Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes VI (Do Not Post Current Politics or Political Figures Here)
- Status
Uh, wouldn't that spark a war between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, though?
K.2
Banned
Nah. Taiwan wouldn’t be able to effectively project force onto the cities in the first place, so what’d you get is fist waving at this ‘illegitimate occupation’ and not much else.
I was reflecting on it the other day: if he were still alive now, Elvis would be 86 years old.
That's certainly an advanced age, but not an impossible one to reach.
Something from the same post-fantasy universe I made
In this world, a primitive and unstable magic exists, which consists more of a form of physical sensitivity to what is called "Ase", that could be compared to a passive radioactivity. Some are naturally sensitive to it and can interact with it in a limited way. During prehistory these people became shamans and the natural spiritual and political leaders of humans In order to maintain control of Ase in their circles throughout the ages., and especially not to dilute it, the various dynasties spent centuties marrying within each other until irreparable damage was done.
For a few centuries now, the politics of this world has been undergoing a slow change and is looking for a new source of legitimacy to lead human societies.
The royal families live in almost larval states and their power is used as a source of energy and legitimacy by a clergy led by the "Ears" pretending to govern in their name.
The army has taken control of some countries and is transitioning to openly republican regimes while Vhân-Tuzig is in a state of in-between.
Last edited:
Yes, I took a photo of Elvis standing near a stutz blackhawk and colored the photo to somewhat match the original Cash album. I got way more ready to upload
Alternate infobox I made of a TL where Biggie survives his shooting in 1997. (Why yes, I'm obsessed with Biggie at the moment. How can you tell?)
As for the album cover, the black and white of the headers obviously parallels the parental advisory warning. The building itself is Biggie's front door.
Attachments
Presumably Elvis covered it. Like how Jimi Hendrix covered Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" and made a bigger hit out of it than Dylan had done.
-1964 Elections
-1966 Elections
-1968 Elections
-1972 Presidential Election
In January 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement, creating an opening on the Supreme Court. Johnson initially sought to appoint Abe Fortas - current associate justice and longtime friend to the President - to the Chief Justice position, and then appoint someone to replace Fortas' seat. But certain potential ethics violations by Fortas were made public, leading to opposition to the nominee. Furthermore, something of a backlash against the liberal rulings of the Supreme Court in the 60s had emerged among Republicans and moderate/conservative Democrats. LBJ ultimately was unable to get enough support for cloture for the Fortas nomination in the Senate, and withdrew the nomination in May
With fear that he might lose his chance to fill the opening, and facing the possibility that Nixon would win and fill the position, Johnson tried again. This time, he nominated Arthur Goldberg, who had already been on the Supreme Court for a short period from 1962 to 1965, and had since then been ambassador to the United Nations until retiring in early 1968. The Goldberg nomination also generated significant controversy, especially with the election less than half a year away, but Goldberg didn't quite generate the sort of controversy Fortas did, and the Senate narrowly voted in favor of cloture, allowing the nomination. LBJ and the liberals breathed a sigh of relief - regardless of which way the 1968 election swung, Chief Justice Warren was replaced by a liberal, and the court would maintain its orientation, for a little while at least
Fortas retained his associate justice seat after his failed nomination for Chief Justice, but additional controversies emerged, and in 1969, just a year after he had his shot to lead the court, he resigned from the court completely due to these ethics scandals. The nomination to replace him was rather more low-key than the Warren replacement fight, however, with Democrats having gained seats in the 1968 senate elections as part of their surprise blowout win that year, and without the controversy of a nomination fight shortly before an election, President Humphrey's nominee faced a relatively clear path in the Senate. While Humphrey was not on the best of relations with LBJ due to their differences in opinions over Vietnam, Humphrey nonetheless chose appellate judge Homer Thornberry, Johnson's initial choice to replace Fortas' associate seat before the Fortas nomination failed, to replace Fortas
In September 1971, a major development occurred - two Supreme Court openings emerged. First, Hugo Black retired on the 17th, and died just a week later. Then on September 23, with failing health due to spinal cancer, John Marshall Harlan II also retired. This was a big deal for Humphrey - Black had once been the most liberal justice on the court, but the 60s saw him shift to the right of the SCOTUS median, and Harlan was the most conservative justice on the court. Thus Humphrey was able to shift the courts in a strongly liberal direction, even more than it already was, and potentially allow it to stay that way for years or decades. Humphrey made history with his replacement for Black - nominating California superior court judge Shirley Hufstedler, the first woman on the Supreme Court. To replace Harlan, he nominated appellate judge Donald P. Lay. Both nominees passed the Senate, and the court thus shifted to a 7-2 liberal court
In 1972, the Supreme Court consolidated three cases regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty. The full court ruled that the death penalty in these cases was "cruel and unusual" and thus unconstitutional. However, a liberal majority went a step further, and ruled that the death penalty was inherently cruel and unusual, and thus impermissible in any case. The more conservative justices, Stewart and White, gave the opinion that a temporary moratorium should be placed on the death penalty in order to allow for increasing the standards and protections in place, but held that the death penalty itself couldn't be considered unconstitutional. But the majority opinion ended the death penalty nationwide
In 1968, a lawsuit occurred in Texas over the issue of school funding. Certain parents took issue with the state's method of school funding, arguing that it led to unequal results harming students in poorer areas, by giving them access to schools of lower quality. By 1972, the case reached the Supreme Court, and in 1973, the Court made its ruling. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the liberal majority ruled that as a matter of due process, the "right to education" is, while unenumerated, recognized as a fundamental right. The Court ruled that funding for the state's schools would need to be done on a more equitable basis. The aftermath of the case saw states reforming their systems of school funding in order to comply with the ruling, with most shifting to a system of state rather than local-based funding sources and equal funding for schools on a per-capita basis
The ruling generated a sizable amount of backlash and conservative anger, due to the shift away from local control of school funding, and due to suburban/middle/upper class upset over the redistributive effect. The ruling is also, however, widely appreciated in many circles, for having a sizable equalizing effect on schools, and is generally considered (though not without some controversy) to have been a factor in the decline in urban poverty and improvements in outcomes for urban and minority students
In 1970, the NAACP sued Michigan state officials over the issue of inequality and de facto segregation in schools. The case made its way up through the courts, with the District Court ruling against the state and school districts and ordering a desegregation plan that included cross-district busing. The case was appealed and the Supreme Court took up the case in 1974, making their ruling that same year
This case created something of a pickle for the dominant liberal bloc on the court. In their deliberations, they found that a majority personally considered de facto segregation to be a matter of constitutional issue, with a desire to avoid echoes of a "separate but equal" situation by allowing it to stand. On the other hand, desegregation busing was very unpopular, with some politicians (including President Agnew) considering policy to outright remove the courts' ability to require busing. Despite the ideal of a court free from matters of politics, these factors led to concerns of politics and maintaining the jurisdiction of the courts being argued among the liberal bloc. Some also argued that the earlier San Antonio case had made the matter less of a pressing concern, by allowing for improvement in education for disadvantaged populations without the necessity of busing
In the end, differences in opinion among the liberal bloc led to a somewhat awkward plurality decision. In a narrow ruling, the court determined that the lower ruling for busing in Michigan was allowed to be carried out, and that de facto segregation was an actionable issue. Past that, though, the liberals disagreed more broadly on the matter of scrutiny applied to de facto segregation and appropriate response. In his plurality opinion, Chief Justice Goldberg declared that while busing could very well be ordered as a prescription for educational matters, and that the shift towards implementing more equal funding in schools could very well make such measures unnecessary going forward
The ruling's somewhat measured and limited endorsement of busing may have taken a bit of wind from the sails of the anti-busing backlash, but that backlash, despite the hopes of the courts, continued to grow, with legislation to strip the courts of jurisdiction over busing only narrowly failing in Congress. At first, the Republicans appeared to have a strong shot at making gains in the 1974 midterms due to anti-busing backlash - but the election soon became dominated instead by Agnew's scandals and the legal and political fallout from that matter, shifting the matter of busing aside. Moving forward, the issue of busing remained a point of strong political contention, but following a trend of judicial restraint in mandating busing as a remedy, the pushes for jurisdiction stripping were never quite able to be successful
_________________________________________________
Figured I probably wouldn't do anything more with this, but had the idea to do some stuff with the SCOTUS and court cases in this world. Probably won't do anything more with it tho
-1966 Elections
-1968 Elections
-1972 Presidential Election
-Odds and Ends - the Supreme Court-
In January 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement, creating an opening on the Supreme Court. Johnson initially sought to appoint Abe Fortas - current associate justice and longtime friend to the President - to the Chief Justice position, and then appoint someone to replace Fortas' seat. But certain potential ethics violations by Fortas were made public, leading to opposition to the nominee. Furthermore, something of a backlash against the liberal rulings of the Supreme Court in the 60s had emerged among Republicans and moderate/conservative Democrats. LBJ ultimately was unable to get enough support for cloture for the Fortas nomination in the Senate, and withdrew the nomination in May
With fear that he might lose his chance to fill the opening, and facing the possibility that Nixon would win and fill the position, Johnson tried again. This time, he nominated Arthur Goldberg, who had already been on the Supreme Court for a short period from 1962 to 1965, and had since then been ambassador to the United Nations until retiring in early 1968. The Goldberg nomination also generated significant controversy, especially with the election less than half a year away, but Goldberg didn't quite generate the sort of controversy Fortas did, and the Senate narrowly voted in favor of cloture, allowing the nomination. LBJ and the liberals breathed a sigh of relief - regardless of which way the 1968 election swung, Chief Justice Warren was replaced by a liberal, and the court would maintain its orientation, for a little while at least
Fortas retained his associate justice seat after his failed nomination for Chief Justice, but additional controversies emerged, and in 1969, just a year after he had his shot to lead the court, he resigned from the court completely due to these ethics scandals. The nomination to replace him was rather more low-key than the Warren replacement fight, however, with Democrats having gained seats in the 1968 senate elections as part of their surprise blowout win that year, and without the controversy of a nomination fight shortly before an election, President Humphrey's nominee faced a relatively clear path in the Senate. While Humphrey was not on the best of relations with LBJ due to their differences in opinions over Vietnam, Humphrey nonetheless chose appellate judge Homer Thornberry, Johnson's initial choice to replace Fortas' associate seat before the Fortas nomination failed, to replace Fortas
In September 1971, a major development occurred - two Supreme Court openings emerged. First, Hugo Black retired on the 17th, and died just a week later. Then on September 23, with failing health due to spinal cancer, John Marshall Harlan II also retired. This was a big deal for Humphrey - Black had once been the most liberal justice on the court, but the 60s saw him shift to the right of the SCOTUS median, and Harlan was the most conservative justice on the court. Thus Humphrey was able to shift the courts in a strongly liberal direction, even more than it already was, and potentially allow it to stay that way for years or decades. Humphrey made history with his replacement for Black - nominating California superior court judge Shirley Hufstedler, the first woman on the Supreme Court. To replace Harlan, he nominated appellate judge Donald P. Lay. Both nominees passed the Senate, and the court thus shifted to a 7-2 liberal court
In 1972, the Supreme Court consolidated three cases regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty. The full court ruled that the death penalty in these cases was "cruel and unusual" and thus unconstitutional. However, a liberal majority went a step further, and ruled that the death penalty was inherently cruel and unusual, and thus impermissible in any case. The more conservative justices, Stewart and White, gave the opinion that a temporary moratorium should be placed on the death penalty in order to allow for increasing the standards and protections in place, but held that the death penalty itself couldn't be considered unconstitutional. But the majority opinion ended the death penalty nationwide
In 1968, a lawsuit occurred in Texas over the issue of school funding. Certain parents took issue with the state's method of school funding, arguing that it led to unequal results harming students in poorer areas, by giving them access to schools of lower quality. By 1972, the case reached the Supreme Court, and in 1973, the Court made its ruling. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the liberal majority ruled that as a matter of due process, the "right to education" is, while unenumerated, recognized as a fundamental right. The Court ruled that funding for the state's schools would need to be done on a more equitable basis. The aftermath of the case saw states reforming their systems of school funding in order to comply with the ruling, with most shifting to a system of state rather than local-based funding sources and equal funding for schools on a per-capita basis
The ruling generated a sizable amount of backlash and conservative anger, due to the shift away from local control of school funding, and due to suburban/middle/upper class upset over the redistributive effect. The ruling is also, however, widely appreciated in many circles, for having a sizable equalizing effect on schools, and is generally considered (though not without some controversy) to have been a factor in the decline in urban poverty and improvements in outcomes for urban and minority students
In 1970, the NAACP sued Michigan state officials over the issue of inequality and de facto segregation in schools. The case made its way up through the courts, with the District Court ruling against the state and school districts and ordering a desegregation plan that included cross-district busing. The case was appealed and the Supreme Court took up the case in 1974, making their ruling that same year
This case created something of a pickle for the dominant liberal bloc on the court. In their deliberations, they found that a majority personally considered de facto segregation to be a matter of constitutional issue, with a desire to avoid echoes of a "separate but equal" situation by allowing it to stand. On the other hand, desegregation busing was very unpopular, with some politicians (including President Agnew) considering policy to outright remove the courts' ability to require busing. Despite the ideal of a court free from matters of politics, these factors led to concerns of politics and maintaining the jurisdiction of the courts being argued among the liberal bloc. Some also argued that the earlier San Antonio case had made the matter less of a pressing concern, by allowing for improvement in education for disadvantaged populations without the necessity of busing
In the end, differences in opinion among the liberal bloc led to a somewhat awkward plurality decision. In a narrow ruling, the court determined that the lower ruling for busing in Michigan was allowed to be carried out, and that de facto segregation was an actionable issue. Past that, though, the liberals disagreed more broadly on the matter of scrutiny applied to de facto segregation and appropriate response. In his plurality opinion, Chief Justice Goldberg declared that while busing could very well be ordered as a prescription for educational matters, and that the shift towards implementing more equal funding in schools could very well make such measures unnecessary going forward
The ruling's somewhat measured and limited endorsement of busing may have taken a bit of wind from the sails of the anti-busing backlash, but that backlash, despite the hopes of the courts, continued to grow, with legislation to strip the courts of jurisdiction over busing only narrowly failing in Congress. At first, the Republicans appeared to have a strong shot at making gains in the 1974 midterms due to anti-busing backlash - but the election soon became dominated instead by Agnew's scandals and the legal and political fallout from that matter, shifting the matter of busing aside. Moving forward, the issue of busing remained a point of strong political contention, but following a trend of judicial restraint in mandating busing as a remedy, the pushes for jurisdiction stripping were never quite able to be successful
_________________________________________________
Figured I probably wouldn't do anything more with this, but had the idea to do some stuff with the SCOTUS and court cases in this world. Probably won't do anything more with it tho
- Status