Does it blow your mind Truman is still the last Democrat to name a Chief Justice?

[President Johnson]

No Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court has been appointed since Harry Truman in 1946 named Fred Vinson to the position. Vinson died just a few months into Eisenhower's term, who named liberal Republican Earl Warren to be his successor. Latter initially wanted to retire in 1968, but the senate blocked Lyndon Johnson's effort to elevate Abe Fortas (unrelated but also mindblowing is that Johnson is also the last Democratic president to die, which is 51 years back). So since 1953, there hasn't been a Chief Justice nominated and confirmed by a Democratic president. Including Biden's current term, Democrats held the presidency for 32 years out of that time span.

[politicallefty]

It's a fact I already knew, so not so much. Democrats have really had a raw deal with the Supreme Court ever since 1968. There's been a Republican-appointed majority on the Court since 1969. As far as the Court goes, the 1968 election was extremely consequential. If there hadn't been Republican obstruction in 1968, LBJ would've nominated the Chief Justice. Homer Thornberry was set to replace Abe Fortas as Associate Justice. I admit I don't know much about him, though I do know the kinds of Justices LBJ wanted on the Court. That seat ended up going to Harry Blackmun, which I suppose worked out in the end. However, that was only after the Haynsworth and Carswell nominations went down in flames in the Senate (fortunately).

A Democratic victory in 1968 could've locked in at least a 7-2 liberal majority for at least a generation.

[Del Tachi]

Still not as crazy as a Democratic president having not died in over 50 years (LBJ, 1973).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Still not as crazy as a Democratic president having not died in over 50 years (LBJ, 1973).

Prior to Walter Mondale in 2021, this applied to Democratic VPs as well.

[politicallefty]

Still not as crazy as a Democratic president having not died in over 50 years (LBJ, 1973).

That's really a combination of two things: Republican dominance of the White House from 1969-1993 and both JFK and LBJ dying young. I suppose you can add a third thing and that's the sole Democrat to hold the White House during those years of Republican dominance happens to be the longest-lived President in history.

After Truman and LBJ died (within a month of each other), there were no living former Presidents until Nixon resigned. There were also 21 years between LBJ's death and the next President to die (Nixon).

Prior to Walter Mondale in 2021, this applied to Democratic VPs as well.

Humphrey died in 1978, so that would be just over 43 years. That's still a considerable amount of time though. As far as Democratic VPs go (including two that became President), five died within just a bit more than 12 years (November 1965-January 1978).

[MarkD]

No, my mind is not blown by that fact. My mind is kind of "meh" when I am thinking about that fact.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Not really. The stars need to kind of align for any President to name the Chief Justice.

[Blue3]

Slightly surprising, but Chief Justice doesn't really have more power than any other Justice. Just a little more visible, particularly when swearing in the start of a new presidential term.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Slightly surprising, but Chief Justice doesn't really have more power than any other Justice. Just a little more visible, particularly when swearing in the start of a new presidential term.

Not quite true.

The CHIEF Justice chairs the SCOTUS conference.  There is power in this.  When the Chief Justice chairs the conference, it is his/her prerogative to conduct the vote-taking.  If the Chief Justice is in the majority, he/she assigns the opinion.  If the Chief Justice is in the minority, the Justice with the most seniority in the majority opinion assigns the vote.

In Bob Woodward's The Brethren, Woodward talked about a practice of Chief Justice Warren Burger that annoyed the liberals on the Court.  When the conference convened and a final vote was to be taken, Burger would often "reserve" his vote for strategic purposes.  (Customarily, the Chief Justice voted first.)  The purpose of this was (A) to allow Burger to never be alone in an opinion (liberal critics said of Burger he was "Always to the Right, but never alone!"), and (B) able to control the assignment of all 5-4 and 6-3 opinions, with Burger often becoming a sixth vote in order to control the assignment of writing the opinion.  This would allow Burger to assign the opinion to himself, or assign it to a less liberal Justice in order to blunt the effect of the case.  (Burger reportedly try to assign opinions to Justices when he was in the minority, but the Conference rebelled against this.)  

Imagine, if you will, John Roberts voting in the majority of Obergefell, then assigning the opinion to himself.  That's a "for example".  Roe v. Wade gives an example of what that would be like.  The conference made it clear that they wanted to legalize abortion (at least the liberal majority did).  Burger voted with the majority; he did so in order to control the assignment.  He assigned the case to Harry Blackmun, who was then still considered a conservative, and his record to that point justified that conclusion.  While I am not a fan of Obergefell, its legal reasoning, and the dissents to the same, are fairly straightforward.  Roe was never that straightforward; there's a reason it has not survived.

There is a power benefit to being the First Among Equals.  Burger was an effective Chief Justice even when he was a minority Chief Justice.