Straight Dope Message Board

[Jim B.]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She's tough. And you do have to admire that, whatever your political persuasion.

But she also is recovering from lung cancer. I read on the AT&T news website that that cancer has only an 18 percent chance of survival. Although they may have caught it early.

She plans on being on the court at least another 5 years. And I don't mean to be morbid or indelicate. But is chance on her side to do that? It is a perfectly valid question I think.

Oh, and BTW, I dispute the suggestion she is a liberal. I would call her a moderate. But that's just me.

1

[E-DUB]

Well, she only has to make it to next year and then trump can't appoint her successor. 2

[Gray Ghost]

Not showing up to Supreme Court oral argument, which per the NYT, is the first time in 25 years she hasn't shown up, is not a point in favor of her remaining on the bench much longer. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/u...eme-court.html

IIRC, other Justices have been rumored to have lingered on the bench with various health and personality issues, letting their clerks do most of the heavy lifting of crafting their judicial opinions, so this isn't unprecedented. And if I'm not mistaken, there's a great deal of leeway given the Justice's determination of whether s/he can continue to perform the duties of their office. Short answer, she has as long as she wants, provided she doesn't actually die.

She's fought off a lot of diseases that would have killed most of the rest of us. Who survives pancreatic cancer? 3

[HurricaneDitka]

I think she's dying. I'll be surprised if she makes it to the end of the year. 4

[Gray Ghost]

An oldie (2005) but a goodie from Con Law professor at GW Law, Jonathan Turley, on previous Supreme Court Justices afflicted with various ailments, who nonetheless continued to serve on the bench.

https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/3...supreme-court/

So, even if Ginsburg right now is hooked up to more machines at home than Steve Austin in the opening sequence of The Six Million Dollar Man, she gets to call it quits when she, and only she, wants to. Unless she dies, of course.

I'm sort of surprised that Turley didn't mention Justice Fortas as someone who hung onto his seat after he should have stepped down for personal reasons. Thought he was the poster child for this sort of thing, though the story of Justice Frank Murphy trying to score illegal drugs twice a day for his addiction was one I hadn't heard before.

"By the time Justice Frank Murphy, a former U.S. attorney general who joined the court in 1940, was 57, he was addicted to drugs, including the painkiller Demerol. According to his biographer, Sidney Fine, Murphy bought illegal drugs twice a day when he was on the court."

5

[Bijou Drains]

they could pull a weekend at Bernie's move and just drive her around for a while after she's gone. 6

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

... So, even if Ginsburg right now is hooked up to more machines at home than Steve Austin in the opening sequence of The Six Million Dollar Man, she gets to call it quits when she, and only she, wants to. Unless she dies, of course. ...

She could, theoretically, be impeached, but it's exceedingly rare, and given the current partisan split in the House and Senate almost certainly not a realistic outcome. 7

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains

they could pull a weekend at Bernie's move and just drive her around for a while after she's gone.

There are already jokes online about this. 8

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by E-DUB

Well, she only has to make it to next year and then trump can't appoint her successor.

I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, but I'd bet anything that the GOP would abandon those "principles" and ram through a nominee on January 19th 2021 if they could. 9

[Bijou Drains]

Wilson was pretty much not able to function for the last year he was in office . His wife shielded him from most everyone. But the 25th amendment was not adopted until 1967 after JFK was killed. There was a fear that Kennedy (or any president) might have survived the gunshots but left unable to function. 10

[Velocity]

I thought her lung cancer nodes were all completely removed, meaning that the lung cancer isn't an issue; not like it metastasized.


Furthermore, even if she goes into a coma, she can't be removed from office. Only outright death will do it, and with modern technology, she would most likely last at least until a Democrat becomes president. 11

[MortSahlFan]

She's 85.. Even without the cancer and other health issues, it's 8 years past the average life expectancy. 12

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Velocity

I thought her lung cancer nodes were all completely removed, meaning that the lung cancer isn't an issue; not like it metastasized.
...

RBG reportedly had a prior fight with pancreatic cancer. The lung is one of the most common sites for metastasis of pancreatic cancer. So it is at least possible that the recent cancerous nodes removed from her lung are a spread from her prior pancreatic cancer. Or, after so much time apparently without a recurrence, the recent cancerous nodes could be a new cancer entirely. 13

[HurricaneDitka]

The fact that they removed half of her left lung is actually a point in favor of her health, according to WaPo:

... In a pulmonary lobectomy, a lobe of the lung is completely removed. The right lung has three lobes, the left has two. ... Cancer specialists say the kind of surgery Ginsburg underwent is performed only when the doctors are convinced the cancer has not spread to other organs — in that case, the treatment would be a systemic therapy like chemotherapy. ...

14

[asahi]

I'm inclined to agree with Ditka: it's the beginning of the end. Ginsburg is of sound mind, but physically frail even before the surgery. And now she's battling the big C again. 15

[Gray Ghost]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

The fact that they removed half of her left lung is actually a point in favor of her health, according to WaPo:

I think the WaPo is whistling past the graveyard with that statement. LOL at the idea of giving an 85 year old systemic chemotherapy. It's her choice though.

Another possibility, and one that better fits the publicly available evidence, is that the docs cut out what they could, patched her up as well as possible, and discharged her to palliative care in a private, non-hospital setting. IMHO, I'm not a doctor, but I do read guesses from them, and that hypo better fits the data. 16

[Quartz]

Relax, folks; I have her in my 2019 Death Pool list so she's guaranteed to survive! 17

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong

I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, but I'd bet anything that the GOP would abandon those "principles" and ram through a nominee on January 19th 2021 if they could.

McConnell already said that he wouldn't abide by his own rule. 18

[aceplace57]

Ginsburg has shown remarkable resilience. She's beaten several major illnesses without missing court.

She must be in bad shape to miss oral arguments. Maybe it's primarily pain? It can effect breathing.

I hope she recovers soon and resumes her place on the court.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hea...ery%3famp=true

For most patients, the main hurdle post-pulmonary lobectomy is the pain due to incisions and manipulations between the ribs, says Dr. Flores. “When you’re in pain, it can feel difficult to take a big, deep breath in, and it’s also harder to speak,” he explains. “I’m sure Justice Ginsburg is able to speak, but is she able to project? That may be more difficult.”

19

[RTFirefly]

OK, my morbid joke: she needs to make out a living will requiring that if she should fall into a coma, she be put on artificial life support if at all possible until January 21, 2021, at which point it may be withdrawn. 20

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

OK, my morbid joke: she needs to make out a living will requiring that if she should fall into a coma, she be put on artificial life support if at all possible until January 21, 2021, at which point it may be withdrawn.

Unless, against all odds, Trump wins reelection, and Ginsburg isn't conscious to update her living will to January 2025.... 21

[SmartAlecCat]

Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong

I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, but I'd bet anything that the GOP would abandon those "principles" and ram through a nominee on January 19th 2021 if they could.

Doesn't the McConnell rule only apply to the final year of the second term of a President? The end of the first term would be fine. 22

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by SmartAlecCat

Doesn't the McConnell rule only apply to the final year of the second term of a President? The end of the first term would be fine.

Let's not pretend that there was an actual rule here. 23

[Ukulele Ike]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

OK, my morbid joke: she needs to make out a living will requiring that if she should fall into a coma, she be put on artificial life support if at all possible until January 21, 2021, at which point it may be withdrawn.

I’d be satisfied with her as a brain in a jar if it kept McConnell’s greasy mitts off that chair.

Meanwhile, I’m rooting for Clarence Thomas to do a Harold Washington. 24

[Projammer]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Unless, against all odds, Trump wins reelection, and Ginsburg isn't conscious to update her living will to January 2025....

Well, Trump won against all odds the first time around.

I agree that Judge Ginsberg has an uphill battle to make it to 2021 and I really don't think she's going to make it and certainly not through another four after that.

I'd like to think that Trump would reach across the aisle for a nominee to replace her, but I wouldn't bet any significant amount of money on it. 25

[Flyer]

I believe we did this not too long ago.

According to the SSA, her current life expectancy is 6.8 years. 26

[Ashtura]

She has a 52 percent chance of dying this year even if you don't take her health issues into account. 27

[HurricaneDitka]

She missed a second day of work now: https://thehill.com/regulation/court...-supreme-court 28

[Rysto]

Originally Posted by Projammer

I'd like to think that Trump would reach across the aisle for a nominee to replace her, but I wouldn't bet any significant amount of money on it.

No chance. There is absolutely 0 chance that they would pass up the opportunity to sew up a 6-3 Republican advantage on the Supreme Court. 29

[bump]

I don't know if we should really read too much into her missing two days of work. Would you be going to work a little over two weeks after doctors removed part of your lung? At 85?

A little googling shows that recovery from that sort of surgery takes "weeks to months" according to the American Cancer Society, and that's for an average person, not an 85 year old. 30

[Ashtura]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

She missed a second day of work now: https://thehill.com/regulation/court...-supreme-court

Pro-tip: Drool is bad for keyboards. 31

[HurricaneDitka]

Meh, I was just reporting the current news on the topic. 32

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

She missed a second day of work now: https://thehill.com/regulation/court...-supreme-court

So? She's recovering from surgery she had only 2 weeks ago. It's more important that her recovery is successful than speedy. 33

[pool]

I'm pulling it out of my ass but I give her 6 months. 34

[Gray Ghost]

There's a difference between the questions, "How long can Justice Ginsburg fulfill her duties as a Justice," and "How long before Justice Ginsburg's seat is vacant." AIUI, the answer to the first question is, "Now," so long as she cannot participate in the closed-session conferences with the other Justices. From her home, she may be able to listen to transcripts of oral argument, read the briefs, and draft opinions.

I thought though, that participation in those conferences---which are so closed to non-Justices that the most junior Justice is detailed to answer the door to get coffee, papers, and other administrative tasks---was required by Supreme Court custom in order to be able to vote on the cases. And she can't do that from home---though I've no doubt a Skype or WebMeeting solution will be set up so that she can try---nor can she delegate the task to a clerk.

As to the second question, consider if the Justice were to fall into a persistent vegetative state. Clearly she couldn't fulfill the duties of her office. Moreover, with her age and ailments, there's no possibility of recovery from that condition. Yet, she isn't dead, and that was traditionally the line. You could keep that beat going on her EKG for a very long time, at least until January 2021.

Could she be removed from office, considering past Supreme Court practice? IMHO, a lot of the 'Justices hanging onto the job way too long' was due to the position being comparatively lucrative, the Justices' families being dependent upon the income, and the removal of non-functioning Justices therefore being done with that in mind. 35

[bump]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

You could keep that beat going on her EKG for a very long time, at least until January 2021.

The hysterical part of that would be that it's essentially the same sort of BS trick that the Republicans pulled by not agreeing to hold hearings for Merrick Garland.

"Oh, you think she's going to die and you'll get to put another of yours on the court? Think again! Meet 21st century medicine and life support!" 36

[HurricaneDitka]

That would be a rather ignominious end for "Notorious RBG" but if she / her family agree to hook her up to machines to keep her heart beating for the next two / six years to achieve some political aim, yeah, I suppose "hysterical" isn't the worst word for it. 37

[Bijou Drains]

Most people have a living will that states they don't want to be kept alive just by machines. Her husband died but she does have kids to see her wishes are carried out . 38

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains

Most people have a living will that states they don't want to be kept alive just by machines. Her husband died but she does have kids to see her wishes are carried out .

Actually, I bet most people, probably the vast majority, don't have a living will at all. 39

[Sam Stone]

Modern medicine can keep people alive for a long time in the 'end stages' if unlimited money and resources are spent. Look at George HW Bush... I thought he was a goner years ago, but they somehow kept him going for a long time. And you can bet that there are people pulling out the stops to keep RBG going. I wouldn't take even money that she makes it to the of Trump's term, but I also wouldn't discount the possibility too heavily.

By the way, even if Trump does get another appointment Democrats shouldn't freak out. The last three Republican appointments have not turned out so bad. John Roberts appears to be moving into the David Souter role as a moderate who is unpredictable. Justice Gorsuch has been allying himself with Sonia Sotomayor on a number of issues, most specifically around law enforcement and sentencing reform. The jury is still out on Justice Kavanaugh, but I expect him to be reasonable as well, as that's what his record shows.

These are not hard-right ideologues - they are merely constitutionalists, and the constitution constrains Republicans as well as Democrats. 40

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

... By the way, even if Trump does get another appointment Democrats shouldn't freak out. ...

They shouldn't, but they will. 41

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by bump

The hysterical part of that would be that it's essentially the same sort of BS trick that the Republicans pulled by not agreeing to hold hearings for Merrick Garland.

"Oh, you think she's going to die and you'll get to put another of yours on the court? Think again! Meet 21st century medicine and life support!"

And it might actually be a political bonus for the Democrats, if they can accuse the Republicans of literally wanting to kill an old woman for political gain. It wouldn't be meaningfully true, of course, but anyone opposed to Trump will need to get over their squeamishness about that if they're going to win.

Unless she dies relatively suddenly, there's going to be a lot of dirty politics involved. 42

[DinoR]

Originally Posted by Flyer

According to the SSA, her current life expectancy is 6.8 years.

She may well fall below that aggregate. While reasonably active thus avoiding some other issues, she's had three different kinds of cancer. The latest is cancer with poor long term prognosis. Even if she beats the odds on that one the loss of a chunk of her lung makes her potentially more at risk from non-cancer related causes of death. Making it another 6.8 years is probably optimistic. 43

[Velocity]

Also, she faces considerably more stress and pressure than the average 86-year old. 44

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Also, she faces considerably more stress and pressure than the average 86-year old.

She also probably has better healthcare than the average 85 year old could even dream of getting. 45

[DinoR]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

She also probably has better healthcare than the average 85 year old could even dream of getting.

Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, fall under the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan. It's not something extra special. She'd also qualify for Medicare. Ginsburg might pay partial premiums for her employer insurance and fall under both with all the associated issues of which plan pays for what. Or she could just be covered by Medicare and any supplemental insurance like is typical for her age group.

There's not some extra special healthcare plan for SCOTUS. She's an 85 year old that's still eligible for an employer insurance plan and has a high paying job. It's a better situation than average but not wildly so. 46

[CarnalK]

Lol, sure. 47

[alphaboi867]

A GoFundMe account would raise enough money to get her the level of care Queen Elizabeth II or the Pope get in short order. 48

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

I think the WaPo is whistling past the graveyard with that statement. LOL at the idea of giving an 85 year old systemic chemotherapy. It's her choice though.

I believe you misinterpreted the quote contained in the post:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

The fact that they removed half of her left lung is actually a point in favor of her health, according to WaPo:

49

[Gray Ghost]

I don't think I misinterpreted anything, Karl. The sentence in the cited article from the WaPo is in-artfully crafted, but I read it as saying that: doctors only performed a lobectomy because they didn't think the cancer had reached anywhere else. If they did think it reached other places, they'd instead also perform a systemic therapy like chemo.

I disagree with their premise that doctors would be subjecting an 85 year old to a rigorous course of systemic chemotherapy at all, no matter if the cancer had reached other places or not. I thought the idea was laughable, as---and I'm willing to be corrected by any oncologists in the crowd---the rigors of such a course would likely kill her before any metastasized cancer had a chance to do it instead.

So therefore, I don't think we can infer that the lack of systemic therapy implies that her cancer was only localized to the nodules on her lung, and the WaPo's attempt to do so is wishful thinking.

It would be interesting to know what kind of cancer was in the nodules in the piece of excised lung, as well as whether any further cancer cells were in the ribs that were damaged. From what I've read, lung cancer survival depends greatly on the type of cancer cells, with "small cell cancer" being one of the deadliest, along with the depth and number of tumors founds. 50