DL717 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I find this to be fairly pre-mature. Her health is not ailing. She took a spill and broke some ribs, which is not an uncommon occurrence for folks her age. In fact, she had a similar problem in 2012. Broke 2 ribs then and recovered just fine. Sure it's 6 years later and there can always be complications with injuries like this leading to infection etc. But she will be just fine.

Asking "what would have happened if she didn't survive the ordeal" is a bit sensationalist.

Edit to add: I think it's kind of gross that people only hope she lives long enough to outlast a Trump presidency. It's never enough to just bless her with good health. It always seems to be paired with, until we can get someone else in to replace her. (though not directly stated as such, simply implied)

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation- ... 43550.html

Also apparently #ribsforruth is a thing

Last edit: My guess is she just wanted to avoid the kegger that night for Kavanaugh's party.

My grandpa unfortunately fell two months ago and broke 5 ribs. He was 85 and his funeral was last week. When the news broke that she fell, I couldn’t help but think of him. I certainly hope her fate is different, but at that age, a fall is often times a death sentence due to complications that arise afterwards.

Similar thing happened to my grandfather. Slipped in the shower at 85 and fractured a vertebrate. He was too frail for them to fuse it. Died about six months later and it was a miserable six months for him living in a brace being unable to move on his own.

Sorry to hear.

My grandpa had Alzheimer’s and dementia as well and after the fall his health just went downhill. He got pneumonia and went septic. He went into hospice and began end of life care. Thankfully, he died peacefully in his sleep. He was pretty much my dad, so it’s been rough.

BREAKING NEWS: "Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery to remove two cancerous nodules in her left lung".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 387829002/

Dieuwer wrote:

BREAKING NEWS: "Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery to remove two cancerous nodules in her left lung".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 387829002/

In a weird twisted way it's probably good she cracked her ribs then. Might not have been discovered otherwise.

trpmb6 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

BREAKING NEWS: "Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery to remove two cancerous nodules in her left lung".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 387829002/

In a weird twisted way it's probably good she cracked her ribs then. Might not have been discovered otherwise.

I met a guy a few weeks ago that had a stroke and they found cancer. Might not have found it without the stroke.
Sometimes bad luck is better than no luck

Just last week all we heard about her is "she's in fine health". The following week, "oh, she has cancer".

Her team of doctors are working hard to keep her alive through the Trump presidency. Pretty soon she is just going to be a head in a jar like on Futurama.

Oh boy, I hope they can get the tumors out fully, before it spreads. That's the bad thing about being this old... an unhealthy 80-some year is a fall or complication away from death, but so is a healthy 80-some year old...

Honestly, I think this all probably sounds worse than it is. Yes, she recently fell, and yes, now she has cancer in her lungs, but they are most likely unrelated, a coincidence

She's a fighter... Get well soon RBG!

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Oh boy, I hope they can get the tumors out fully, before it spreads. That's the bad thing about being this old... an unhealthy 80-some year is a fall or complication away from death, but so is a healthy 80-some year old...

Honestly, I think this all probably sounds worse than it is. Yes, she recently fell, and yes, now she has cancer in her lungs, but they are most likely unrelated, a coincidence

She's a fighter... Get well soon RBG!

It's not about fighting she realizes she made a mistake by not retiring during the Obama presidency and she has to last to at least 2020 and hope Trump loses.

NIKV69 wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Oh boy, I hope they can get the tumors out fully, before it spreads. That's the bad thing about being this old... an unhealthy 80-some year is a fall or complication away from death, but so is a healthy 80-some year old...

Honestly, I think this all probably sounds worse than it is. Yes, she recently fell, and yes, now she has cancer in her lungs, but they are most likely unrelated, a coincidence

She's a fighter... Get well soon RBG!

It's not about fighting she realizes she made a mistake by not retiring during the Obama presidency and she has to last to at least 2020 and hope Trump loses.

I kinda resent that. I gave respect for her. I'm "center left" (I hate labels because I have views across the spectrum) but like I said... respect. I think almost anyone would say it's the moral move to make the Supreme Court apolitical. She would've been more strategic (yes, overall better for the left) had she retired during President Obama and assuming she has to be replaced under Trump... but...

She's probably operating:

1: greedily (possible)

2: apolitically. She knows the ramifications of President Obama vs hypothetical President Trump (which ended up happening) but served her term in health and without a regard to politics, which SCOTUS should be (right?)

If she is #1, then she's like any other political animal, whatever. If she's #2... Much respect. Both sides of the spectrum should at least be able to give her credit for that, even if/despite it being better for the right.

This is what I want to see from the left (closer to my "side".) Being right even if it's politically disadvantaged

Back to topic: RBG had malignant nodules removed surgically by removing a lobe on the left side of her lung. The left side has one lobe less than the right, making room for the heart.

The type of surgery might be interring. I seem to recall that DiVinci robotic surgery has been used in some chest surgery, avoiding significant less brutal than traditional approaches.

The type of cancer is also worth knowing. Surgeons are not worried, with no follow-up treatment planned. As the doctor indicated there was no detectable "primary cancer". That might mean that the cancer comes from her pancreatic cancer that she had 10 years ago. That would be a very slow growing cancer to say the least. Another alternative would be a cancernoid, which is what
I have removed a couple years ago. The "regular"version of that cancernoid is nothing to be concerned about. My Doc has a patient who had one out 25 years ago and he is still going strong.

I do wish RBG.all the very best, in terms of her health, her enjoyment on the bench and her enjoyment of life. She sets a good example for me, addressing unpleasant health issues head on. I've had 4 cancer surgeries over the past 15 years and, at 74, continue to look at any new nasty head on.

Ruth didn't show up to work today.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/07/supreme ... rgery.html

VTKillarney wrote:

Ruth didn't show up to work today.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/07/supreme ... rgery.html

Nope. Like I have said before she realizes she made a huge mistake by not stepping down when Obama was in office no she has to try to hold on. She is doing a disservice to this country.

Not being present for oral arguments is not that uncommon. Illnesses etc happen. She's recovering, no big deal. The only reason it is newsworthy is because she had a perfect record of never missing oral arguments. That in itself IS significant, because she must really not be able to report for her to remain at home. But beyond that not really newsworthy imo.

If you're on the SCOTUS, I'm of the opinion that you had better damn well answer the bell and go to work every day.

At such point one cannot do that consistently, it's time to retire. This lifetime appointment stuff is a bunch of nonsense.

slider wrote:

If you're on the SCOTUS, I'm of the opinion that you had better damn well answer the bell and go to work every day.

At such point one cannot do that consistently, it's time to retire. This lifetime appointment stuff is a bunch of nonsense.

Hopefully your boss fires you when you get sick next time.

casinterest wrote:

slider wrote:

If you're on the SCOTUS, I'm of the opinion that you had better damn well answer the bell and go to work every day.

At such point one cannot do that consistently, it's time to retire. This lifetime appointment stuff is a bunch of nonsense.

Hopefully your boss fires you when you get sick next time.

My job is every day. SCOTUS isn't. Big difference between being in session and not.

Being sick is one thing. Being elderly, infirmed, and not going to work is another. Especially if it's for any protracted period of time. The argument could be made that a SCOTUS can't weight the merit of the case unless they're present to do so, transcript notwithstanding.

slider wrote:

casinterest wrote:

slider wrote:

If you're on the SCOTUS, I'm of the opinion that you had better damn well answer the bell and go to work every day.

At such point one cannot do that consistently, it's time to retire. This lifetime appointment stuff is a bunch of nonsense.

Hopefully your boss fires you when you get sick next time.

My job is every day. SCOTUS isn't. Big difference between being in session and not.

Being sick is one thing. Being elderly, infirmed, and not going to work is another. Especially if it's for any protracted period of time. The argument could be made that a SCOTUS can't weight the merit of the case unless they're present to do so, transcript notwithstanding.

And she will not be part of the ruling when it is presented as she was not there for arguments. Please go take a civics course instead of your mindless attacks on a person recovering from Cancer Surgery.

casinterest wrote:

slider wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Hopefully your boss fires you when you get sick next time.

My job is every day. SCOTUS isn't. Big difference between being in session and not.

Being sick is one thing. Being elderly, infirmed, and not going to work is another. Especially if it's for any protracted period of time. The argument could be made that a SCOTUS can't weight the merit of the case unless they're present to do so, transcript notwithstanding.

And she will not be part of the ruling when it is presented as she was not there for arguments. Please go take a civics course instead of your mindless attacks on a person recovering from Cancer Surgery.

I can't imagine he'd have had much to say other than "thoughts and prayers" if it was Brett Kavanaugh out of action with cirrhosis or or a case of liver cancer.

casinterest wrote:

slider wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Hopefully your boss fires you when you get sick next time.

My job is every day. SCOTUS isn't. Big difference between being in session and not.

Being sick is one thing. Being elderly, infirmed, and not going to work is another. Especially if it's for any protracted period of time. The argument could be made that a SCOTUS can't weight the merit of the case unless they're present to do so, transcript notwithstanding.

And she will not be part of the ruling when it is presented as she was not there for arguments. Please go take a civics course instead of your mindless attacks on a person recovering from Cancer Surgery.

Who needs a civics course?

“Ginsburg instead will work from home and use the case briefs and argument transcripts to participate in the cases, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.”

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

slider wrote:

My job is every day. SCOTUS isn't. Big difference between being in session and not.

Being sick is one thing. Being elderly, infirmed, and not going to work is another. Especially if it's for any protracted period of time. The argument could be made that a SCOTUS can't weight the merit of the case unless they're present to do so, transcript notwithstanding.

And she will not be part of the ruling when it is presented as she was not there for arguments. Please go take a civics course instead of your mindless attacks on a person recovering from Cancer Surgery.

Who needs a civics course?

“Ginsburg instead will work from home and use the case briefs and argument transcripts to participate in the cases, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.”

If it is allowed. However she can recuse herself as well. Civics teaches that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. Not at the whims of ignorant fools.

casinterest wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

And she will not be part of the ruling when it is presented as she was not there for arguments. Please go take a civics course instead of your mindless attacks on a person recovering from Cancer Surgery.

Who needs a civics course?

“Ginsburg instead will work from home and use the case briefs and argument transcripts to participate in the cases, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.”

If it is allowed. However she can recuse herself as well. Civics teaches that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. Not at the whims of ignorant fools.

Ah, but now you're back tracking.

But again it doesn't really matter, this happens all the time. Again, the only reason this is newsworthy is because this is literally the first time this has happened for RBG. I'm one of the most conservative posters here and think we should be more understanding of the situation.

Now if it persists, that's another matter. I suspect this is not a long term issue.

One has to wonder, where do we draw the line though? If we keep someone on a ventilator in a hospital room, should they be allowed to continue their work? What if they're in a coma? Still technically alive right? Just a thought for another thread. (and perhaps it's already addressed with language i'm not familiar with)

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

slider wrote:

My job is every day. SCOTUS isn't. Big difference between being in session and not.

Being sick is one thing. Being elderly, infirmed, and not going to work is another. Especially if it's for any protracted period of time. The argument could be made that a SCOTUS can't weight the merit of the case unless they're present to do so, transcript notwithstanding.

And she will not be part of the ruling when it is presented as she was not there for arguments. Please go take a civics course instead of your mindless attacks on a person recovering from Cancer Surgery.

Who needs a civics course?

“Ginsburg instead will work from home and use the case briefs and argument transcripts to participate in the cases, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.”

How about video conferencing?

casinterest wrote:

And she will not be part of the ruling when it is presented as she was not there for arguments. Please go take a civics course instead of your mindless attacks on a person recovering from Cancer Surgery.

Just to clarify, this statement is patently false. She will be participating. There is no requirement that she be present for oral arguments.

Amy Barrett was seen circling the block.

Two seperate tumors found in the lung of a non-smoker who's battled cancer in the past. This is not going to have a positive outcome.

Berevoff wrote:

Amy Barrett was seen circling the block.

Two seperate tumors found in the lung of a non-smoker who's battled cancer in the past. This is not going to have a positive outcome.

Scarier is that if she didn't fall they may have not found them until her next surveillance visit

NIKV69 wrote:

Berevoff wrote:

Amy Barrett was seen circling the block.

Two seperate tumors found in the lung of a non-smoker who's battled cancer in the past. This is not going to have a positive outcome.

Scarier is that if she didn't fall they may have not found them until her next surveillance visit

I wouldn't be surprised if they were directly related. Has she made any public appearances since before the fall? I can't find anything other than upbeat stories reporting on her will to get back to work.

Years ago I worked in a radiology department and we had a girl who was a passenger in a car accident come through. She received a scan due to losing consciousness in the crash and we found a sizable brain tumor. Who knows how much longer it would have been before she found out? Scary!

Berevoff wrote:

Amy Barrett was seen circling the block.

Two seperate tumors found in the lung of a non-smoker who's battled cancer in the past. This is not going to have a positive outcome.

Yeah I was about to post that Amy Barrett has probably started packing for her new position.

Ms. Ginsburg has not only missed her second week of oral arguments, she has cancelled speaking engagements through at least February 6th.

I'm praying for her full and complete recovery, even if it takes a little longer than any of us had hoped.

Looks like Fox is getting anxious: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends ... g-is-dead/

FTMCPIUS wrote:

Looks like Fox is getting anxious: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends ... g-is-dead/

Saw this on drudge this morning and literally face palmed. I know the networks keep retainer images like this for big news events but they should have some protocols in place to prevent them from airing erroneously. This has happened in the past with other high level figures.

trpmb6 wrote:

FTMCPIUS wrote:

Looks like Fox is getting anxious: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends ... g-is-dead/

Saw this on drudge this morning and literally face palmed. I know the networks keep retainer images like this for big news events but they should have some protocols in place to prevent them from airing erroneously. This has happened in the past with other high level figures.

Didn't some guy have a heart attack and die when he read his own obituary back in the day?

rivetremover wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

FTMCPIUS wrote:

Looks like Fox is getting anxious: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends ... g-is-dead/

Saw this on drudge this morning and literally face palmed. I know the networks keep retainer images like this for big news events but they should have some protocols in place to prevent them from airing erroneously. This has happened in the past with other high level figures.

Didn't some guy have a heart attack and die when he read his own obituary back in the day?

Would not surprise me if that had happened.

Wow. It's more prolific than I thought.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... obituaries

Several news organizations have picked up from Twitter that on Monday Ruth Bader Ginsburg made her first public appearance since she had cancer surgery.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 2bdb74afa8

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/04/politics ... index.html

The "Notorious RBG in Song" event, put on by her daughter in law, was 9 songs paying tribute to her legal work over the years. A Washington Post reporter who attended the event tweeted “She sat in the back, a few rows behind us, looking resplendent. Being hugged & wished a happy birthday by her made a grand night spectacular.”

However there are no pictures anywhere that actually show her at the event. All news outlets that carried the story used file photos of her. The Washington Post reporter's tweet as since been deleted. Numerous other tweets claim she looked "glam" and "she was great", but offer no pictures of her at the event.

This has all of the signs of being a coordinated effort to push a false "See, she's fine and doing well!" story about her. I find it hard to believe that she would attend an event honoring her, yet she wasn't announced to the audience, she hid in the back, and not a single person snapped a photo of her despite the fact that everyone carries a cell phone. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that talking points were distributed as well seeing no one uses words like "resplendent" and "glam" in everyday conversation.

She's too sick to go to work, but she can attend a concert honoring her? Just fucking retire already and knock it off with the Weekend at Ginsburg's routine.

Brick wrote:

This has all of the signs of being a coordinated effort to push a false "See, she's fine and doing well!" story about her. I find it hard to believe that she would attend an event honoring her, yet she wasn't announced to the audience, she hid in the back, and not a single person snapped a photo of her despite the fact that everyone carries a cell phone. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that talking points were distributed as well seeing no one uses words like "resplendent" and "glam" in everyday conversation.

She's too sick to go to work, but she can attend a concert honoring her? Just fucking retire already and knock it off with the Weekend at Ginsburg's routine.

No matter what her state of health the Democrats will try to get her to the end of Trumps term in the hope he loses re-election. They will do anything, pull anything and say anything If you thought the Kavanaugh fight was bad this will be totally embarrassing..

So she attended a family produced and staring play of her Son and Daughter -in- Law? Seems like a good time to go out in public for a personal reason and family support. Guess she can't heal fast enough for the GOP.

NIKV69 wrote:

Brick wrote:

This has all of the signs of being a coordinated effort to push a false "See, she's fine and doing well!" story about her. I find it hard to believe that she would attend an event honoring her, yet she wasn't announced to the audience, she hid in the back, and not a single person snapped a photo of her despite the fact that everyone carries a cell phone. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that talking points were distributed as well seeing no one uses words like "resplendent" and "glam" in everyday conversation.

She's too sick to go to work, but she can attend a concert honoring her? Just fucking retire already and knock it off with the Weekend at Ginsburg's routine.

No matter what her state of health the Democrats will try to get her to the end of Trumps term in the hope he loses re-election. They will do anything, pull anything and say anything If you thought the Kavanaugh fight was bad this will be totally embarrassing..

No need to get her to the end of Trump's term just the end of the year. McConnell set the precedent that the Supreme Court nominations of sitting presidents in an election year shouldn't be voted upon by the Senate remember? Or do the Republicans not agree with that anymore since there's a Republican in office?

winginit wrote:

No need to get her to the end of Trump's term just the end of the year. McConnell set the precedent that the Supreme Court nominations of sitting presidents in an election year shouldn't be voted upon by the Senate remember? Or do the Republicans not agree with that anymore since there's a Republican in office?

No it actually was Biden and when it didn't suit them the Dems forgot. Doesn't matter Trump has the Senate and will go ahead even in the last year of his first term.

NIKV69 wrote:

winginit wrote:

No need to get her to the end of Trump's term just the end of the year. McConnell set the precedent that the Supreme Court nominations of sitting presidents in an election year shouldn't be voted upon by the Senate remember? Or do the Republicans not agree with that anymore since there's a Republican in office?

No it actually was Biden and when it didn't suit them the Dems forgot. Doesn't matter Trump has the Senate and will go ahead even in the last year of his first term.

I think you could benefit from a history lesson. Biden set no precedent because when Biden advocated for delaying a hypothetical Supreme Court nomination vote on account of a hypothetical vacancy until after the election of 1992 there was no supreme court vacancy... there was no vote or withheld vote... there was no action - it was all talk.

McConnell actually set the precedent by refusing to bring Obama's nomination to a vote. That was action. Action sets precedent.

Educate yourself.

Brick wrote:

This has all of the signs of being a coordinated effort to push a false "See, she's fine and doing well!" story about her. I find it hard to believe that she would attend an event honoring her, yet she wasn't announced to the audience, she hid in the back, and not a single person snapped a photo of her despite the fact that everyone carries a cell phone. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that talking points were distributed as well seeing no one uses words like "resplendent" and "glam" in everyday conversation.

She's too sick to go to work, but she can attend a concert honoring her? Just fucking retire already and knock it off with the Weekend at Ginsburg's routine.

RBG is at work today - in her office after being given a clean, cancer-free bill of health.

Are you appeased?

mbmbos wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

Why is she being selfish? It's a lifetime appointment. And she's got a fully functioning mind, possibly the greatest mind currently on SCOTUS.

So why is she being selfish?

Contrary to politely speaking about the aged, once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore, thank u for your service now move on and let someone who’s more with it handle the job. She could have had Obama appoint a liberal replacement a few years ago but wants her legacy to be one of dying on the bench, purely selfish. I’m sure she’s surrounded by the some sharp aides that help her on a daily basis get the job done.

"...once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore..."

That's a generalization, not an argument. And it's one that is untrue. It is clear from her public speaking engagements her mind is sharp as a tack.

Your critical thinking skills on the other hand leave much to be desired.

Really? Then how come the FAA hasn't allowed 85 year old airline captains in 121 airline operations? There is a reason for age limits and lets face it why in the hell would you even want to work at 85 I mean except for surpreme court and congress and walmart greeters who the hell does this?

There's actually talk that people have been discussing getting Clarence Thomas, who is also getting up in years and has evidently made it clear he no longer likes his job, to step down this year so President Trump can nominate a solid conservative to replace him before the end of 2019.

stratosphere wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

Contrary to politely speaking about the aged, once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore, thank u for your service now move on and let someone who’s more with it handle the job. She could have had Obama appoint a liberal replacement a few years ago but wants her legacy to be one of dying on the bench, purely selfish. I’m sure she’s surrounded by the some sharp aides that help her on a daily basis get the job done.

"...once people get in that age bracket they are not sharp anymore..."

That's a generalization, not an argument. And it's one that is untrue. It is clear from her public speaking engagements her mind is sharp as a tack.

Your critical thinking skills on the other hand leave much to be desired.

Really? Then how come the FAA hasn't allowed 85 year old airline captains in 121 airline operations? There is a reason for age limits and lets face it why in the hell would you even want to work at 85 I mean except for surpreme court and congress and walmart greeters who the hell does this?

Gosh, who knows? Is it based on actual research? I don't know. Do you have any research evidence to indicate cognitive skills related to adjudicating constitutional law is diminished by age 85? And is it diminished in all 85 year olds?

You can pull fake theories out of your bum or you can look with your very own eyes to see that Ginsburg is firing on all cylinders, that her reasoning is consistent with her entire judicial history.

EA CO AS wrote:

There's actually talk that people have been discussing getting Clarence Thomas, who is also getting up in years and has evidently made it clear he no longer likes his job, to step down this year so President Trump can nominate a solid conservative to replace him before the end of 2019.

I can only hope that Trump would appoint his looney tunes wife, Ginny. Gotta give Trump credit though because I think he hates her after spending 30 seconds with her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/us/p ... eting.html