@NOprophet_NØprofit Ahh, Hunter S. He was quite quite mad, but also incisive. I saw the Bill Murray flick "Where the Buffalo Roam" more than once in my late teens, and read all his books. Yet another victim of Fat City electoral fraud.
You're clearly a highly cultured person ST. I can never forget the Nixon taking a pee scene.
Hunter and Timothy Leary. Heros of my rather tame young adulthood. Both climbed far up the crazy pole. And we loved them for it. When you live Inn crazy times not being crazy is crazy.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Sure. After Trump, the WH needs a return to Orthodoxy.
But enough of this fantasy. It still looks like a close call between a 77 year old and a 78 year old to select who will beat a 74 year old. Despite Super Tuesday, this ain't all over. Biden has the big Mo this week and some pretty favourable primaries coming up. I've got him as slight favourite for the nomination. Despite his bumbling he has one major advantage over Trump. He's not a monster.
Possibly, or a cabinet position. I'm imagining the two of them, in office, in full fury mode at each other...or laughing together.
I don't remember at what point Barack and Hillary had *their* sit-down negotiation. But he offered her Secretary of State. AIUI, it was a rather complicated discussion, partly because of her concerns about not being able to rein in her husband.
@NOprophet_NØprofit Ahh, Hunter S. He was quite quite mad, but also incisive. I saw the Bill Murray flick "Where the Buffalo Roam" more than once in my late teens, and read all his books. Yet another victim of Fat City electoral fraud.
You're clearly a highly cultured person ST. I can never forget the Nixon taking a pee scene.
Hunter and Timothy Leary. Heros of my rather tame young adulthood. Both climbed far up the crazy pole. And we loved them for it. When you live Inn crazy times not being crazy is crazy.
I was also into P.J. O'Rourke at the same time. My politics were "centre-right confused" at the time, but I liked the drug references. I found a copy of "Age and Guile..." in an old box of books last year and tried to read him again. He was such an arsehole. I can't believe I liked him.
EDIT: I liked him because I was a private school prat I think. His sexist, racist and homophobic shit I accepted as par for the course back then.
As far as I'm concerned, the current candidates just mean that the VP spot is going to be that much more important. Because age and odds of death/disability/dementia.
But a demented president is still better than a demented MALICIOUS president.
As far as I'm concerned, the current candidates just mean that the VP spot is going to be that much more important. Because age and odds of death/disability/dementia.
Or to put it another way, the running mate spot will actually be as important as the media pretends it to be.
The big worry is not about a president dropping dead in office, for which there are sufficient Constitutional remedies, but a president losing the mental and/or physical ability to adequately exercise the powers of his (and apparently it's going to be "his" for a while) office, something for which the American system seems to offer no practical remedy, as illustrated by the current officeholder.
As far as I'm concerned, the current candidates just mean that the VP spot is going to be that much more important. Because age and odds of death/disability/dementia.
Or to put it another way, the running mate spot will actually be as important as the media pretends it to be.
The big worry is not about a president dropping dead in office, for which there are sufficient Constitutional remedies, but a president losing the mental and/or physical ability to adequately exercise the powers of his (and apparently it's going to be "his" for a while) office, something for which the American system seems to offer no practical remedy, as illustrated by the current officeholder.
--A prez dropping dead in office *is* a worry: there are rules, but you're still stuck with the VP (or other successor) becoming president. So yes, the VP does matter.
And I disagree somewhat with what various posters have said about the VP doing nothing in that job. Some veeps are sent on diplomatic missions. Sometimes, we have no idea what a particular veep is doing *at all*--that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't working.
Then there are veeps like Cheney, who was a shadow president.
--We *do* have 25th Amendment procedures (Wikipedia) set up for a president who becomes unfit to serve. But a) the procedures have to be *used*; b) they have to be actually *carried out*; and c) people (maybe a doctor, etc.) have to actually certify the prez too unfit to serve.
That Wiki article includes "considered invocations" of 25 in US history. (E.g., Reagan.)
Kind of like divorce, maybe. Decisions have to be made and acted on; and other people have to approve, and handle the legal paperwork.
The problem as I see it is that whilst Biden will likely satisfy the older and more conservative/centrist Dems/ non-Republicans, the Bernie bros will vote Trump or stay home. And the young, progressive voters will decide not to vote.
So much for break glass. Meh. Is anyone else feeling less than gruntled that the most diverse field of candidates in history has come down to two old white guys?
What worries me about Biden is that many of his weaknesses are the same as Hillary Clinton’s (not all, admittedly).
Essentially being part of the same old, same old coterie of wealthy Washington insiders. And while you know, and I know, that there's no truth in the Hunter Biden corruption stories, there was no truth in the Hillary's emails business either. It won't stop Trump making profitable mischief with it.
Essentially being part of the same old, same old coterie of wealthy Washington insiders. And while you know, and I know, that there's no truth in the Hunter Biden corruption stories, there was no truth in the Hillary's emails business either. It won't stop Trump making profitable mischief with it.
And if Biden wins the election, you can bet the Congressional Republicans will immediately launch investigations into Hunter Biden for the next several years, because that is more important than working together with Democrats to actually address the problems facing the country. Wash, rinse, repeat.
--A prez dropping dead in office *is* a worry: there are rules, but you're still stuck with the VP (or other successor) becoming president. So yes, the VP does matter.
And I disagree somewhat with what various posters have said about the VP doing nothing in that job. Some veeps are sent on diplomatic missions. Sometimes, we have no idea what a particular veep is doing *at all*--that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't working.
Then there are veeps like Cheney, who was a shadow president.
I was pretty careful when I specified "running mate" rather than "vice president". They're obviously related, but not the same thing. Every four years the press talks about the power of the running mate to win certain regions or demographics. (They'll pick up votes [ in the South / among evangelicals / from Hispanics / whatever ].) Most political science analysis rates this effect as somewhere between 'small' and 'non-existant'. The one exception is if the running mate is an established politician from a low population state, in which case the running mate can really boost the vote in that particular state. So mostly the running mate is neutral at best or a liability at worst (e.g. Sarah Palin). With the prospect of an eighty-something president this calculus may change.
As far as I'm concerned, the current candidates just mean that the VP spot is going to be that much more important. Because age and odds of death/disability/dementia.
But a demented president is still better than a demented MALICIOUS president.
Don't know about that. Ronald Reagan was demented and a truly evil bastard. It is true that he didn't know reality from a movie set, thinking he was WW2 veteran when all he did was act in B grade movies, but he also created a terrible arms race, exploited the third world, illegally funded murderous fascist dictatorships, created the unholy atheist alliance with satanic southern baptist evangelicals, among other stupidity. The problem with Don trump is only that he's honest about what your Republicans are about. They've been a-holes forever.
Don't know about that. Ronald Reagan was demented and a truly evil bastard. It is true that he didn't know reality from a movie set, thinking he was WW2 veteran when all he did was act in B grade movies, . . .
Ronald Reagan was a veteran of the Second World War, but not a combat veteran. Captain Reagan of the Signal Corps spent the war making training and propaganda films, but that was the duty assigned to him by his superiors and he carried it out well according to any accounts I'm familiar with. I can't really say that they misused his talents.
I really like the film Dave. Could we find a left-like Trump impersonator if the fascist enabler wins a second term?
Me too! Even if I were not in love with Kevin Kline , I think it's a fun movie and I've so often wished we could do something like that these past three years. The only "double" I could think of for Trump would be Alec Baldwin.
As far as I'm concerned, the current candidates just mean that the VP spot is going to be that much more important. Because age and odds of death/disability/dementia.
But a demented president is still better than a demented MALICIOUS president.
Don't know about that. Ronald Reagan was demented and a truly evil bastard. It is true that he didn't know reality from a movie set, thinking he was WW2 veteran when all he did was act in B grade movies, but he also created a terrible arms race, exploited the third world, illegally funded murderous fascist dictatorships, created the unholy atheist alliance with satanic southern baptist evangelicals, among other stupidity. The problem with Don trump is only that he's honest about what your Republicans are about. They've been a-holes forever.
WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP WITH THE "YOUR" REPUBLICANS THING!!!!????
As for them being assholes forever, I am technically STILL a damned Republican, and intend to stay one long enough to vote against He Who Must Not Be Named in the primary ( less than a week from now).
Other people have republicans.
And as far as Republicans, stating what they are about is speaking in a general way, not as to the motives/behaviour of each and every one. And regardless of individual motives, the party has definite tendencies towards Simon's complaints. Though A-holes is overegging a bit and not as nuanced as reality tends to be.
But it's inevitable that if you come in through the door marked wossnames wearing a wossname t-shirt, people are going to interact with you as a wossname.
The results from Super Tuesday are still being tabulated, but here's the candidate standings as they currently exist. Everyone still in the race came away with delegates, even Tulsi Gabbard. (She picked up either 1 or 2 delegates from American Samoa.)
The first number is the total number of delegates gained so far. The number in parentheses is the number of delegates added on Super Tuesday. The number listed as ??? are delegates that haven't been assigned yet because votes are still being counted. Some of these delegates are from preliminary estimates and the counts may change a little, but probably not enough to change the order of the candidates.
To put it in terms of delegates needed to get a majority:
Joe Biden - 33.1%
Bernie Sanders - 29.4%
Tulsi Gabbard - 0.05%
As you can see Biden has a definite edge over Sanders in delegates, but not a prohibitive one. He's also got an advantage in terms of enthusiasm and media narrative, which I guess is what's called "momentum". In other words Biden had a very good Super Tuesday and is now the frontrunner, but he's not a shoo-in yet.
The next contest will be on Tuesday, March 10, when six states (Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Washington) vote and the Democrats Abroad finish their voting. 365 delegates will be awarded in those contests.
You know, if you make things harder for people to come over to your side,* a lot of them won't bother trying at all. Is that what you want?
* for example, by lobbing casual insults at them, classing the lot of them as Evil-with-a-capital-E, assuming the worst of them, and failing to recognize that at least some of them are doing their damndest to do--exactly what you're trying to do! Hey, what a concept.
"I say this with a deep sense of gratitude for every single person who got in this fight, every single person who tried out a new idea, every single person who just moved a little in their notion of what a President of the United States should look like."
That last part made me a bit weepy. I think she may have done a whole lot more than she knows toward moving people in their notion of what a President should look like and that's really kind of huge. Maybe next time.
I'm so afraid. Why has it come down to this? Why couldn't my party have found a well-spoken, good looking, 60-something, moderate, male, with political experience, a clean record and a few feasible plans? Did they think about it? Did they look? Did they check the peanut farms in Georgia?
"I say this with a deep sense of gratitude for every single person who got in this fight, every single person who tried out a new idea, every single person who just moved a little in their notion of what a President of the United States should look like."
That last part made me a bit weepy. I think she may have done a whole lot more than she knows toward moving people in their notion of what a President should look like and that's really kind of huge. Maybe next time.
That's a pretty big change in perspective in just 24 hours.
I'm so afraid. Why has it come down to this? Why couldn't my party have found a well-spoken, good looking, 60-something, moderate, male, with political experience, a clean record and a few feasible plans? Did they think about it? Did they look? Did they check the peanut farms in Georgia?
"I say this with a deep sense of gratitude for every single person who got in this fight, every single person who tried out a new idea, every single person who just moved a little in their notion of what a President of the United States should look like."
That last part made me a bit weepy. I think she may have done a whole lot more than she knows toward moving people in their notion of what a President should look like and that's really kind of huge. Maybe next time.
That's a pretty big change in perspective in just 24 hours.
No, it's simply an acknowledgement of reality. I'd bet Twilight wishes for a 50-something white male candidate for the same reason that older black voters sucked it up and voted for Biden. These are not what either of them really want.
And if Biden wins the election, you can bet the Congressional Republicans
If Biden wins the election then you'll get a greater Trump in 4 years time; the entire reason we are where we are is because of successive neoliberal administrations, with centrists triangulating by pushing the racism button.
FYI: Individual, everyday-folks Republicans can absolutely be good, decent people, trying to make the world better for *everyone*.
The Republican hierarchy and the Congressional Republicans...well, saying the same thing about them feels like a lie. It may well be true of individuals at those levels, but it's really hard to see.
You know, if you make things harder for people to come over to your side,* a lot of them won't bother trying at all. Is that what you want?
I'd like to see some polling on how many people have left the Republican party since, say, 1974 (or 1985 if you'd rather date the GOP's moral decline to trickledown economics and the AIDS crisis) and for what reasons. I find it hard to believe that lots of decent people would love to vote for universal healthcare and poverty reduction, but keep clinging to the Republican party just because the mean, mean liberals hurt their feelings.
Damn. I really wanted to see Gen Xers or Millennials step up to the plate. They had some possibles, but the Boomers are still too powerful. The main goal remains, though, get the Orange one out of office.
The two thoughts can be held at the same time, ISTM. A man is most likely to get elected, and to beat T. AND she also wants to finally, finally, finally have a woman president.
Beating T in the general election, and a deep hope for a woman president.
You know, if you make things harder for people to come over to your side,* a lot of them won't bother trying at all. Is that what you want?
* for example, by lobbing casual insults at them, classing the lot of them as Evil-with-a-capital-E, assuming the worst of them, and failing to recognize that at least some of them are doing their damndest to do--exactly what you're trying to do! Hey, what a concept.
Individual motives are irrelevant to group action until they have an effect on that group's actions.
I've no doubt that there are Republicans who are relatively progressive, but until it affects the party, it doesn't matter.
I don't think most Republicans are evil, even though I think some of the accepted policies are.
One can have the best motives for all but the worst policy.
Americans do not know if they will live in a democracy or an autocracy, but they will undoubtedly live in a gerontocracy.
...
A gerontocracy is dangerous in a time of profound existential threats. The Democratic nominee will be battling the climate crisis, rising autocracy worldwide and a global recession exacerbated by a pandemic. They will also be facing off against the Trump regime, whose flagrant corruption and decimation of institutions has put American democracy in unprecedented peril.
The ideal candidate to battle these crises would be in good health and brimming with energy, fortitude and detailed plans. ...
... the cold reality is that there is a decent chance neither candidate, should he win, will be able to serve two terms. There is a fundamental instability in a gerontocracy, which is ironic since voters embrace elderly white men – in particular, Joe Biden – because they see them as safe. They are seen as safe because they are familiar. White men benefit from the self-fulfilling prophecy of “electability” that knocked out all the black, Latino, Asian and female Democratic candidates.
But familiarity is not the same thing as safety. In fact, this insistent belief in the illusion of safety – that Mr. Trump could not win, that the economy would recover for working people, that we lived in a “postracial society” – is often the source of American chaos. It reflects an unwillingness to see America’s flaws, and more tragically, an unwillingness to see America’s possibility.
Damn. I really wanted to see Gen Xers or Millennials step up to the plate. They had some possibles, but the Boomers are still too powerful.
Neither Joe Biden nor Bernie Sanders is a Boomer. They're members of the Silent Generation. To date no Silent has ever been President of the United States.
... the cold reality is that there is a decent chance neither candidate, should he win, will be able to serve two terms.
If you want to put some numbers on that "cold reality" (and who doesn't love actuarial statistics?) a crude, back-of the envelope calculation using only the Social Security Administration's Actuarial Life Table (which only takes in to account a subject's age and gender, not any medically complicating or mitigating circumstances) the chance that Joe Biden will be alive on January 20, 2025 (the end of the next presidential term) is ~76%. For January 20, 2029 the probability is ~54%. Not a certain death sentence by any measure, but actuarial odds that should give one pause.
For Sanders the same numbers are ~74% and ~50%, respectively.
And "alive" does not equal healthy, vigorous, mentally agile, and able to withstand the rigors of being POTUS.
Indeed. I ran a similar calculation on the old Ship back in 2016 regarding certain Supreme Court Justices and the likelihood that their replacements would be picked by an at the time still-theoretical President* Trump. I had to add the caveat that it only accounted for Justices leaving the court via death, not resignation or retirement.
The two frontrunners are worryingly old, but I would note that the demands of a presidential campaign mean that they must have a lot more energy and stamina than average for their age, compared to the general population.
A friend was just telling me about a rumor she heard (told to her by someone who was convinced it was fact): Biden names Hillary as his running mate, is inaugurated in January, and then is declared incompetent and resigns. Voila -- our first woman President. (I suppose Sanders and Warren could do the same thing.)
Comments
You're clearly a highly cultured person ST. I can never forget the Nixon taking a pee scene.
Hunter and Timothy Leary. Heros of my rather tame young adulthood. Both climbed far up the crazy pole. And we loved them for it. When you live Inn crazy times not being crazy is crazy.
Sure. After Trump, the WH needs a return to Orthodoxy.
But enough of this fantasy. It still looks like a close call between a 77 year old and a 78 year old to select who will beat a 74 year old. Despite Super Tuesday, this ain't all over. Biden has the big Mo this week and some pretty favourable primaries coming up. I've got him as slight favourite for the nomination. Despite his bumbling he has one major advantage over Trump. He's not a monster.
I don't remember at what point Barack and Hillary had *their* sit-down negotiation. But he offered her Secretary of State. AIUI, it was a rather complicated discussion, partly because of her concerns about not being able to rein in her husband.
I was also into P.J. O'Rourke at the same time. My politics were "centre-right confused" at the time, but I liked the drug references. I found a copy of "Age and Guile..." in an old box of books last year and tried to read him again. He was such an arsehole. I can't believe I liked him.
EDIT: I liked him because I was a private school prat I think. His sexist, racist and homophobic shit I accepted as par for the course back then.
But a demented president is still better than a demented MALICIOUS president.
Or to put it another way, the running mate spot will actually be as important as the media pretends it to be.
The big worry is not about a president dropping dead in office, for which there are sufficient Constitutional remedies, but a president losing the mental and/or physical ability to adequately exercise the powers of his (and apparently it's going to be "his" for a while) office, something for which the American system seems to offer no practical remedy, as illustrated by the current officeholder.
And I disagree somewhat with what various posters have said about the VP doing nothing in that job. Some veeps are sent on diplomatic missions. Sometimes, we have no idea what a particular veep is doing *at all*--that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't working.
Then there are veeps like Cheney, who was a shadow president.
--We *do* have 25th Amendment procedures (Wikipedia) set up for a president who becomes unfit to serve. But a) the procedures have to be *used*; b) they have to be actually *carried out*; and c) people (maybe a doctor, etc.) have to actually certify the prez too unfit to serve.
That Wiki article includes "considered invocations" of 25 in US history. (E.g., Reagan.)
Kind of like divorce, maybe. Decisions have to be made and acted on; and other people have to approve, and handle the legal paperwork.
What worries me about Biden is that many of his weaknesses are the same as Hillary Clinton’s (not all, admittedly).
What do you see as their shared weaknesses?
Thx.
I too am feeling the irony of the still solid ceiling.
Essentially being part of the same old, same old coterie of wealthy Washington insiders. And while you know, and I know, that there's no truth in the Hunter Biden corruption stories, there was no truth in the Hillary's emails business either. It won't stop Trump making profitable mischief with it.
I was pretty careful when I specified "running mate" rather than "vice president". They're obviously related, but not the same thing. Every four years the press talks about the power of the running mate to win certain regions or demographics. (They'll pick up votes [ in the South / among evangelicals / from Hispanics / whatever ].) Most political science analysis rates this effect as somewhere between 'small' and 'non-existant'. The one exception is if the running mate is an established politician from a low population state, in which case the running mate can really boost the vote in that particular state. So mostly the running mate is neutral at best or a liability at worst (e.g. Sarah Palin). With the prospect of an eighty-something president this calculus may change.
Don't know about that. Ronald Reagan was demented and a truly evil bastard. It is true that he didn't know reality from a movie set, thinking he was WW2 veteran when all he did was act in B grade movies, but he also created a terrible arms race, exploited the third world, illegally funded murderous fascist dictatorships, created the unholy atheist alliance with satanic southern baptist evangelicals, among other stupidity. The problem with Don trump is only that he's honest about what your Republicans are about. They've been a-holes forever.
Ronald Reagan was a veteran of the Second World War, but not a combat veteran. Captain Reagan of the Signal Corps spent the war making training and propaganda films, but that was the duty assigned to him by his superiors and he carried it out well according to any accounts I'm familiar with. I can't really say that they misused his talents.
Me too! Even if I were not in love with Kevin Kline
WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP WITH THE "YOUR" REPUBLICANS THING!!!!????
As for them being assholes forever, I am technically STILL a damned Republican, and intend to stay one long enough to vote against He Who Must Not Be Named in the primary ( less than a week from now).
Get over yourself.
And as far as Republicans, stating what they are about is speaking in a general way, not as to the motives/behaviour of each and every one. And regardless of individual motives, the party has definite tendencies towards Simon's complaints. Though A-holes is overegging a bit and not as nuanced as reality tends to be.
1. Joe Biden - 659 (+605)
2. Bernie Sanders - 586 (+526)
X. Elizabeth Warren - 67 (+59)
X. Mike Bloomberg - 59 (+59)
X. Pete Buttigieg - 27 (+1)
X. Amy Klobuchar - 7 (+0)
3. Tulsi Gabbard - 1 (+1)
X. ??? - 78
The first number is the total number of delegates gained so far. The number in parentheses is the number of delegates added on Super Tuesday. The number listed as ??? are delegates that haven't been assigned yet because votes are still being counted. Some of these delegates are from preliminary estimates and the counts may change a little, but probably not enough to change the order of the candidates.
To put it in terms of delegates needed to get a majority:
As you can see Biden has a definite edge over Sanders in delegates, but not a prohibitive one. He's also got an advantage in terms of enthusiasm and media narrative, which I guess is what's called "momentum". In other words Biden had a very good Super Tuesday and is now the frontrunner, but he's not a shoo-in yet.
The next contest will be on Tuesday, March 10, when six states (Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Washington) vote and the Democrats Abroad finish their voting. 365 delegates will be awarded in those contests.
* for example, by lobbing casual insults at them, classing the lot of them as Evil-with-a-capital-E, assuming the worst of them, and failing to recognize that at least some of them are doing their damndest to do--exactly what you're trying to do! Hey, what a concept.
With respect, LC, what you've pointed out is a both-and problem, not an either-or one.
That last part made me a bit weepy. I think she may have done a whole lot more than she knows toward moving people in their notion of what a President should look like and that's really kind of huge. Maybe next time.
That's a pretty big change in perspective in just 24 hours.
No, it's simply an acknowledgement of reality. I'd bet Twilight wishes for a 50-something white male candidate for the same reason that older black voters sucked it up and voted for Biden. These are not what either of them really want.
If Biden wins the election then you'll get a greater Trump in 4 years time; the entire reason we are where we are is because of successive neoliberal administrations, with centrists triangulating by pushing the racism button.
The Republican hierarchy and the Congressional Republicans...well, saying the same thing about them feels like a lie. It may well be true of individuals at those levels, but it's really hard to see.
I'd like to see some polling on how many people have left the Republican party since, say, 1974 (or 1985 if you'd rather date the GOP's moral decline to trickledown economics and the AIDS crisis) and for what reasons. I find it hard to believe that lots of decent people would love to vote for universal healthcare and poverty reduction, but keep clinging to the Republican party just because the mean, mean liberals hurt their feelings.
The two thoughts can be held at the same time, ISTM. A man is most likely to get elected, and to beat T. AND she also wants to finally, finally, finally have a woman president.
Beating T in the general election, and a deep hope for a woman president.
Amen.
I've no doubt that there are Republicans who are relatively progressive, but until it affects the party, it doesn't matter.
I don't think most Republicans are evil, even though I think some of the accepted policies are.
One can have the best motives for all but the worst policy.
Sarah Kendzior has an article in the Globe and Mail today that says:
Neither Joe Biden nor Bernie Sanders is a Boomer. They're members of the Silent Generation. To date no Silent has ever been President of the United States.
If you want to put some numbers on that "cold reality" (and who doesn't love actuarial statistics?) a crude, back-of the envelope calculation using only the Social Security Administration's Actuarial Life Table (which only takes in to account a subject's age and gender, not any medically complicating or mitigating circumstances) the chance that Joe Biden will be alive on January 20, 2025 (the end of the next presidential term) is ~76%. For January 20, 2029 the probability is ~54%. Not a certain death sentence by any measure, but actuarial odds that should give one pause.
For Sanders the same numbers are ~74% and ~50%, respectively.
Current Occupant seems to be managing, though mostly by avoiding rather than withstanding the rigors of being POTUS.
Indeed. I ran a similar calculation on the old Ship back in 2016 regarding certain Supreme Court Justices and the likelihood that their replacements would be picked by an at the time still-theoretical President* Trump. I had to add the caveat that it only accounted for Justices leaving the court via death, not resignation or retirement.