And just for the heck of it, here is my scorecard for RAT presidents getting the ideal kind of justice THEY wanted (usually liberal activists who “find” imaginary new “rights” in the Constitution that never existed before).
Contrary to popular belief, its not all RAT presidents getting perfect commie RAT judges and GOP presidents all getting lemons, though their “success” rate overall has been FAR better than GOP presidents, especially with recent RAT presidents.
Wilson and JFK each “accidentally” appointed 1 conservative. The other RAT presidents never did, though it appears both FDR and Truman ended up with numerous center-left “moderate” RATS and some unpredictable swing justices instead of the hardcore communists they wanted, so I adjusted the scorecard accordingly. (in FDR’s case his less-than-ideal justices didn’t matter because he still got to appoint FIVE yes-man anyway, plus a marxist CJ).
LBJ had a perfect 2-0 score, if he had played his cards right, he would have potentially ended up with a perfect 4-0 score. Clinton and Obama both got their ideal justice 100% of the time as well:
Wilson: 2-1
FDR: 5-3-1 (James F. Byrnes wasn’t on SCOTUS long enough to make an impact)
Truman: 1-3
JFK: 1-1
LBJ: 2-0 (although Fortas elevation to CJ was later rejected, and Homer Thornberry’s nomination was rendered moot)
Carter: N/A
Clinton: 2-0
Obama: 2-0
With respect to Byrnes, he’d have probably been better off remaining on SCOTUS (and likely could’ve continued until his death in 1972). I think by the 1950s, he’d have been a reliable Conservative, and by not having resigned could’ve prevented THREE judicial mediocrities (Wiley Rutledge, Sherman Minton, and the execrable William Brennan) from succeeding him.