Having settled on Lewis Powell as successor to Hugo Black in 1971, Richard Nixon turned his attention to the seat left by John Marshall Harlan's  retirement (soon to be followed by death). At first Nixon wanted a  conservative woman judge for the seat, but there were few conservative  women judges in those days, and fewer still who would be rated qualified  for the Supreme Court by the American Bar Association's Selection  Committee. He finally gave up on the idea of appointing a woman; he and  John Mitchell decided on Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee. The Senate  was sure to confirm him, and Nixon liked the idea of two justices from the  South. (Nixon had earlier considered Herschel Friday, a Little Rock  attorney, but Friday's representation of the Little Rock School Board in  the 1957 school desegregation crisis proved somewhat controverisal, and he  got a very lukewarm rating from the ABA.) 

"But when Mitchell met Baker to ask, Baker wanted time to decide, citing  concerns about salary. As John Dean put it, Baker 'dithered,' asking for  still more time. Nixon decided that time was up, and Baker lost his  chance." Mark Tushnet, *A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the  Future of Constitutional Law,* p. 28.  http://books.google.com/....pg=PA28 

Suppose Baker had accepted, and was appointed to the Court instead of  Rehnquist. A few obvious consequences:

(1) The difference on the Court itself. Baker, as a moderate  conservative, looks to me to be more likely to vote like Powell than like  Rehnquist on most issues. However, according to his biographer, "With  opponents, he believed the Roe v. Wade decision a mistake" and deemed  states "the proper arbiters of the question." At the same time, he "found  it 'increasingly difficult' to listen to either lobby with sympathy and  meditated that abortion was 'freighted with all of the moral, cultural,  and religious weight a single issue can bear.'" James Lee Annis, *Howard  Baker: Conciliator in an Age of Crisis,* p. 137. My guess is that he  votes aginst *Roe* but afterwards attempts to restrict it rather than  overrule it outright. 

(2) The difference made by his absence from the Senate (where he was to  become Minority and then Majority Leader). His role as ranking minority  member of the Ervin Committee investigating Watergate and his "What did  the President know and when did he know it?"--a question supposedly given  to him by his counsel Fred Thompson--are well-known. But I don't think  the history of Watergate and impeachment would be that different without  Baker in the Senate. More important may have been his role in providing  just enough Republican support for the Panama Canal Treaty to get it  ratified.  There is also his role as Majority Leader after 1980 until he retired in  1984, especially during the year 1981 when most of Reagan's economic  agenda was enacted.

To quote the *Almanac of American Politics 1984*, p.  1090:  "Baker took an unwieldy group of 53 Republican senators and welded them  into a solid majority. They were an odd group: most of them freshmen,  men and two women of widely differing views and no great trust of one  another. None had served as part of a Republican majority in Congress;  none had ever chaired a congressional committee. As members of a  minority, they were used to scoring points; now they were responsible for  running a government. Under Howard Baker's leadership they did. Baker  profited from the unity the Republicans had been developing in the late  Carter years, and the attempts Republicans of disparate views were already  making, to come up with policies they could all support. He benefitted  from the leadership of the administration. But finally it was Howard  Baker who kept the Republicans all together, voting as a unit, controlling  the Senate with their 53 or 54 votes, crafting budgets and pushing through  tax cuts and then increases. He did this largely throgh close individual  attention to each Republican senator. Like Lyndon Johnson, he got to know  his colleagues, and he relied more on rewards than on threats to get them  to do whar he wanted." 

Who would be the most likely alternative to Baker as Minority and then  Majority Leader from 1976-1984? Robert Griffin of Michigan was considered  the most likely alternative to Baker in 1976, but he was defeated for re-  election to the Senate in 1978. I am not sure, however, that Griffin  would be defeated for re-election in this ATL. Griffin, disappointed that  he had lost the race for Minority Leader to Baker, announced his  retirement in 1978, missed large numbers of roll-call votes, and then  changed his mind and decided to run after all. Carl Levin in his fairly  narrow (52-4 1978 victory over Griffin in OTL made much of the missed  votes, which presumably won't happen in this ATL if Griffin is elected  Minority Leader in 1976. 

(3) Baker in this ATL does not run for president in 1980. This may help  Bush a little becasue the anti-Reagan vote will be less divided, but  Reagan won so heavily in New Hampshire (after which Baker dropped out)  that it would probably make little difference. 

(4) In this ATL Baker presumably doesn't serve as Reagan's chief of staff  from 1987-8. I'm not sure what difference that would make but in the wake  of Iran-Contra and the Democrats reclaiming the Senate (and Donald Regan's  quitting under fire) it was useful for Reagan to have a man who had good  relations with senators of both parties, as Baker did. 

(5) When does Baker retire? Theoretically, he could be on the Court right  now--after all, he is more than five years younger than John Paul  Stevens--but I think he would have retired under some Republican  president. It might be as early as the Reagan era or as late as the GW  Bush era.

I'm pretty sure that if he were still on the Court in 1992 he  would stay on it through the Clinton years and be pro-Bush in *Bush v.  Gore* (assuming it is not butterflied away--for example, maybe whoever  succeeds Baker as Senator from Tennessee is strong enough to win re-  election not only in 1978 but in 1984...).