The Center for Disease Control provides data that allows anyone to calculate the likelihood of their own impending death. Using this information, Slate permits us to determine the likelihood that any Supreme Court Justice, or any combination of Justices, will die in the next four years. This is important, obviously, since we are all interested in how many Justices are likely to be replaced by President Obama. Here are the relevant odds:
| Likelihood of Death by 2017 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justice/Combination of Justices | Probability of Dying | |||
| Any Justice | 63.61% | |||
| Any of the 5 Conservatives | 45.58% | |||
| Any of the 4 Liberals | 32.16% | |||
| Alito | 5.78% | |||
| Breyer | 15.35% | |||
| Ginsburg | 17.66% | |||
| Kagan | 1.4% | |||
| Kennedy | 19.03% | |||
| Roberts | 3.99% | |||
| Scalia | 18.13% | |||
| Sotomayor | 1.9% | |||
| Thomas | 11.19% | |||
You should note that if you run these yourself, you will likely arrive at slightly different numbers, since this is but one out of 10,000 possible simulations. I had always presumed that Ginsburg was the most likely to be replaced, but it appears that Kennedy is more likely to need to be replaced by Obama. Also, it is important to note that this does not consider the likelihood that any Justice or set of Justices will choose to retire during Obama’s tenure. This latter event also must factor in who the likely presidential nominees are expected to be in 2015 or 2016.
January 16th, 2013 at 10:47 am
How fun!
Put them all on Obamanocare and see what happens.
January 16th, 2013 at 11:55 am
Arriba, I don’t think Slate is an “approved” source here on RP.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Yeah, it is, buzz;I have the list right here.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Buzz, you ready to start writing a weekly counterpoint article? You could be like Shana Alexander on 60 minutes before they put that grumpy old idiot on air.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:21 pm
No thanks, the majority of my day is already spent writing, although it is generally about business and medicine, not exactly an enjoyable task (I am well aware, by the way, that you were kidding).
January 16th, 2013 at 3:31 pm
One decision that probably won’t be decided and recent polls indicate it shouldn’t be:
“Most Americans remain opposed to overturning the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which 40 years ago legalized abortion at least in the first three months of pregnancy, according to a poll released Wednesday.
The poll by the Pew Research Center found that 63 percent of Americans believe that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, compared to 29 percent who believe it should be. These opinions have changed little from surveys conducted in 2003 and 1992, Pew reported.
Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, said it is uncommon to see so little change in attitudes on a controversial issue.
“They really haven’t changed a lot over the years which is kind of interesting because a lot of other social issues have changed a lot, gay marriage being the most notable example,” said Dimock.
He noted that opinions on issues such as gay marriage sometimes have a sharp generational divide, with younger people more likely to favor it, so national feelings change over time.
But the abortion issue shows only modest generational differences.
Those most likely to favor upholding Roe v. Wade, at 69 percent, are the “baby boomers” aged 50-64, who were children or young adults when the case was decided on Jan. 22, 1973. This group was followed by those 18-29 years old, who favored upholding the decision by 68 percent.
Those 65 and older were most likely to favor overturning the decision, at 36 percent.”
January 16th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
buzz, first, I assume that McCain was serious.
Second, although it’s sort of obvious that RvW won’t be measurably changed, it’s hard to go from there to where the make-up of the Supreme Court is irrelevant, if that was your point. Some friends of mine contend (although they’re wrong) that the judicial branch is the most powerful of the 3 branches. The correct answer is obviously the legislative branch since it controls the money.
Assuming that we don’t have more decade long adventures for the next few years, the biggest power the president has is to nominate SC members, I think.
January 16th, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Oh, I agree that it is the most important branch and I think in some cases (depending on who retires or dies) that it can be the most important role of the President as it is one of the few acts that can be accurately construed as true “legacy” decisions.
Much of the rhetoric during Presidential campaigns relevant to social issues is, in reality, probably moot, because they are rarely legislative drivers on such issues. They can, however, nominate a Supreme Court justice or two that can result in substantial changes.
Not many people connected the dots, but if Romney had won and was responsible for a couple of nominations; Roe v. Wade could have, indeed, been “on the table” (or at least on the docket). This is especially true since Supreme Court justices don’t have to read or react to polls. The “agenda” of a few new justices could, indeed, change our country for decades.
Consider the outcome of the Bush-Gore election or the “half” decision regarding the Affordable Health Care Act. If nothing else, the Supreme Court is often the “last word”.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:06 am
I agree with Arriba, Buzz. Patrick probably was making you a serious offer about writing. I can recall at one staff meeting where the subject of recruiting either you, “TA” or ‘Me’ came up. Out of the usual bunch of Liberals, the only one we really would not consider is Klo.
We here at RP are not monolithic. We all have our own unique viewpoints and often disagree.