairly objective and quite informative.
Another behind-the-scenes book is “Closed Chambers” by Edward Lazarus. It’s much more gossipy and Lazarus doesn’t hide his leftward leanings, but it was a fun and easy read. Closed Chambers includes a little more legal analysis, so for someone not interested in the law, The Brethren will be more interesting.
Clark: “I suspect what we’ve heard directly and indirectly from Kennedy against Romney would be small compared to the insinuations the left would engage in.”
Aren’t many on the religious right the ones that hold the most against Mormons? What insinuations would they make, when they know they can’t come out and say we’re not Christian for such and such doctrinal reasons? We may all find out soon, depending.
Nate–
I’m sure Elder Oaks was attracted to the Mormon feel of “Kirtland and Ellis,” but I believe in the end he opted for the more mainstream Kirkland & Ellis. :)