Again, putting all your chips on the bet that they will die or be incapactitated in the next four years and not any time after that is like betting on the lotto with a large part of your life savings.
That life expectancy curve you shown is completely meaningless to this discussion showing 76/81 as the (Average ???) life expectance without knowing how it was generated or who the samples were.
Try a life expectancy curve based on actual SCOTUS justices, not a sample that includes those on welfare with high blood pressure and diabetes.
I am assuming that you used the word "you" in that sentence as you would use the word "one" as in "Putting all one's chips....," because I am not assuming either outcome. But in a sense, we have to bet our chips on Romney, or bet against him (by not voting at all -- I assume nobody here is voting for O). I am saying that the possibility that Scalia and Kennedy will not be able to serve is real, not certain. They really do get old.
My earlier post in this dialogue discussed cases in which they could serve longer than 2016. I noted that in some of those cases, a Romney presidency could result in worse justices than an Obama presidency.
It may come to pass that both of them do fine and live to the age of 100. I hope they do. But nobody knows.
That life expectancy curve you shown is completely meaningless to this discussion showing 76/81 as the (Average ???) life expectance without knowing how it was generated or who the samples were.
I don't think it is "completely meaningless." In any case, it is based on real numbers, but I put it there to illustrate that men near the age of 80 are more likely to have health problems than 50 year olds. That is why all the justices in the last 30 years except Ginsburg were in their 50s when they were appointed. I think you really do understand that the probability that either of the two justices either dies or becomes incapacitated is greater than the probability of one dying.
Try a life expectancy curve based on actual SCOTUS justices, not a sample that includes those on welfare with high blood pressure and diabetes.
I think you know that the sample would be too small, and extremely inaccurate, including 18th century justices. But maybe there is a more accurate way to estimate what their odds are. I do not pretend to know what the exact numbers are, but I know they are not zero, and they could be greater than you think.
In my opinion, Obama appointing a replacement for Scalia or Kennedy would be a defilement of this nation. But a failed Romney presidency, followed by a new leftist swine POTUS replacing those justices, would be just as painful and shameful. And our votes make one or the other of those outcomes possible.
I believe that electing Romney is such a gamble, at least at this point, that I don't know whether it is possible to make a rational decision to vote for him or not vote for him in the general election.