Supreme Court's Ginsburg hospitalized with pancreatic cancer

[angelatc]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iyVqJd8vdcPt1gmARHBuDb-KdXswD965ITF80

Pancreatic cancer, which has a 5% survival rate, but she caught it early.

[RonPaulCentral]

Ginsburg is hospitalized with pancreatic cancer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_go_su_co/ginsburg_cancer

All I can say is.... shit.... why now.

[acptulsa]

..

[Truth Warrior]

She'll just be replaced by another socialist clone, appointed by the Kenyan POTUS.<IMHO> :p :mad: Whoop-de-CHANGE-do! :rolleyes:

[angelatc]

She'll just be replaced by another socialist clone, appointed by the Kenyan POTUS.<IMHO> :p :mad:

Ya think? :)

[Truth Warrior]

Ya think? :) Just a SWAG. ;) :D

[angelatc]

Heh - we posted this at the exact same time. I'll ask that the threads be merged....your title is better. I was lazy.

[Original_Intent]

Pancreatic cancer is the worst :(

[misterx]

Just hang in there four more years, please.

[Athan]

Wasn't Ginsburg against gun rights?

[Anti Federalist]

A death sentence for us Mundanes.

Here we are going on ten years, and she's announcing five more.

[acptulsa]

What we need is another Sandra Day O'Connor. She didn't vote with the bloc. She voted each case on its merits. I don't remember any other justice doing that so consistently in my lifetime.

[Swordsmyth]

What we need is another Sandra Day O'Connor. She didn't vote with the bloc. She voted each case on its merits. I don't remember any other justice doing that so consistently in my lifetime.

We do NOT need another pinko Sandra Dang O'Connor, we need Originalists who lean conservertarian, Mike Lee would be good, Rand Paul would be better.

[Swordsmyth]

A death sentence for us Mundanes.

Here we are going on ten years, and she's announcing five more.
She won't make it.

[acptulsa]

We do NOT need another pinko Sandra Dang O'Connor, we need Originalists who lean conservertarian, Mike Lee would be good, Rand Paul would be better.

Show me a Sandra Day O'Connor decision which is not constitutional. I dare you.

[Swordsmyth]

Show me a Sandra Day O'Connor decision which is not constitutional. I dare you.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
McConnell v. FEC (2003)
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
https://parade.com/125566/davidgergenandmichaelzuckerman/30-sandra-day-oconner-biggest-decisions/

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004)
Tennessee v. Lane (2004)
https://www.aclu.org/other/cases-which-sandra-day-oconnor-cast-decisive-vote

I could dig up more but I have to go right now.

[acptulsa]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

O'Connor formed pluralities with both sides of that one, and the net effect was an erosion of Rowe v. Wade. What do you claim was unconstitutional about it?


McConnell v. FEC (2003).

I said the other day that you're a corporatist, and this seems to prove it. So, you agree with Mitch McConnell that corporations and unions should be able to spend any amount to buy politicians, even as people are restricted in their ability to try to outbid them in an effort to buy their own representatives?

I agree McCain-Feingold is far from perfect. But where does the constitution guarantee corporations and unions unlimited freedom to bribe Congress?


Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

What part of that pisses you off? The fact that the decision does allow discrimination by race? Or the fact that it says discrimination by race should disappear completely by 2028?

In any case, how does any of it rise to the level of being unconstitutional?


Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004)

What, you'd have liked that case to have delegitimized the EPA and vindicated the Tenth Amendment? Yeah, so would I. The problem is, the plaintiffs did not challenge it on that basis. Justice Kennedy's dissent wasn't based on the Tenth for the same reason. If the plaintiffs had challenged it on that basis, they might have gotten somewhere. But they didn't, and O'Connor judged it on the only basis she could.

This is, per the constitution, how the court works.


Tennessee v. Lane (2004).

Do you seriously believe citizens should not be able to sue states? Do you even understand the issues behind any of these cases? Or are you just picking out cases where O'Connor did not side 100% with the Republican Party Faction, regardless of what the decision was, and labeling those unconstitutional?

[Swordsmyth]

O'Connor formed pluralities with both sides of that one, and the net effect was an erosion of Rowe v. Wade. What do you claim was unconstitutional about it?
Upholding Roe v. Wade at all is unconstitutioinal.




I said the other day that you're a corporatist, and this seems to prove it. So, you agree with Mitch McConnell that corporations and unions should be able to spend any amount to buy politicians, even as people are restricted in their ability to try to outbid them in an effort to buy their own representatives?

I agree McCain-Feingold is far from perfect. But where does the constitution guarantee corporations and unions unlimited freedom to bribe Congress?
McCain-Feingold was an outright abridgement of the freedom of speech, in the first place corporations are groups of people and have a right to free speech and in the second any group that wished to speak out on politics was being muzzled so that only the MSM could influence voters.



What part of that pisses you off? The fact that the decision does allow discrimination by race? Or the fact that it says discrimination by race should disappear completely by 2028?

In any case, how does any of it rise to the level of being unconstitutional?
The fact that it allows it at all, a government entity must not discriminate based on race, all races are entitled to equal treatment under the law.




What, you'd have liked that case to have delegitimized the EPA and vindicated the Tenth Amendment? Yeah, so would I. The problem is, the plaintiffs did not challenge it on that basis. Justice Kennedy's dissent wasn't based on the Tenth for the same reason. If the plaintiffs had challenged it on that basis, they might have gotten somewhere. But they didn't, and O'Connor judged it on the only basis she could.

This is, per the constitution, how the court works.
Nothing in the Constitution limits the court to issues chosen by the plaintiffs or the defendants, SCOTUS has just as much right as a jury to declare a law unconstitutional on its own.




Do you seriously believe citizens should not be able to sue states? Do you even understand the issues behind any of these cases? Or are you just picking out cases where O'Connor did not side 100% with the Republican Party Faction, regardless of what the decision was, and labeling those unconstitutional?
The Americans with Disabilities Act is unconstitutional and the feds don't get to tell the states what to do.

Now let's move on to other cases:

Lee v. Weisman (1992)
Stenberg v. Carhart (https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-court-upholds-abortion-rights-saying-states-may-not-endanger-womens-health) (2000)
McCreary (https://www.aclu.org/scotus)County v. ACLU of Kentucky (https://www.aclu.org/scotus) (2005)

https://www.aclu.org/other/cases-which-sandra-day-oconnor-cast-decisive-vote

June 11, 1990: United States v. Eichman

O'Connor dissents when the court rules that flag-burning is protected by the First Amendment.


June 21, 1989: Texas v. Johnson

O'Connor dissents as the court protects a citizen's right to make a political statement by burning s privately owned U.S. flag.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100654.html?noredirect=on


Then there is this:


Sandra Day O'Connor defends Roberts on health care rulingFormer Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Chief Justice John Roberts' deciding vote to largely uphold President Obama's health care law doesn't mean the usually conservative Justice or the Court are moving left. "I see it deciding a very sensitive case with political connotations," she said Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation."
The moderate O'Connor - many a time the deciding opinion during her tenure on the Court - would not say which way she would have voted on the hugely controversial law since she "didn't read the briefs or hear the argument." But she said it was a "hard case," and amid an onslaught of outrage from most Republicans defended Roberts' decision, reasoning that voting during an election season didn't make things easy on any of the Justices.
"Any time you're deciding a case involving a presidential election, it's awfully close to politics," she said.

More at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandra-day-oconnor-defends-roberts-on-health-care-ruling/

[Anti Globalist]

All the other justices need to tell her to step down.

[acptulsa]

Upholding Roe v. Wade at all is unconstitutioinal.

Yeah, well, that's an opinion. O'Connor's opinion was that it was silly for a bunch of major decisions to be overturned every time a few members of the court changed. Both opinions have some merit.


McCain-Feingold was an outright abridgement of the freedom of speech, in the first place corporations are groups of people and have a right to free speech and in the second any group that wished to speak out on politics was being muzzled so that only the MSM could influence voters.

It didn't abridge the right of the individuals to free speech. And the MSM is utterly responsive to its sponsors, which are pretty much exclusively corporations, so it's not like corporations as entities need more influence. Considering how you feel about foreigners, I'm frankly shocked that you would argue that foreign stockholders in corporations could possibly have a right to free speech in the U.S. And I'm even more shocked that you could disapprove of something which did as much as McCain-Feingold did to reduce the influence of unions.


The fact that it allows it at all, a government entity must not discriminate based on race, all races are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

I believe that. I'm surprised to see you say it, since I believe you have varying feelings about immigration depending upon who is applying for entry. In any case, to say that discrimination is unconstitutional when the constitution originally considered blacks to be three/fifths of a person with no rights at all is pretty damned funny.


Nothing in the Constitution limits the court to issues chosen by the plaintiffs or the defendants, SCOTUS has just as much right as a jury to declare a law unconstitutional on its own.

So you blame O'Connor for not nullifying the EPA unilaterally? As I mentioned, Justice Kennedy wasn't even willing to go there in his dissent.


The Americans with Disabilities Act is unconstitutional and the feds don't get to tell the states what to do.

Is it unconstitutional because the feds don't get to tell the states what to do, or for some other reason? Because if it's that, I have news. The entire Bill of Rights is about the feds telling the states what they cannot do. The Constitution is full of the feds telling the states what to, and what not to, do.


Now let's move on to other cases:

No, let's don't. I've had quite enough of being expected to educate a recalcitrant child who will never say anything but, she didn't vote her party bloc so that must be unconstitutional somehow. This whole thing just keeps reminding me that you don't even have any idea what double jeopardy means, yet you're perfectly content to invoke it as though you did. This is enough fun for me.


Sandra Day O'Connor defends Roberts on health care ruling[/h]Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Chief Justice John Roberts' deciding vote to largely uphold President Obama's health care law doesn't mean the usually conservative Justice or the Court are moving left. "I see it deciding a very sensitive case with political connotations," she said Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation."
The moderate O'Connor - many a time the deciding opinion during her tenure on the Court - would not say which way she would have voted on the hugely controversial law since she "didn't read the briefs or hear the argument." But she said it was a "hard case," and amid an onslaught of outrage from most Republicans defended Roberts' decision, reasoning that voting during an election season didn't make things easy on any of the Justices.
"Any time you're deciding a case involving a presidential election, it's awfully close to politics," she said.

That's all true enough. And I don't blame her for not commenting because she didn't read the briefs or hear the argument.


More at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandra-day-oconnor-defends-roberts-on-health-care-ruling/

Yes, I can find the MSM without your help if I want it.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah, well, that's an opinion. O'Connor's opinion was that it was silly for a bunch of major decisions to be overturned every time a few members of the court changed. Both opinions have some merit.
Not only is adhering to unconstitutional precedent wrong but in the case of the murder of babies it is disgusting, the Constitution provides stability in the law.




It didn't abridge the right of the individuals to free speech. And the MSM is utterly responsive to its sponsors, which are pretty much exclusively corporations, so it's not like corporations as entities need more influence.
The MSM is only controlled by certain corporations, the other businesses and citizen advocacy groups have a right to speech that McCain-Feingold sought to suppress, McCain-Feingold gave the corporations that control the MSM even more power.


Considering how you feel about foreigners, I'm frankly shocked that you would argue that foreign stockholders in corporations could possibly have a right to free speech in the U.S.
Anyone affected by US law has a right to speak about it, even foreigners.


And I'm even more shocked that you could disapprove of something which did as much as McCain-Feingold did to reduce the influence of unions.
I don't believe in violating my enemies rights, to do so damages my own.




I believe that. I'm surprised to see you say it, since I believe you have varying feelings about immigration depending upon who is applying for entry.
Citizens of any race are entitled to equal protection under the law, foreigners are not entitled to come here at all so we can be choosy about which ones and how many we let in in order to safe guard the liberty of Americans.


In any case, to say that discrimination is unconstitutional when the constitution originally considered blacks to be three/fifths of a person with no rights at all is pretty damned funny.
That part of the Constitution was intended to limit the power of the slave lobby which wanted non-voting slaves counted fully for calculating how many Representatives the slave states would get, it has also been canceled by later amendments so it is irrelevant.




So you blame O'Connor for not nullifying the EPA unilaterally? As I mentioned, Justice Kennedy wasn't even willing to go there in his dissent.
I blame every justice that didn't nullify the EPA entirely.




Is it unconstitutional because the feds don't get to tell the states what to do, or for some other reason? Because if it's that, I have news. The entire Bill of Rights is about the feds telling the states what they cannot do. The Constitution is full of the feds telling the states what to, and what not to, do.
It is unconstitutional because it is in violation of the enumerated powers.




No, let's don't.
Coward.
It doesn't matter though I have already proven what a terrible Justice Sandra Dang O'Connor was.


I've had quite enough of being expected to educate a recalcitrant child who will never say anything but, she didn't vote her party bloc so that must be unconstitutional somehow.
What fantastic drivel.



This whole thing just keeps reminding me that you don't even have any idea what double jeopardy means, yet you're perfectly content to invoke it as though you did. This is enough fun for me.
I know what it is and my invocation of it in that other thread was correct.




That's all true enough. And I don't blame her for not commenting because she didn't read the briefs or hear the argument.
O'Bummercare was patently unconstitutional and it wasn't necessary to read the briefs or hear the argument to know that.

[acptulsa]

Not only is adhering to unconstitutional precedent wrong but in the case of the murder of babies it is disgusting, the Constitution provides stability in the law.

The Constitution provides for the Supreme Court. That's obviously a type of stability in the law you don't appreciate.


The MSM is only controlled by certain corporations, the other businesses and citizen advocacy groups have a right to speech that McCain-Feingold sought to suppress, McCain-Feingold gave the corporations that contorl the MSM even more power.

Anyone affected by US law has a right to speak about it, even foreigners.

Money does not equal speech, in my mind. It certainly can be parlayed into power. You say McCain-Feingold gave the MSM more power because it gives corporations less ability to bribe politicians. But it does not limit corporations' ability to influence the MSM. I think it's a silly argument. It was silly when McConnell said it, and you aren't making it any more coherent.


I don't believe in violating my enemies rights, to do so damages my own.

Oh? You're a union?


Citizens of any race are entitled to equal protection under the law, foreigners are not entitled to come here at all so we can be choosy about which ones and how many we let in in order to safe guard the liberty of Americans.

That part of the Constitution was intended to limit the power of the slave lobby which wanted non-voting slaves counted fully for calculating how many Representatives the slave states would get, it has also been canceled by later amendments so it is irrelevant.

You're all over the place. Discrimination is unconstitutional, it's constitutional, it was constitutional but it isn't any more. The fact is, you obviously have no idea. As I said, if you like it, you call it constitutional, and if you don't, you call it unconstitutional.


I blame every justice that didn't nullify the EPA entirely.

So blame them.


It is unconstitutional because it is in violation of the enumerated powers.

Stop blathering generalities. If it violates an enumerated power, enumerate the damned power it violates or shut up.


Coward.
It doesn't matter though I have already proven what a terrible Justice Sandra Dang O'Connor was.

You don't get to declare victory because I refused to give you more stuff to refute because you haven't refuted the last batch yet. Once you refute the last batch, maybe you have cause to claim that I need to waste more time on you or concede.


What fantastic drivel.

Ah, well. Not the first time you've completely contradicted yourself, though it generally takes you more than three words to do it.


I know what it is and my invocation of it in that other thread was correct.

The person in that other thread was not found innocent and tried again. In fact, that person was never tried at all. So how the fuck does double jeopardy enter into it? Seems to me we're about two trials away from double jeopardy.

I'll let you tell me about the law the day after you let me do your brain surgery.


O'Bummercare was patently unconstitutional and it wasn't necessary to read the briefs or hear the argument to know that.

LOL I don't suppose it's necessary to read the constitution to know that, either?

Once again, you make the pronouncement, but you can't on a dare begin to tell which article and section it violates. And you wonder why talking to you is a waste of time.

[Swordsmyth]

The Constitution provides for the Supreme Court. That's obviously a type of stability in the law you don't appreciate.
The Constitution doesn't make bad precedent the law of the land.




Money does not equal speech, in my mind. It certainly can be parlayed into power. You say McCain-Feingold gave the MSM more power because it gives corporations less ability to bribe politicians. But it does not limit corporations' ability to influence the MSM. I think it's a silly argument. It was silly when McConnell said it, and you aren't making it any more coherent.
Money spent on speech is speech and McCain-Feingold limited the speech of anyone who got together in a group to enhance their speech to compete with the MSM.




Oh? You're a union?
At the time I was an NRA member, I have been a union member because the business was a closed shop and I may yet be a member of any number of political advocacy groups in the future.




You're all over the place. Discrimination is unconstitutional, it's constitutional, it was constitutional but it isn't any more. The fact is, you obviously have no idea. As I said, if you like it, you call it constitutional, and if you don't, you call it unconstitutional.
Anything that was in the Constitution is by definition Constitutional, but amendments have since changed what was in the Constitution, what part of that don't you understand?




Stop blathering generalities. If it violates an enumerated power, enumerate the damned power it violates or shut up.
It is not within the enumerated powers, anything not within the enumerated powers is unconstitutional for the federal government.




Ah, well. Not the first time you've completely contradicted yourself, though it generally takes you more than three words to do it.
Calling you statement fantastic drivel is not contradicting myself.




The person in that other thread was not found innocent and tried again. In fact, that person was never tried at all. So how the $#@! does double jeopardy enter into it? Seems to me we're about two trials away from double jeopardy.
It is also double jeopardy to charge someone with the same crime twice using two different names for the offense.


I'll let you tell me about the law the day after you let me do your brain surgery.
You are undoubtedly just as incompetent in either field.




LOL I don't suppose it's necessary to read the constitution to know that, either?

Once again, you make the pronouncement, but you can't on a dare begin to tell which article and section it violates. And you wonder why talking to you is a waste of time.

The unconstitutionality of O'Bummercare has been well explored and was quite obvious at the time.




Thank you for demonstrating how little you understand the Constitution.

[acptulsa]

LOL

[Jan2017]

All the other justices need to tell her to step down.


She won't make it.

OK, if someone is going to be beating pancreatic cancer it will take alot of effort - good luck to her . . .
but, I believe she will realize her Court duties and any opinion writings won't have quite that same Ginsburg 'zip'(if there ever was any).
She should honorably resign due too health . . . asap to focus on beating the cancer.

Trump three Supreme Court nominations before the 2018 midterm elections (?)
Glad it is not the kingpin of the Clinton crime syndicate running the country now, eh (?)

[Working Poor]

OK, if someone is going to be beating pancreatic cancer it will take alot of effort - good luck to her . . .
but, I believe she will realize her Court duties and any opinion writings won't have quite that same Ginsburg 'zip'(if there ever was any).
She should honorably resign due too health . . . asap to focus on beating the cancer.

Trump three Supreme Court nominations before the 2018 midterm elections (?)
Glad it is not the kingpin of the Clinton crime syndicate running the country now, eh (?)

I am not sure if you noticed that this thread was started in 2009 so I suppose that she must have beat the cancer since it has been almost 10 years since she was diagnosed with cancer. I wish she would step down but, she has stated that she intends another 5 years.

I am very glad that Clinton did not win and will not be electing Justices to the SC

[euphemia]

I am not sure if you noticed that this thread was started in 2009 so I suppose that she must have beat the cancer since it has been almost 10 years since she was diagnosed with cancer.

And she isn't dealing with the death panel Obamacare.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/02/few_get_surgery_for_grim_pancr.html


Few get surgery for grim pancreatic cancer that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg got

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg got a shot at survival that unfortunately few people with pancreatic cancer do: not just care from a celebrated specialist but the chance to have surgery at all.

As few as 10 of every 100 patients have their pancreatic tumor cut out. The majority have the most aggressive form of pancreatic cancer, called adenocarcinoma, and usually it's too far gone to operate.

This is one of the most formidable cancers. The American Cancer Society estimates that nearly 38,000 people last year were diagnosed with it, and no more than 5 percent overall survive five years.

But look at those whose cancer is caught early enough for surgery, followed by chemotherapy, and that five-year survival grows, reaching anywhere from 20 percent to 24 percent.

And very occasionally -- 10 percent to 15 percent of the time -- patients have a far less aggressive form of pancreatic cancer called an islet-cell tumor. Those sometimes are curable.

Ginsburg's surgeon, well-known specialist Dr. Murray Brennan of New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, offered no clue Thursday about what type of cancer the justice has or her prognosis. A court statement characterized it only as apparently early stage.

This is key: Ginsburg, who survived colon cancer a decade ago, reported no symptoms -- but doctors spotted the very small new tumor by accident when she had a CT scan as part of a regular checkup.

Because the small tumor also was in the center of the pancreas, she almost certainly had a slightly easier surgery than most patients, removing what's called the body and tail of the pancreas plus her spleen, said Dr. Aaron Sasson, a pancreatic cancer surgeon at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Most patients require the more arduous Whipple procedure that removes a trickier side of the pancreas, part of the small intestine, the gallbladder and bile duct, and sometimes part of the stomach.

Why is cancer in such a tiny organ so grim? Not only is it typically aggressive, there's no early detection test. Vague indigestion may be the only early sign. By the time such classic symptoms as yellowing skin, itching, weight loss and abdominal pain appear, the cancer has spread.

Scientists know far less about what causes pancreatic cancer than about most other solid tumors. But smoking and a family history of the disease are considered the top risk factors; high-fat diets, diabetes and a chronically inflamed pancreas may be risks, too.



More at link.

[Jan2017]

I am not sure if you noticed that this thread was started in 2009 so I suppose that she must have beat the cancer since it has been almost 10 years since she was diagnosed with cancer. I wish she would step down but, she has stated that she intends another 5 years.

I am very glad that Clinton did not win and will not be electing Justices to the SC
Yeah - I fess up at first . . . I did not notice the 2009 OP and in fact had jus' heard how great Ginsburg is doing healthwise. Great!
Still, she is hardly giving a 110% effort to the nation as a Supreme Court Justice. She would retire if Hilly had won probably.
Her clerks run the post as a Supreme Court Justice - not her. They may write her opinions.
She is excess baggage. Throw her overboard. Jus' sayin'