| D/R | Age | Age + 4 | ||
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg | D | 79.7 | 83.7 | |
| Antonin Scalia | R | 76.7 | 80.7 | |
| Anthony Kennedy | R | 76.3 | 80.3 | |
| Stephen Breyer | D | 74.2 | 78.2 | |
| Clarence Thomas | R | 64.4 | 68.4 | |
| Samuel A. Alito, Jr. | R | 62.6 | 66.6 | |
| Sonia Sotomayor | D | 58.4 | 62.4 | |
| John G. Roberts | R | 57.8 | 61.8 | |
| Elena Kagan | D | 52.5 | 56.5 |
Who did you vote for, Steve?
ReplyDeleteThat is such an awesome chart it definitely needs to be posted three times. =)
ReplyDelete(folks not using an RSS reader won't get that one)
Seriously, you're on fire lately, Steve. Obama needs to win more elections, at least if your eager fans are going to have lots to read.
You would also do well to look out just 2 years, to 2014. Democrats did very well in the 2008 elections. Among others, they will be defending Senate seats in Alaska, Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota (Al Franken), Arkansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina.
ReplyDeleteWe're facing fiscal oblivion. Barack Obama bought his reelection with trillion dollar annual deficits that cannot be sustained. There's a strong chance that 2014 will be a very good year for the Republican Party. Unemployment will almost certainly be higher than it is now.
Taking into account possible defections, they'd have to pick up 7-8 seats to block an Obama nominee, but that's not without historical precedent.
"Who did you vote for, Steve?"
ReplyDeleteRomney
You're hilarious.
ReplyDeleteSome important points to add to your chart:
ReplyDelete1. Ginsburg has cancer, but it's in remission.
2. Sotomayor has childhood-onset diabetes which typically shortens lifespans 10-25 years.
3. Thomas and Scalia and Kagan are obese but not morbidly obese.
Breyer and Scalia are generally considered the smart ones on their respective wings of the court and we should hope they can stay on longer.
We can only hope that something drives Kennedy and Alito to retire so they can be replaced by smarter justices that examine and think over the law instead of just sniffing their own feelings.
Roberts is a politician who cares more about his own personal prestige with intellectual toffs and the political class than the law. He seems young and healthy enough to lead the court to maximize its own power and importance to the detriment of the republic for many decades.
Wait, why is Roberts listed as an "R"?
ReplyDeleteSteve:
ReplyDeleteYou voted for Romney?
After documenting that Obama is the best president on immigration issues in the past thirty years and generally a competent intellectual you still voted for Romney. I'll admit Romney is possibly the only many in America whiter than Obama, but he'd be worse on all the issues you write about.
Off topic--
ReplyDeleteRomney beat Obama by 7 points in the white youth vote (!)
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
Vote by Age and Race
White 18-29 (11%)[same in both polls]
Obama: 54% – MCain: 44%
Obama: 44% – Romney: 51%
3. Thomas and Scalia and Kagan are obese but not morbidly obese.
ReplyDeleteYou're probably right there... I always thought of Thomas and Kagan as portly but Scalia has gotta be heavier than either. This may be due to Italo-American stereotype threat
This flashes me back to when Roberts was nominated... All the people cooing over him (basically complete overlap with the people who praised the Paul Ryan selection)... Essentially the full identical crowd predicting a Romney landslide post-September, you know, after all the kinks got worked out
ReplyDelete"Wait, why is Roberts listed as an 'R'?"
ReplyDeleteR for Renegade.
Obama will be chomping at the bit to get Diane Wood and/or Kamala Harris into SCOTUS during his term.
ReplyDeleteWatch for a complete flip on gun rights.
ReplyDelete"After documenting that Obama is the best president on immigration issues in the past thirty years and generally a competent intellectual you still voted for Romney. I'll admit Romney is possibly the only many in America whiter than Obama, but he'd be worse on all the issues you write about."
ReplyDeleteThere are any number reasons to vote for a WN/race realist/HBDer, etc. to vote for Obama (I would have myself if I were American), not the least of which is strategy for 2016 and beyond (Rand Paul has a chance now instead of Hillary) but you must admit, nothing would have woken people up like the riots and mayhem that would ensued from a Romney victory.
Do remember that among the codgers it's the overweight and mildly obese who live longest. The scrawny die earlier.
ReplyDeleteThis is really shaping up to be a nasty 4 years. If he appoints 4 more members of the supreme court, then fully 2/3 of the court (6/9), enough to easily give a majority to any vote, will be Obama tools.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"2. Sotomayor has childhood-onset diabetes which typically shortens lifespans 10-25 years."
Don't worry, she's a wise latina. So, she will be the one who, like Ali G is just gonna keep on kicking it forever...
In light of the recent election coverage, I'm now wanting to see Nate Silver's model aggregating the last several doctors' visits, age, weight, and astrological sign of the justices to give an expected number of justices that will drop dead or have to resign in the next four years. Then we can contrast this with the Intrade odds....
ReplyDeleteTwo useful additions to the list:
ReplyDelete1. Age at death for both parents for each justice. If death was due to a violent and not medical reason, note that.
2. Estimated remaining lifespan for a person of their age, gender, known medical status according to good actuarial tables.
Fifteen years should be added to Sonia Sotomayor's age because she has Type I diabetes. You can type the last names of the other justices into www.ancestry.com to figure out other age adjustments relative to an average lifespan in the US.
ReplyDeleteJust what is the standard deviation on average lifespan?
Historically some justices have cared about this, some haven't, but I would expect the Clinton appointees (Breyer and Ginsburg) to retire next year when the Democrats still hold the White House and the Senate. The Reagan appointees (Scalia and Kennedy) will try to hold on until 2015, if not 2017.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest theatrics will be over the Kennedy seat. Even a Republican appointment for one of the "Democratic" seat is not really a big deal since Republican appointees have made up a majority of the Court since 1971, something medium-information voters on both sides keep forgetting.
Every chance that the conservatives on the court will live/keep their wits for a further four years. And the knowledge of what they will be replaced with in a second Obama term may spur them to postpone retirement awhile.
ReplyDeleteWe can only hope that something drives Kennedy and Alito to retire so they can be replaced by smarter justices that examine and think over the law instead of just sniffing their own feelings
ReplyDeleteYou meant to say "We leftists can only hope that something drives Kennedy and Alito to retire so that they can be replaced by leftist justices"
"Romney beat Obama by 7 points in the white youth vote (!)"
ReplyDeleteOur posterity has been screwed by the Democrats in 1965. Surprise!
You voted for Romney?
ReplyDeleteAfter documenting that Obama is the best president on immigration issues in the past thirty years and generally a competent intellectual you still voted for Romney.
Have you ever read this website before? You think that Steve documented that Obama is the best president on immigration issues in the past thirty years? That he's a competent intellectual?
Maybe you're thinking of some guy named Steve who works for TAP or TNR.
In light of the recent election coverage, I'm now wanting to see Nate Silver's model aggregating the last several doctors' visits, age, weight, and astrological sign of the justices to give an expected number of justices that will drop dead or have to resign in the next four years. Then we can contrast this with the Intrade odds..
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you're parodying yourself or not ...
Funny how Jews are less then 2% of the U.S. population but 33% of the Supreme court judges. That's a more then 1650% over-representation by my math. Here in Canada, Quebec,which has 23% of the Canadian population is guaranted 33% of the S.C. justices. This is now being called into question for over-representation of Francophones.
ReplyDeleteBut the court can be expanded, right? That was the big liberal brainstorm way, way back during the early Obamian epoch around March 2009 (also a bright idea in the '30s I seem to recall)
ReplyDeleteBarack Obama's first two nominees were single, female, ethnic minorities. They were each three-fers: belonging to three distinct left-leaning demos that ensure they will never turn conservative.
ReplyDeleteBut what does Obama do for his next nominee? Obama probably wants to nominate a black guy, or perhaps the COurt's first Asian. Pressure from many of his financial backers will be to nominate another Jew.
If Ginsburg retires next year, can Obama nominate another Jew, another ethnic minority, another non-Protestant before white America - male and female - catches on that he doesn't like us?
Steve Sailer said...
ReplyDelete"Who did you vote for, Steve?"
Romney
I was just curious, Steve, thanks for responding. I've noticed that a lot of people who are very smart and very knowledgeable of history, and I can consider you one of these, often have a clever reason for an odd-ball vote.