ConfirmThem

(Reuters) – Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, had surgery on Thursday for pancreatic cancer, a court spokeswoman said.

Ginsburg, who was appointed to the court in 1993 by Democratic President Bill Clinton, previously had colon cancer in 1999.

Spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said in a statement that Ginsburg showed no symptoms of pancreatic cancer before the initial discovery of a lesion during a routine annual check-up in late January.

Arberg said Ginsburg had surgery for "apparently early-stage" pancreatic cancer at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

Ginsburg, the second woman picked for the high court, will likely remain in the hospital about 7 to 10 days, according to Dr. Murray Brennan, the attending surgeon.

A CAT scan revealed a small tumor, approximately one centimeter across, in the center of the pancreas, Arberg said in a written statement.

If Ginsburg were to leave the nine-member top court, it would give President Barack Obama the chance to name her successor. Ginsburg has previously said she has no intention of leaving the court any time soon.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer.

The American Cancer Society says the five-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer patients is about 5 percent. Most patients die within six months because the cancer shows few symptoms until it is too advanced to be helped by treatment.

There are two types of pancreatic cancer -- adenocarcinoma and a rare but more benign type called an islet-cell, or neuroendocrine, tumor.

If the tumor looks like it can be removed, a complex surgical procedure called the Whipple procedure can help patients live longer, with overall five-year survival about 20 percent.

Patients whose cancer is caught before it spreads into their lymph nodes may have up to a 40 percent survival. Apple Computer chief executive officer Steve Jobs and actor Patrick Swayze are two celebrities battling pancreatic cancer.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 37,680 Americans get pancreatic cancer each year and 34,290 die of it.

Very true, Quin. We wish her the best.

Still - I can't help but think even Ginsburg's cancer is liberal - it refused to recur over the last 8 years, but as soon as Obama became president, it came right back....

I don't know which to do. I'm sure it's a coincidence, but I find it ironic that the ad just below this thread is for... Pro Flowers!

I offer them in both of my posts near the end of the previous thread.

I know Jerome's joking, but the oncology doctor on the phone to Fox News indicated that colon cancer and pancreatic cancer are not related. Therefore, it's not recurrent.

My impression is that she has been a smoker and that can lead to one or more cancers, I believe. Let me say it again--I wish her well.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/32092-1.html

"The hospitalization Thursday of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for pancreatic cancer surgery set off quiet speculation about the type of high-court nominee President Barack Obama may appoint."

Anyone have the full article?

Whatever her philosophies, she's almost certainly the most influential female lawyer in the Nation's history (O'Connor, being a "swing" vote, is the more influential female judge).

Her life story is compelling, her academic record is unparalleled based on what I've read, and she was certainly very-well qualified for SCOTUS.

Sounds like her prognosis is as good as can be hoped for. The news reports have repeated the story of her saying Stevens is a great example of serving past 80, and it is the best job in the world, but she's as realistic as anyone, and I can't imagine she'll risk serving past 6/2011 now.

But it is hard to let go.

Over on kos they're whining about some unmoderated comments on a "conservative site", which was NOT RedState. LAWL. On kos itself, some klown posted "I can think of four other justices I wish had cancer". Lord knows what they'd write were Thomas diagnosed with a serious illness.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

If RBG were to retire in the near future, it's very hard to see how it would be anyone other than Sotomayor, Kagan or Wood. It will 100% be a woman, and her resume will have to pass the giggle test when compared to RBG, and also Breyer, JGR, and Alito's. McConnell and Hatch should beat the drum for Mahoney or Callahan; preapproved by Chuck n' Harry after all! ;)

I agree with George Will that Harriet may have been a good thing long term; she established a threshold of qualifications, tho who knows what Obama'd do with a super-majority in the Senate.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

When conservatives turned against her, Leahy and company talked about her like she was the Greatest. Nominee. Ever. :-)

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090206/POLITICS/9020...

"Gov. Jennifer Granholm is not interested in a Supreme Court appointment or any other job in the Obama administration, her spokeswoman repeated Friday.

"Nothing has changed since the governor addressed this issue the last time," Liz Boyd said. "She has made it clear to the Obama administration she is not interested in an appointment at this time."

The last time this came up was January, when withdrawal of Bill Richardson to head the Commerce Department led to speculation that Granholm was a candidate for that job. Granholm firmly denied any interest in that job. Now, with word that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has pancreatic cancer, Washington is focused on potential Supreme Court appointments. Granholm, a former Michigan attorney general and prosecutor, is among those mentioned in media reports."

Can someone (Tom Goldstein, maybe?) finally, blessedly remove this woman from current "short list" speculation? (even as a dark horse) Her age, education and connection to Obama make her a possibility, but her public statement here strikes me as incredibly genuine. Plus -- despite Obama's stated willingness to consider those with a less traditional path -- I still think he won't go with a politician for *any* vacancy. Instead, I suspect all of his SCOTUS choices will end up being either federal appeals-court judges, state supreme court judges (in the case of Sears) or executive branch officials (in the case of Kagan), which means that for a Ginsburg vacancy anytime soon, it's hard to see him stepping outside of the Kagan/Sotomayor/Sears/Wardlaw/Wood quintet.

Interestingly, ConfirmThem regular Zendari made this precise quintet the subset from which Zendari thought the first vacancy would come -- back in October:

http://www.confirmthem.com/open_thread_32#comment-13620

We now have Zendari the Magnificent!

And speaking of Karnak, how I wish Johnny Carson were still with us. Can't you just see him with a Blago wig and hear him speaking in one of his voices (which is already very close to Blago's real voice) saying, "We're going to fight! Fight!! FIGHT!!! Sis-boom-bah!"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/ginsburg-plans-speedy-recovery-2009-...

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg plans to return to the bench less than three weeks after being hospitalized for pancreatic cancer, her office said Friday.

Ginsburg anticipates returning to the bench for the court’s next arguments on Feb. 23, according to Kathy Arberg, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Court.

Ginsburg is one of four justices considered liberals on the court. Another four justices are conservatives, and Justice Anthony Kennedy is a often the court’s pivotal vote.

Ginsburg, who was nominated to the court in 1993 by President Clinton, underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer on Thursday and is currently recovering at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

In a statement on Thursday, the Supreme Court said doctors discovered a small tumor in the center of Ginsburg’s pancreas during a routine check up in late January.

This is Ginsburg’s second bout with cancer. Ginsburg underwent surgery for colon cancer in 1999. Pancreatic cancer is considered one of the most deadly forms of the disease."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR200902...

"At the White House, advisers already had begun drafting a short list for the court in case one of the several aging justices decided to retire this summer. Speculation has been that the list includes Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, who has been nominated to serve as solicitor general; Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit; Judge Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit; and Stanford University law professor Kathleen M. Sullivan."

an open thread, where the above and other items could be discussed?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-judges8-2009feb08,0...

"Obama should follow the advice of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and renominate three Bush nominees whose appointments have languished in the Senate but who have been highly rated by the ABA and received bipartisan support. Specter notes that there is a precedent: Bush renominated -- and the Senate confirmed -- one of Clinton's unsuccessful nominees to a federal appeals court.

One of the three candidates mentioned by Specter, former Assistant Atty. Gen. Peter Keisler, would take the seat formerly occupied by Roberts on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Keisler was praised by the Justice Department's inspector general for opposing the Bush administration's politicization of hiring in the department. Renominating Keisler could signal the beginning of a long overdue truce in the judge wars."

that Specter could have traded his support for the "stimulus" bill for a promise from Obama to take his advice re these judges?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/linked-retirements-and-the-summer-of-2009/

"...there are three summers available for retirements during this Presidency – 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Though precise accounts vary, it is understood that Justice O’Connor retired a year earlier than she otherwise was likely to because it seemed likely that Chief Justice Rehnquist would retire the following summer as a result of his thyroid cancer. A similar phenomenon may present itself here. The greater the odds that Justice Ginsburg will retire in 2010 or 2011, the greater the parallel incentive for Justice Stevens or Justice Souter to leave this summer.

Justice Ginsburg’s illness could thus affect the retirement calendar by making a resignation by Justices Stevens or Souter significantly more likely this summer if two premises – one debatable and the other simply unknowable at this point – are true. The debatable premise is that Justice Stevens or Souter intends to retire in the next few years. The as-yet-unknowable premise is that Justice Ginsburg tells her colleagues that there is a significant chance that her cancer will recur, suggesting that she may retire later in the Presidency. That would mark a significant change from her clearly stated intention to remain on the Court for many more years and would indicate to Stevens and Souter that the best opportunity for a more orderly retirement would be this summer."

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_08-2009_02_14.shtml#123416631...

"...I tend to doubt that Justice Ginsburg's health will have any impact on what the other Justices are thinking in terms of their own retirements. It's certainly possible -- as I said, these are highly personal decisions of a few specific people who have never done this before, so anything is possible. But I tend to doubt it."

We dodge a bullet if Ginsberg decides to stay on. 2 vacancies in 2010/2011 means the 2nd one comes with the new (bound to be more Republican) Senate.

I was watching Obama today. He's a 1 trick stump speech pony quite adept at running for President, but not quite to adept at actually governing. You'd think he would have learned something from Bush and Cheney and not turned over his critical stimulus package to Pelosi.

And I thank all of you for your kind comments. :)

Given Daschle, Geithner, and company, taxes are probably the way to start examining those 5 judges from the GOP standpoint.

Not necessarily. Republicans have much tougher seats to defend.

In the climate of the 2006 and 2008 elections, yeah. Remember that Democrats in these elections won Senate seats in states that voted for W in 2004, and in some cases, McCain in 2008. And Obama is clearing out half the incumbents in his party.

the thought certainly crossed my mind. I hope he didn't sell out for a mess of pottage. He might settle for his PA request.

Zendari--I think the GOP will definitely pick up seats in the Senate and House in 10. Maybe take 1 or both back in 12. I can give reasons if you want, but I think you know them.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_88/news/32328-1.html

"Despite talk of a new era of bipartisanship, there’s one place in Washington where partisans can still get their fill of angry diatribes, recriminations and denunciations — the Senate Judiciary Committee."

Does anyone have the complete article?

please?

Judiciary: Partisans Welcome

By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff

February 12, 2009

Despite talk of a new era of bipartisanship, there's one place in Washington where partisans can still get their fill of angry diatribes, recriminations and denunciations — the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But despite the often fervent attacks each side launches, the committee has continued to function relatively smoothly, and members said the divisive nature of their work has not corroded their relationships.

Most members of the panel do not deny there’s a healthy amount of partisanship involved in their work, and in some cases, some even seem to relish it. "Partisanship? On the Judiciary Committee? I'm shocked that you would suggest that," quipped Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Likewise, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) also feigned surprise, exclaiming, "You don't say!"

Cornyn and others point to the fact that both parties have stacked the Judiciary Committee with lawmakers who, while shrewd legislators, also are renowned partisans, particularly those hailing from leadership ranks.

Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) both serve on the panel, as does Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.).

Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), while adept at cutting deals, also has been a reliably partisan voice during his time in the Senate. Other panel members, such as Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), each represent various factions of their parties' wings.

Many Judiciary Committee Senators said much of the panel's reputed partisanship is hard-wired because of its jurisdiction over hot-button social issues and the federal bench. Those issues tend to ignite passions from both parties and spark the fiercest debates both in and outside the Capitol.

"Whether it's immigration or judges or the war on terror, a lot of them do boil down to legal questions. The committee's jurisdiction is right smack dab in the middle of that," Cornyn said. "I have noticed that it seems to be the committee that divides us most."

Whitehouse agreed, noting that issues such as abortion, judicial nominations and the separation of church and state divide Americans as a whole — a tension that is reflected on the committee. Whitehouse also noted that both parties have long used the Judiciary panel as a place to breed and promote "wedge issues" — such as gay marriage bans, flag-burning amendments to the Constitution or other incendiary, "red meat" proposals.

"It is partly the nature of the issues [and] also partly the tradition that it has been used to try and create and drive wedge issues," Whitehouse said.

But while Senators on the committee are able to throw bombs with the best of them, they also are among the most skilled at working through compromises on some of the nation's most vexing problems.

Cornyn explained that despite the hard lines Judiciary Senators often draw, they can set them aside, work together and legislate, calling it "a matter of mutual respect."

Judiciary ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) agreed, saying that beginning when he served as chairman and continuing to today's leadership under Leahy, committee members have found ways to speak their partisan minds while also advancing major legislation and key presidential nominations.

"I'm going to work at it to try and work around wedge issues so folks can express themselves" while still seeking compromise on issues, Specter said.

For instance, Kyl, Leahy, Specter and former committee member Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) were at the center of efforts to craft bipartisan immigration reform in the 110th Congress. Similarly, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), no stranger to partisan warfare, has been one of the biggest backers of President Barack Obama's executive branch nominees, coming out early in support of Attorney General Eric Holder when other members of his party were looking to pick a fight.

Indeed, Specter and other panel members said despite the routine fireworks, Judiciary's past work on the USA PATRIOT Act, immigration reform and nominations such as Chief Justice John Roberts bode well for the future.

During the 2005 and 2006 confirmations of Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, while Democrats launched attacks against the nominees and the Bush White House, "even the partisans like Schumer were praising what I was doing as fair," Specter said.

Similarly, Specter noted that while last month's nomination hearing on Holder featured its fair share of committee infighting, in the end most Republicans backed Obama's choice. "If you look at the final vote on Holder, you only had two votes against him. Holding 6-to-2 is a pretty good showing," Specter said, explaining that "people were satisfied with the vigorous examination we had of Holder."

Even Cornyn, who voted against Holder, acknowledged the process went well and said that despite their public bickering, Specter and Leahy have a strong friendship that helps guide the panel. "For the chairman and ranking member, it's important that they have a good working relationship," he said, adding that the relationship is “much better than it appears to be" during hearings.

Leahy said that while committee members often have significant philosophical differences, they also have repeatedly found areas on which to work together. For instance, while Leahy and Hatch "usually are a million miles away philosophically ... we joined together on a number of things," including patent reform.

In another instance, Leahy teamed up with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) this week to introduce fraud legislation, and Leahy allowed Grassley to give the opening remarks in order to accommodate his schedule. "Some of us are old-timers in terms of service and understand" the ins and outs of Senate etiquette, Leahy said.

Ultimately Leahy said he is proud of the work the committee has done and the ability of its members to find common ground despite their deep philosophical differences. "We do move a hell of a lot of stuff," he said.

by Pence et al against the WH absorbing the census duties, will it have a good chance of winning on the merits? As I recall, the Constitution is vague on the census, only saying that it needs to be done every 10 years. I don't recall there being a Dept. of Commerce in 1790. But, I'm sure the Founding Fathers never countenanced the President's office presiding over the census and all the subjective partisanship that would involve.

[cited at Wikipedia:]

Article 1, Section 2: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

Law--meaning the House and Senate? Does the Law currently state it shall be overseen by the Commerce dept.?

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTg2MzljZjZhYzRiNmE3Yzg3ZjM1OTky...

"Former People for the American Way President Ralph Neas will no longer be waging the judicial nomination wars. Having left PFAW, Neas will now head up the National Coalition on Health Care..."

The NYTimes is against using previous judicial experience as a prerequisite for a Supreme Court nomination. They specifically oppose John Roberts on the topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17bar.html

"For the first time in its history, every member of the United States Supreme Court is a former federal appeals court judge. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a lively and surprising talk a couple of weeks ago, said that development might be a good thing."

"Since then, Chief Justice Roberts continued, 'the method of analysis and argument shifted to the more solid grounds of legal arguments. What are the texts of the statutes involved? What precedents control?'

That move, he said, has resulted in 'a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective.'"

"But there are reasons to question the chief justice’s conclusions.

The political scientists who study such things say there is no empirical support for the notion that former judges are more apt to feel constrained by earlier rulings or to suppress their political views."

over two weeks since the beginning of this thread. Could we pretty please have a new (open?) thread? We could talk about the AG's controversial remarks or any number of judge-related (directly or indirectly) things.

Bush's came in early May 2001, and the first confirmation was in July (although that was Gregory).

If Obama's team is on the ball on this, I'd guess we'd see the first batch in late March/early April. If they're overwhelmed and slacking, well, who knows when they'll come.