Consider some numbers.
When Americans go to the polls on Nov. 8, 2016, pixie-ish destroyer of sloppy conservative legal reasoning, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, will be 83-years-old.
Belligerent scofflaw Antonin Scalia will be 80, as will the only Supreme Court justice whose vote matters: Anthony Kennedy, aka "Tony the Swing Vote."
The next oldest is Stephen Breyer, who will clock in at relatively youthful 78-years-old.
From there you drop down a decade to Clarence Thomas who will be 68 -- although it is possible that Thomas has already departed this earthly realm since he has yet to speak from the bench and his clerks may be running some kind of "Weekend at Bernie's" scam because they need the full term to pad out their resumes.
83 + 80 + 80 + 78 = (carry the 1) 321 years and reasons why the next election might change the course of the next thirty years in America -- or longer depending upon whether my hunch about Thomas is correct.
Because we are essentially a two-party system -- or a "corporatist oligarchical duopoly" if you own a Guy Fawkes mask purchased with your trust fund stipend (fight the power, Chad!) -- the nominee from one of those parties may have the opportunity to select anywhere from two to four nominees to the court that is The Boss of Us All.
Sure it's morbid to consider factoring in the age of the justices when voting, but no different than when you recently paid $420 to see 71-year-old Mick Jagger -- who would be the fifth oldest of the Supremes, tied with Diana Ross who was in the real Supremes -- because this may be your last chance to see the Stones.
Well, the future is all about planning, which is why a Fox News viewer who buys more than three green bananas is called "an optimist."
Fun fact: The average Fox News viewer is 68.8-years-old.
As bank robber Willie Sutton said about robbing banks ("That's where all the money is"), that explains all of those reverse mortgage and male catheter ads on Fox News.
The choice in the 2016 election will likely come down between Hillary Clinton (or "corporatist warmonger" for Guy Fawkes face-guy) and the least insane Republican nominee left standing after the lunatic-pandering Hunger Games known as the GOP debates. And if you think the choice between the two makes no difference, just remember that time the Supremes stuck their noses in the 2000 election and issued their one-time, and one-time-only, tap-tap-no-erasies Bush v Gore decision. All we got out of that was a couple of wars, an economic collapse, John Roberts, strip-search Sammy Alito, and Nickelback's Silver Side Up.
Fun fact #2: Silver Side Up was released on 9/11/2001. Coincidence? Unlikely.
Since then we've also had the Citizen's United decision, the Hobby Lobby debacle, and whiter-shade-of pale Chief Justice John Roberts explaining that racism is totes over, because black president something something Oprah something.
We don't know who Hillary Clinton would attempt to place on the Supreme Court, but whomever the Republican would choose is bound to horrifically worse if recent history is our guide
Imagine for a moment President Lindsey Graham (imagine harder, this could happen) nominating Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court and Republican Senators shoving him through, not because he's a legal genius, but because they hate his guts and want him out of the Senate because he's from Texas and it's not like those people are going to come to their senses anytime soon and send him packing.
This could happen, also, too, as future Interior Secretary Sarah Palin would tell you in her delightful gibberish-y way.
So, remember: A vote for Lindsey Graham -- or not not voting at all -- is the same as a vote for Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court.
And that, my friends, is worse than another 9/11 and Nickelback together.
Which is also a fact, just not a very fun one...