Ok, not to be too morbid, but let's compare the present Supreme Court justices with the Social Security actuarial table and make a prediction about how many more nominations (by death) the President will get (excepting Miers, whatever happens with her). Let's simplify and give Bush three more years in office and round the justices' ages down to the nearest year.
| Justice | Age | Chance of living three more years |
| John Roberts | 50 | 98.2% |
| John Paul Stevens | 85 | 65.1% |
| Antonin Scalia | 69 | 91.1% |
| Anthony Kennedy | 69 | 91.1% |
| David Souter | 66 | 93.1% |
| Clarence Thomas | 57 | 96.9% |
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg | 72 | 92.5% |
| Stephen Breyer | 67 | 92.5 |
Chance of all justices surviving three more years: 41%. Plus, justices often retire without dying, so it's pretty likely that President Bush will get at least one more nomination.
As a friendly wannabe actuary, let me explain what is wrong with your reasoning here...
Social Security life tables are from all lives -- whether "impaired" (disabled, diagnosed with cancer, and most importantly, too sick to work) or a healthy worker, whether you spent your life in manual labor or a pretty cushy job with life tenure. I could find a better life table to use, but let's just say that survival probabilities are likely higher for these guys than the general U.S. population.
To counteract this, you need to realize that their deaths are not likely to be totally independent. Say that someone with a virulent flu sits in on oral arguments one day -- the chances that the Justices catch the flu aren't independent. There are lots of other death-causing events that wouldn't be independent.
Of course, this is just me being a nit-picker. I agree that chances are pretty good that another Supreme Court vacancy will occur during Bush's term.
meep: Oh yes, I had to simplify a lot. You've also got to figure that these folks will be getting the highest quality medical care.
I've read that medical care contributes surprisingly little to overall life expectancy, unless you include general epidemiological measures like immunizations. The big variables on longevity are apparently genetics and behavior.
BB: That would be surprising to me, since lifespans have been increases by around 3 months per year for the past century, and our behavior keeps getting worse. Or do you mean to say that the difference between high quality medical care and low quality medical care is slight?
I mean that there are technological advances that have extended our life spans, but they aren't what we would ordinarily consider medical care in the sense of what would happen to you at a doctor's office or emergency room. The reasons you'll live longer today than someone born 100 years ago are mostly things like:
Immunizations. This is the biggie. You aren't going to catch smallpox, polio, tetanus, pertussis, diptheria, etc.
Tight controls on the purity of food, drink, and medicine. It's almost unheard of to read about an accidental outbreak of botulism or other food contamination. Yet that was not uncommon even when we were children. 100 years ago, people were still dying of cholera from their drinking water.
A low likelihood that you'll spend hours every day doing hard, backbreaking labor.
Safer environments. You're unlikely to be kicked in the head by a horse. The building you're in right now is probably fire-safe in terms of sprinkler systems, convenient exits, flame-retardant materials, etc. We have safety glass, instead of the old kind that shatters into razor-sharp pieces. Our cars are safer, with air bags, frames that absorb shock better, and gas tanks that are less likely to rupture.
Diet. We eat higher quality food. You probably consume far fewer pounds of pig entrails during a year than your counterpart of a century ago. We understand nutrition better. And thanks to food labelling laws, it's much easier to eat a healthier diet, because we know what's in our food.
Smoking. From the fifties backwards, everyone smoked. They knew it was bad for them, and they did it anyway.