Near impossible is correct.
That chart is all men/women and does not account for SES or whatever. Finding better data would be extremely problematic. For Ginsburg she takes very good care of herself, appears to be tough as hell and has access to the best healthcare America can provide. The previous health issues also can be provided for but with difficulty.
Figure it balances out. Maybe. Possibly. Could be.
Given stories about how poorly Clarence Thomas takes care of himself physically, who’s willing to bet that Ginsburg will be the next to go? Hell, who had Scalia in the pool?
An 86 year old female has a life expectancy of 6.43 years based upon this set of life expectancy numbers from the Social Security Administration from 2015.
She has a history of pancreatic cancer but works out regularly and seems to have a very sharp mind. Not sure if her life expectancy would be the average for the group of women of similar age.
That 6.43 years is about 2349 days. And according to https://howlonguntiltrumpleaves.com/ Trump only has 925 days and a few hours until his term of office is over. So RBG should, on average, outlive his presidency… if he is a one term president.
A second term would add 1461 days to Trump’s presidency. That would be a total of 2385 days from now. And RBG would, on average, be expected to die a mere 36 days prior to Trump leaving office (on Dec 15, 2024) from a second term, during the lame duck transition period.
Of course these are round numbers and a mere guess and do not account for the fact that RBG is a bit shy of her 86th birthday at present. But on average an 86 year old woman alive today would outlive Trump’s first term but die shortly before completion of his second term.
If *arguendo *Trump wins a second term and the Republicans still control the Senate would anyone actually believe that Trump and the Senate would defer making a nomination and voting on Advice and Consent to permit the incoming to make the selection? Would it even matter if the incoming president is also a Republican?
A lot of these very conservative justices are strong believers in precedent–so even though they would never have voted for a particular decision if they had been justices when it was originally made, decades later they are not going to change it. Look at the Miranda decision of 1966 which only passed with a 5-4 majority:
Does anyone here think it will be immediately overturned?
I will say this:
The Democrats are not going to allow themselves to be permanently locked out of governing for the next 30 years due to an illegitimate SCOTUS. Expect them to just add more seats if/when the Court crosses a red line by striking down a core Democratic law (Medicare-for-All is the obvious one, but ruling the EPA unconstitutional or something could also cross the line).
Honestly, the fear of Court-packing is what is going to prevent John Roberts from allowing the Court to veer too far to the right. That said, if Trump is able to replace Ginsburg or Breyer that decision may not be up to him anymore.
We used to have a “Judiciary” subforum, but too many threads ended up as a screaming match between Judge Wapner and Judge Judy fanboys.
Not a chance. And there is nothing illegitimate about the current court except in the imagination of some people.
Roberts isn’t losing any sleep over the idea of court packing, because it’s not going to happen. If there was any chance of that happening, the Republicans would be doing it right now as a preemptive measure.
Well being that the two oldest SCOUTS members are Ginsberg and Breyer ( 86, and 80 in August ), the best Dems could hope for is to keep the 5-4 minority is to have both the Senate and Presidency when a vacancy for Ginsberg or Breyer appears.
The soon to be 5-4 majority seems good for at least two more presidential terms. So it’s an 8- 10-year checkmate if you will.
If a moderate judge with one party holding the presidency the other the Senate is put in, it would only weaken a liberal point of legal view, making 5-4 or 6-3 outcomes likely.
If Trump replaces either Ginsberg or Breyer with the Senate, I would say its a checkmate for 15-20 years with a conservative based majority rule in the court. My guess is either Ginsberg or Breyer will need to be replaced before 2024. Perhaps both.
When William O. Douglas suffered a stroke in the 1974-1975 term, the other eight justices shifted his workload, reassigned opinions he would have written and most importantly, deferred cases where he might have been the swing vote in a 5-4 decision. Douglas continued to serve through the rest of that term and into the 1975-1976 term before he decided/was persuaded to resign.
Douglas had already been targeted in two separate attempts (153 and 1970) to impeach him, but I don’t believe there was any official move to remove him in 1975.
Also, I can’t help but wonder at the effect of all of this on, say, Thomas.
Imagine, as seems entirely plausible, that Ginsburg winds up being replaced during Trump’s term because, well, she’s in her eighties — just like she was in her eighties when the Democrats had the White House and the Senate. And imagine that said replacement, being nominated by Trump and okayed by Republicans in the Senate, promptly decides case after case after case in what’s clearly the exact opppsite of how RBG would’ve — undoing, instead of reverentially citing as precedent, her life’s work whenever possible; and voting, presumably, with Thomas.
Imagine that Thomas, in his seventies, sees this happen right in front of him. Heck, imagine that it’s one of his former law clerks. Does he get a little more tempted to step down when someone could put his work up on a pedestal instead of maybe rolling some dice on a successor in his eighties?
Why would there be a problem with Medicare-for-All? It would seem to have no more constitutional problems than Medicare for people over 65.
Thomas should just retire right now, when he still has a conservative POTUS and Republican majority in the Senate to get him a likeminded replacement - unless he’s waiting to see how the midterms play out.
Nonsense. People are Supreme Court justices because they want to do that and will continue doing that until they die, get too sick or are tired of doing that. Just like for any other job who will replace them is a very minor consideration in their decision to leave.
Dems are gonna be getting defeated by SCOTUS alot in the next few years. Not sure how long it will last.
The moral of the story is that elections have consequences. It’s that simple.
Dems need to get off their collective rear-ends, and start winning more elections at local, state and national levels.
Funny to think that 4 out of 5 of the justices from the GOP side will have been put there by a president who lost the popular vote. All three branches of government are run by the minority party.
Roberts and Alito were put in by Bush in his second term. He did not “lose the popular vote” in 2004.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh here we come…
It’s funny to think that people think the popular vote has any relevance.
As bleak as things look now, they could get a hell of a lot worse. If the republicans hang on to power for another 4-8 years, I think the possibility is good that they will threaten to impeach progressive judges and replace them with conservative ideologues. Whether or not they succeed doesn’t matter; plutocrats just want the judiciary to stop functioning, and that would do the trick.
And had this been anything like a fair and honest election, I’d have no problem with that. It wasn’t, and the “winners” are doing their level best to insure we never find out how much it wasn’t.