Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg treated for pancreatic cancer.

Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

19747

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#1 Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 19747 Posts

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday completed three weeks of radiation treatment for a malignant tumor on her pancreas, the Supreme Court announced.

The treatment, conducted on an outpatient basis at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, was to combat a tumor that was detected in early July during a routine blood test. A stent was also inserted into her bile duct as part of the treatment.

“The Justice tolerated treatment well,” the Supreme Court said in a statement. “The tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body.”

The court added that Ginsburg will “continue to have periodic blood tests and scans” and that no further treatment is currently required.

Ginsburg, 86, has sat on the court’s nine-member bench for 26 years and is its oldest serving justice. She has struggled with bouts of cancer during her tenure, undergoing surgery in 1999 for colorectal cancer, a procedure for pancreatic cancer in 2009 and another operation to remove two malignant nodules in her lungs in December.

Affectionately referred to as “RBG” by supporters, Ginsburg has emerged as a cultural icon for liberals who see her as a a bulwark against President Trump’s efforts to install more conservative justices.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed to the Supreme Court under Trump, giving it a more conservative tilt.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/458582-ginsburg-completes-three-months-of-radiation-treatment-for-cancerous-tumor

Frankly, if Trump were to replace RBG before the election I don't think Republicans would mind as much if they lost the election. The take over would be complete.

I remember when it was suggested that she should retire during Obama's tenure to secure a like-minded replacement but a lot of people got indignant, in part, because they thought the "Blue Wall" would hold for the foreseeable future and "demographics are destiny". But as Dooku says, twice the pride, double the fall.

So I ask the members of this board, did RBG made a mistake by not retiring during the Obama presidency? And what was your position at the time?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

17529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 17529 Posts

I definitely think it was a mistake. She's a little like Biden in that she insists on viewing the current landscape as one of bipartisanship, but she's wrong.

And you're right, if Trump replaces her the takeover is complete. I don't think the GOP would fight less hard for reelection, though. There's value in extra grease on the wheels.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
Gaming-Planet

20042

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#3 Gaming-Planet
Member since 2008 • 20042 Posts

I think she made the right choice. Obama saw the rise of far leftism takeover in academia and corporations.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

34112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 34112 Posts

Republicans are so obvious these days about wanting her to die.

Anyways, yes, she definitely made a mistake in not retiring during the Obama administration.

Avatar image for ad1x2
ad1x2

7773

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 ad1x2
Member since 2005 • 7773 Posts

Hopefully she gets better. She gave a lot to her country and at her age she should be relaxing, not struggling to make it to work everyday.

As for replacing her during Obama's term, that would have been the best option for everyone involved. At her age and health, she should be relaxing with what remains of her family, not hanging on for dear life in an attempt to keep the Supreme Court from going 6-3.

Too bad people made the assumption a Democrat would be Obama's successor and now instead of the occasional article talking about RBG's retirement the left hangs on with dread with the possibility of an article with her obituary dropping before Trump leaves the Oval Office.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#6 jeezers
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts

@Serraph105: I dont think they want her to die, but I do think its akward having a surpreme court justice of her age in and out of the hospital so much, getting tumors removed and such. She looks tired, I get that liberals love her for sticking it out and hanging in there, but political leaning aside. It doesnt seem ethical, as a human being i feel sorry for her. Plus its uncomfortable knowing that the people making some of the most important decisions are so old and crippled.

I felt this way with Mcain and his brain tumor as well, like come on, your old, you have a brain tumor, just retire...

At a certain point it feels like we just have the bodies there to be there and the fact if they can handle the job or not is undermined for partisan reasons.

We need term limits, maybe some kind of cap, like 10 years or something to be a justice.

Avatar image for joebones5000
joebones5000

2797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 joebones5000
Member since 2016 • 2797 Posts

Biden has to pack the courts for sanity to return to this nation.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#8 jeezers
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts

@joebones5000: Biden sounds like hes in an early state of dementia.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

11000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 11000 Posts

Hopefully she is alright after everything is said and done. However, I do agree with your statement on her retiring during Obama's tenure....assuming that McConnell wouldn't just leave another f*cking seat vacant. Could we assume that though?

Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

19747

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#10 Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 19747 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Hopefully she is alright after everything is said and done. However, I do agree with your statement on her retiring during Obama's tenure....assuming that McConnell wouldn't just leave another f*cking seat vacant. Could we assume that though?

Well, the GOP took over the Senate in 2014, so she could have retired anywhere from 2008 to 2013.

If Mitch threaten to filibuster Reid would have simply nuked it.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

11000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 11000 Posts

@Master_Live said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

Hopefully she is alright after everything is said and done. However, I do agree with your statement on her retiring during Obama's tenure....assuming that McConnell wouldn't just leave another f*cking seat vacant. Could we assume that though?

Well, the GOP took over the Senate in 2014, so she could have retired anywhere from 2008 to 2013.

If Mitch threaten to filibuster Reid would have simply nuked it.

Yeah, in hindsight I guess it would have been great pre-2014 then.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#12 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56894 Posts

That's a shame. I'd prefer she be replaced by someone of similar mindset. The court needs a good balance of philosophies.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

45393

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#13 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 45393 Posts

The adversities she has faced and the medical obstacles she had persevered through is incredible. She's a brilliant woman and I hope she hits triple digits. She will undoubtedly still be able to bring about calculated wit and veracity of her opinions, even after her eventual retirement. Hats off to her and a speedy recovery because the entire Democratic machine is counting on her.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
Sevenizz

4091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 Sevenizz
Member since 2010 • 4091 Posts

It’s a shame she won’t willfully retire. How effective can she possibly as it stands?

Avatar image for joebones5000
joebones5000

2797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 joebones5000
Member since 2016 • 2797 Posts

@Sevenizz said:

It’s a shame she won’t willfully retire. How effective can she possibly as it stands?

She was treated for the same thing in 2009, so if history is any indication, you have her for 10 more years, bruh.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

14551

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 14551 Posts

Skin of her teeth.

There should definitely be term limits, or a least a restriction on how many Justices a president can appoint during his term. 6-3 is far too imbalanced. At that point, what’s the point of having dems on the bench?

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

1964

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#17 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 1964 Posts

What a trooper. I remember back in January when she broke some ribs, there was a rumor that she died. I believed it because 99% of people at her age and in her condition would've died.

@MirkoS77 said:

Skin of her teeth.

There should definitely be term limits, or a least a restriction on how many Justices a president can appoint during his term. 6-3 is far too imbalanced. At that point, what’s the point of having dems on the bench?

Term limits aren't a bad idea. This weird death-watch we have for people on the bench is creepy as hell.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19038

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#18 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19038 Posts
@MirkoS77 said:

Skin of her teeth.

There should definitely be term limits, or a least a restriction on how many Justices a president can appoint during his term. 6-3 is far too imbalanced. At that point, what’s the point of having dems on the bench?

100% agree here with term limits also it should not be the congress who appoint justices for the bench, it should be an independent council or election process.

Also, the whole Liberal v Conservatives is complete BS and the supreme court should be independent from the lawmaking process as normal in a democratic country.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98066

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#19 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98066 Posts

@MirkoS77 said:

Skin of her teeth.

There should definitely be term limits, or a least a restriction on how many Justices a president can appoint during his term. 6-3 is far too imbalanced. At that point, what’s the point of having dems on the bench?

It's like a monarchy of sorts, just with several individuals. Nobody should have to die to be removed from an appointed office. Term limits would be a good start, then the Supreme Court could go back to focusing on actually solving problems rather than the partisan politicians fighting over how many votes they get on the bench.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

9876

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 9876 Posts
@ad1x2 said:

the left hangs on with dread

Considering polling of most major hot topics, it's far more than just the left.

A far right super majority in the SCOTUS while most policy polls left leaning (70%+ in some cases) would tear this country to shreds.

Avatar image for ad1x2
ad1x2

7773

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 ad1x2
Member since 2005 • 7773 Posts

@zaryia said:
@ad1x2 said:

the left hangs on with dread

Considering polling of most major hot topics, it's far more than just the left.

A far right super majority in the SCOTUS while most policy polls left leaning (70%+ in some cases) would tear this country to shreds.

Unfortunately, that’s where we are right now. It would be nice if they could make a deal to replace her with a candidate that leans a little to the left (still open to having Garland replacing RBG), but that isn’t going to happen now after the clown show certain Democrats pulled trying to paint Kavanaugh as a serial rapist and raging alcoholic to keep him from getting confirmed.

Totally destroyed any incentive for Trump to consider compromising and we can all but guarantee he’s going to nominate Amy Coney Barrett as RBG’s successor if she steps down or passes away before the end of his presidency. Good luck credibly accusing her of rape, and since her two adopted kids are from Haiti the race card wouldn’t be an easy option either.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

34112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 34112 Posts

@ad1x2 said:
@zaryia said:
@ad1x2 said:

the left hangs on with dread

Considering polling of most major hot topics, it's far more than just the left.

A far right super majority in the SCOTUS while most policy polls left leaning (70%+ in some cases) would tear this country to shreds.

Unfortunately, that’s where we are right now. It would be nice if they could make a deal to replace her with a candidate that leans a little to the left (still open to having Garland replacing RBG), but that isn’t going to happen now after the clown show certain Democrats pulled trying to paint Kavanaugh as a serial rapist and raging alcoholic to keep him from getting confirmed.

Totally destroyed any incentive for Trump to consider compromising and we can all but guarantee he’s going to nominate Amy Coney Barrett as RBG’s successor if she steps down or passes away before the end of his presidency. Good luck credibly accusing her of rape, and since her two adopted kids are from Haiti the race card wouldn’t be an easy option either.

The idea of Trump, or republicans in the senate for that matter, compromising with democrats in general seems to be extremely laughable from my point of view. Even if democrats had actively tried to make things go smoothly for Kavanaugh (which after the way McConnel handled Garland they had no incentive to do) as opposed to trying to make a case for him being unfit, Trump and McConnel would still never be bothered to compromise with democrats and it's naive af to think they would.

Avatar image for ad1x2
ad1x2

7773

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#23  Edited By ad1x2
Member since 2005 • 7773 Posts

@Serraph105 said:
@ad1x2 said:
@zaryia said:
@ad1x2 said:

the left hangs on with dread

Considering polling of most major hot topics, it's far more than just the left.

A far right super majority in the SCOTUS while most policy polls left leaning (70%+ in some cases) would tear this country to shreds.

Unfortunately, that’s where we are right now. It would be nice if they could make a deal to replace her with a candidate that leans a little to the left (still open to having Garland replacing RBG), but that isn’t going to happen now after the clown show certain Democrats pulled trying to paint Kavanaugh as a serial rapist and raging alcoholic to keep him from getting confirmed.

Totally destroyed any incentive for Trump to consider compromising and we can all but guarantee he’s going to nominate Amy Coney Barrett as RBG’s successor if she steps down or passes away before the end of his presidency. Good luck credibly accusing her of rape, and since her two adopted kids are from Haiti the race card wouldn’t be an easy option either.

The idea of Trump, or republicans in the senate for that matter, compromising with democrats in general seems to be extremely laughable from my point of view. Even if democrats had actively tried to make things go smoothly for Kavanaugh (which after the way McConnel handled Garland they had no incentive to do) as opposed to trying to make a case for him being unfit, Trump and McConnel would still never be bothered to compromise with democrats and it's naive af to think they would.

The possibility of RBG being replaced with a Republican judge will be a huge rallying cry for the left to make Trump a one-term president, and if he gets reelected anyway they would have to hope she doesn’t die or retire between now and her 93rd birthday, and hope that Trump’s successor in the 2024 election is a Democrat.

If they made a deal to replace her before the 2020 election that’s one less thing to rally the Democrats to get them to the polls. There’s still immigration, Medicare for All, and a few borderline (if not outright) socialist projects many of the Democratic candidates want to put in place if they are elected, but the Supreme Court was probably the biggest issue.

Yeah, it probably won’t happen, and RBG refusing to step down while Obama was president probably screwed over the Democrats while forcing her to stay in the court until she is in her late 80s/early 90s, but that’s where we are.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#24 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56894 Posts

They really should consider term limits for the supreme court. It may help to address this "stacking" problem that we have and it would also be prudent for other reasons. Would you want a 90 year old surgeon operating on you or a 90 yo pilot flying your plane? Probably not. So why is it ok to have someone like that on the most important court in the country?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

17529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 17529 Posts

@sonicare said:

They really should consider term limits for the supreme court. It may help to address this "stacking" problem that we have and it would also be prudent for other reasons. Would you want a 90 year old surgeon operating on you or a 90 yo pilot flying your plane? Probably not. So why is it ok to have someone like that on the most important court in the country?

Ideals of bipartisanship are nice in theory, but they were nuked long ago.

F it, it's warfare.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#26 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56894 Posts

@mattbbpl said:
@sonicare said:

They really should consider term limits for the supreme court. It may help to address this "stacking" problem that we have and it would also be prudent for other reasons. Would you want a 90 year old surgeon operating on you or a 90 yo pilot flying your plane? Probably not. So why is it ok to have someone like that on the most important court in the country?

Ideals of bipartisanship are nice in theory, but they were nuked long ago.

F it, it's warfare.

Everyone loses in war. terrible mentality.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

17529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 17529 Posts

@sonicare said:
@mattbbpl said:
@sonicare said:

They really should consider term limits for the supreme court. It may help to address this "stacking" problem that we have and it would also be prudent for other reasons. Would you want a 90 year old surgeon operating on you or a 90 yo pilot flying your plane? Probably not. So why is it ok to have someone like that on the most important court in the country?

Ideals of bipartisanship are nice in theory, but they were nuked long ago.

F it, it's warfare.

Everyone loses in war. terrible mentality.

I don't like it either, trust me. But the conclusion is inescapable.

To deny the reality of the situation is to allow the war to be onesided and a simple massacre. You're living in a past that no longer exists.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

56894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#28 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 56894 Posts

@mattbbpl said:
@sonicare said:
@mattbbpl said:
@sonicare said:

They really should consider term limits for the supreme court. It may help to address this "stacking" problem that we have and it would also be prudent for other reasons. Would you want a 90 year old surgeon operating on you or a 90 yo pilot flying your plane? Probably not. So why is it ok to have someone like that on the most important court in the country?

Ideals of bipartisanship are nice in theory, but they were nuked long ago.

F it, it's warfare.

Everyone loses in war. terrible mentality.

I don't like it either, trust me. But the conclusion is inescapable.

To deny the reality of the situation is to allow the war to be onesided and a simple massacre. You're living in a past that no longer exists.

I don't believe that at all. What conclusion is inescapble? What's the point of having values and beliefs if you are willing to toss them aside and assume the worst characteristics of those you disagree with. Trump is a terrible president, but don't get down into the gutter and slug it out with him. You'll lose because that's where people like that are used to fighting.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

17529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 17529 Posts

@sonicare said:

I don't believe that at all. What conclusion is inescapble? What's the point of having values and beliefs if you are willing to toss them aside and assume the worst characteristics of those you disagree with. Trump is a terrible president, but don't get down into the gutter and slug it out with him. You'll lose because that's where people like that are used to fighting.

I counter that fantasizing that a party that is stooping to restricting voting rights on a national scale will engage with you in mutual bipartisanship guarantees losses. Perpetually.

Playing the judge game and not engaging in counter-vote restrictions is the high road, and that alone will probably result in a lot of additional losses.