Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
skliss

Ruth Bader Ginsberg cancer treatments

Recommended Posts

skliss

I couldnt find a thread about her.

U.S. Justice Ginsburg treated for pancreatic cancer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has completed a three-week course of radiation therapy to treat a cancerous tumor on her pancreas, a court spokeswoman said on Friday.

The 86-year old justice, who has had previous cancer scares, tolerated the therapy well and no further treatment is required, spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said in a statement.

An abnormality was first detected in July, and the tumor was identified following a biopsy performed on July 31 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

"She canceled her annual summer visit to Santa Fe, but has otherwise maintained an active schedule," Arberg said.

"The tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body," the spokeswoman added.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the hardest cancers to treat and prognoses can be bleak. According to the website of the Columbia Pancreas Center at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, the percentage of people still alive five years after a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer that has not spread beyond the pancreas is 27.1%

https://news.yahoo.com/u-justice-ginsburg-treated-tumor-184315797.html

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Earl.Of.Trumps

She's 86. I feel she won't outlive the Trump tenure

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Pancreatic cancer is very hard to beat. Seems this tumor may have been diagnosed early. If she was treated for the same thing in 2009, then this would be a recurrence. It may come back again. Her age likely isn't helping. 

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreatic-cancer/after-treatment/follow-up.html

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

She's 86. I feel she won't outlive the Trump tenure

I'm surprised she's still alive at all tbh.  She looks like death warmed up.  Poor old dear. 

Gives new meaning to being married to your job.  You definitely couldn't say she wasn't dedicated. :lol:

Edited by pixiii
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

86 years old and fighting a potentially lethal cancer and she refuses to retire?  Those Justices have a hard life, don't they?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Oh man....

Liberals be on high alert!

Ginsburg has dropped out of sight. Presumably due to illness. Maybe more cancer.

I wish her well. And at the same time believe she should retire.

Will she last out the year? If not will the Senate approve a Trump nominee?

NBC News: Justice Ginsburg taken ill, absent from Supreme Court.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-ginsburg-taken-ill-absent-supreme-court-n1081306

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was absent Wednesday for courtroom arguments in two cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced that Ginsburg was "indisposed due to illness," a statement similar to the one he made on the first day of the term, Oct. 7, when Justice Clarence Thomas was absent with what a court official said was the flu.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
On 8/23/2019 at 11:56 PM, skliss said:

I couldnt find a thread about her.

U.S. Justice Ginsburg treated for pancreatic cancer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has completed a three-week course of radiation therapy to treat a cancerous tumor on her pancreas, a court spokeswoman said on Friday.

The 86-year old justice, who has had previous cancer scares, tolerated the therapy well and no further treatment is required, spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said in a statement.

An abnormality was first detected in July, and the tumor was identified following a biopsy performed on July 31 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

"She canceled her annual summer visit to Santa Fe, but has otherwise maintained an active schedule," Arberg said.

"The tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body," the spokeswoman added.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the hardest cancers to treat and prognoses can be bleak. According to the website of the Columbia Pancreas Center at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, the percentage of people still alive five years after a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer that has not spread beyond the pancreas is 27.1%

https://news.yahoo.com/u-justice-ginsburg-treated-tumor-184315797.html

Pancreatic cancer is very rare in all people except those which drink like fish, smoke like chimneys, and have a poor diet over decades.

But yes, its a hard to detect cancer and by the time people realise they need to go to the doctor they are usually end stage with it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If not will the Senate approve a Trump nominee

More like...what false claims can they make about the next one? My money's on white supremacist. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
3 hours ago, skliss said:

More like...what false claims can they make about the next one? My money's on white supremacist. 

I'm going to bet it'll be someone who'll be accused of a sex scandal again by someone with extremely cloudy memories, no witnesses, baseless evidence.....oh, and a GoFundMe account online for their supporters to donate to them for the circus act they'll put on for all of us watching. :P 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

It will be a true mass hysteria event no matter who is nominated.  Look for the next Prog-controlled Senate to increase the number of Justices to give them the long-term advantage by default.  Once they politicize the Court to that extent we will begin ignoring their proclamations and make them enforce them on us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
2 hours ago, and then said:

It will be a true mass hysteria event no matter who is nominated.  Look for the next Prog-controlled Senate to increase the number of Justices to give them the long-term advantage by default.  Once they politicize the Court to that extent we will begin ignoring their proclamations and make them enforce them on us.

 

fark_GEpxl2ciqczybxqQFPkapq0t6Ao.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
40 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

 

fark_GEpxl2ciqczybxqQFPkapq0t6Ao.jpg

You should have got a face palm also, because trump is going begging to a conservative majority SCOTUS to get the tax record subpoena quashed. If Ginsburg dies before the 2020 election, trump will really be able to stack the deck with another younger conservative judge. How is that suppose to work in the democrats favor?  The only ray of sunshine is that a lot of the judges that he and Yertle appointed have decided many cases against the republicans. Including the tax records subpoena appeals he recently lost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
skliss

I hope shes not suffering whatever is going on. She may not be my cup of tea, but she gave her life to service. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

 McConnell allowing a SCOTUS nomination in an election year truly would be take to the streets kind of stuff.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
15 hours ago, and then said:

It will be a true mass hysteria event no matter who is nominated.  Look for the next Prog-controlled Senate to increase the number of Justices to give them the long-term advantage by default.  Once they politicize the Court to that extent we will begin ignoring their proclamations and make them enforce them on us.

If a Republican wanted to increase the number of Justices it would be a crisis of trying to create a dictatorship. If a Democrat wants the same it is to better represent the will of the people. Hypocrites....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
12 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

You should have got a face palm also, because trump is going begging to a conservative majority SCOTUS to get the tax record subpoena quashed. If Ginsburg dies before the 2020 election, trump will really be able to stack the deck with another younger conservative judge. How is that suppose to work in the democrats favor?  The only ray of sunshine is that a lot of the judges that he and Yertle appointed have decided many cases against the republicans. Including the tax records subpoena appeals he recently lost. 

HH you should of left it one post, responding to our own posts is never a good look. BTW I do hope Justice Ginsburg gets well soon and gets back to work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

Some good news here, Justice Ginsberg has returned to work

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returns to bench after illness

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned to the bench Monday after missing oral arguments last Wednesday due to a stomach bug. The 86-year-old justice was seen climbing the three steps to the bench and taking her seat for a brief court session while wearing one of her signature lace collars. Ginsburg and the other justices were present to grant new admissions to the bar, which allows those attorneys to argue before the nation’s highest bench.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/18/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-returns-to-bench-after-illness/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
On 11/15/2019 at 4:02 PM, DieChecker said:

If a Republican wanted to increase the number of Justices it would be a crisis of trying to create a dictatorship. If a Democrat wants the same it is to better represent the will of the people. Hypocrites....

To be fair, McConnell denying Obama's appointment and spending the last three years packing the lower courts, along with Trump's (likely) forcible removal of Kennedy (read up on his banker son to get some background) is tantamount to the same thing. At this point Dems would simply be acting to counteract McConnell and Republicans. 

Doing so only to get policy passed though? Well, Roosevelt tried that for New Deal and, unsurprisingly, everyone saw through it, criticised it and prevented it. 

It's about context.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
7 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

To be fair, McConnell denying Obama's appointment and spending the last three years packing the lower courts, along with Trump's (likely) forcible removal of Kennedy (read up on his banker son to get some background) is tantamount to the same thing. At this point Dems would simply be acting to counteract McConnell and Republicans. 

Doing so only to get policy passed though? Well, Roosevelt tried that for New Deal and, unsurprisingly, everyone saw through it, criticised it and prevented it. 

It's about context.

Tantamount to the same thing, but completely dufferent.

That's like saying Democrats want to give Blue States an extra SenTor, to make up for the loss in 2016. You know... to correct unfairness and such.

If Clinton had won and "packed the lower courts" doubtless you'd not have a problem with it... right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
On 11/15/2019 at 11:02 AM, DieChecker said:

If a Republican wanted to increase the number of Justices it would be a crisis of trying to create a dictatorship. If a Democrat wants the same it is to better represent the will of the people. Hypocrites....

-Increase supreme Court Judges.

- Have senate impeachment votes on a secret ballot.

- abolish the electorial college.

- lower the voting age to 16.

Just the examples off the top of my head.

Basically whenever they lose any vote or election then democracy is "broken" and needs radical change. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
24 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

- Have senate impeachment votes on a secret ballot.

In fairness this one is actually a favor to republicans.

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.