Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg undergoes surgery
UPDATE, 12:25p: From the Associated Press:
She will remain in the hospital for seven to 10 days, said her surgeon….
The court said a CAT scan revealed a tumor measuring about 1 centimeter across the center of the pancreas.
_______________
UPDATE, 12:22p: From NPR…
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman currently serving on the nation’s highest court, underwent surgery Thursday for removal of a cancerous tumor from her pancreas.
Ginsburg, 75, is being treated at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in NY.
Ginsburg has served on the court since 1993.
She was treated for colon cancer 10 years ago.
Ginsburg’s pancreatic cancer was discovered early, in the course of a routine annual screening, but medical literature says even in this circumstance, a patient’s five-year survival chances range from 10 to 30%.
_______________
The Associated Press is reporting, “US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg [has been] hospitalized for surgery for pancreatic cancer.”
Ginsburg, a former ACLU attorney appointed to the top bench by President Clinton, is strongly pro-abortion. She has a history of colon cancer.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So…which rabidly, pro-abort, liberal Justice will Obama nominate for this one??
Maybe he should look into their taxes first before he opens his mouth….??
On the plus side, at least he wouldn’t be replacing one of our side…
I suspect she will retire soon.
Barry always takes a risk. Who ever he tries to appojnt, stands a risk of voting for the sanctity of life. Reagan appointed Sooooter that turned out liberal???
Let’s pray she repents before she dies, otherwise hell’s a waitin’.
This might mean that justice Ginsburg will not be on the court much longer. Statistically speaking, pancreatic cancer is one of the fastest and most deadly cancers there are. It is rarely successfully treated, and often results in death less than a year after diagnosis. I do not wish ill of justice Ginsburg, I am simply relaying that this form of cancer is usually very fast and very deadly.
Oh, I missed that it was pancreatic cancer, Scott. Yes, that is VERY deadly! Let’s storm the gates of heaven for her, pleading to Our Lord to pour his graces upon her before it’s too late.
Let’s pray she repents before she dies, otherwise hell’s a waitin’.
Posted by: Jacqueline at February 5, 2009 4:11 PM
I think she’s Jewish, she doesn’t have to worry about the Christian Hell.
more like vultures
Good thing she does not depend on Oregon health plan. Pancreatic cancer is on the death list. She is 75 and near 0% cancer of 5 year survival. In Oregon, that would mean she’d be given a morphine pump and sent home.
If any law suit contesting Obama’s national heath care plan in the future, she would most assuredly have found it “constitutional” not under anything written in the constitution but based on some foreign law.
Mark, what about the Oregon law violates the constitution?
I think she’s Jewish, she doesn’t have to worry about the Christian Hell.
Reality doesn’t conform to people’s beliefs, but exists independent of them. I can think that I can survive without food and water but in a few weeks, I’ll be dead, regardless of my belief. Likewise, Ginsberg can be Jewish or Hindu or anything else, but she will still end up ultimately in Heaven or Hell. You don’t see this objective reality, but that doesn’t mean that you are spared its consequences.
your “Heaven and Hell” are objective reality? Come on now. You may have “faith” in such things, and I’m okay with that, but please don’t pretend it’s “reality.”
She has faith that it IS reality, Hal.
Gehenna then. Either way, we will be praying for her health, and her conversion. Even if I didn’t believe in God, I wouldn’t want to be remembered as the Supreme Court judge who supported Dred Scott or Plessy. One day, Ginsburg will be on a similar list.
You see Hal, I don’t decide what’s true. I am just very blessed to know what is objectively true. I have a God that prophesied His coming, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind- that rose from the dead. That’s proof enough right there. We’ll leave it aside that I have a relationship with Him and He talks to me and does miracles in my life, too.
I ask you, Hal- let’s suppose I’m wrong. There’s no God or God is not who I think He is—yet I live my life according to the principles of Christ gave us like loving my neighbor, feeding the hungry, caring for widows and orphans. Am I worse off for it? No- in fact, I’d argue that I and those I helped are all the better for it. It’s not just about the hope of heaven or the fear of Hell, although they should rightly enter into people’s concerns.
So my legacy will be justice and mercy, even if I end up reincarnated as a slug or in some Muslim hell.
What will your legacy be? “I did it my way” ?
Only Obama could pick a worse Supreme Court Justice. She thinks legal abortion empowers women and so she thinks of it as a rights issue. The problem is what they are fighting for; the right to kill. When it is all said and done, a world where women are given the right to kill unborn children is just the kind of world where men have no problem dominating them because most men care even less about the unborn then women do.
Oh, their true colors are coming out!
I just wish her well. She looks like a fellow pirate ….that shirt.
Jacqueline, with all due respect I think it’s rather presumptuous of you to say that justice Ginsburg is going to hell “if she doesn’t repent”. That’s for GOD ALONE to decide.
Where does it say in the Bible that pro-choice people are doomed to hellfire ? There isn’t a single mention of abortion there, let alone the statement that unless you’re anti-choice,you’ll go to hell.
Personally, as a Jew, I don’t believe in the Christian view of hell. That is just a fabrication created to frighten naive and gullible Christians into blindly following the church.
Remember, only GOD has the right to judge any one.
Jacqueline, with all due respect I think it’s rather presumptuous of you to say that justice Ginsburg is going to hell “if she doesn’t repent”. That’s for GOD ALONE to decide.
Where does it say in the Bible that pro-choice people are doomed to hellfire ? There isn’t a single mention of abortion there, let alone the statement that unless you’re anti-choice,you’ll go to hell.
Personally, as a Jew, I don’t believe in the Christian view of hell. That is just a fabrication created to frighten naive and gullible Christians into blindly following the church.
Remember, only GOD has the right to judge any one.
If you are an abortionist, you are NOT Jewish. People who support unlimited killing of their fellow human beings go totally against Judaeo-Christian moral teaching and are NOT Christians or Jews. It would be like supporting the Nazi Holocaust while claiming to be a “Christian”.
Ginsburg is not Jewish, she is a militant abortionist politician who, being the deciding fifth vote to maintain Roe vs Wade, has cost millions of human beings their lives.
Paradoxically, if she leaves the Court because of death or retirement, it will harm not help the unborn human rights movement. Obama will “appoint” (he is likely not constitutionally eligible as President and therefore not legitimate) another anti-life politician who will be 45 or 50 not 75. Therefore, we will have a younger more vigorous abortionist on the Court who could be there wreaking havoc for another 30 years. This is a very unhappy situation.
So my legacy will be justice and mercy, even if I end up reincarnated as a slug or in some Muslim hell.
What will your legacy be? “I did it my way” ?
Posted by: Jacqueline at February 6, 2009 1:19 AM
My legacy will be similar to yours. Compassion, honesty, love, understanding, feeding the hungry, etc. Although I don’t believe for a second that Mr. Jesus is a god, I don’t quarrel with his views on how to live or with the Golden Rule. I do what I do, and live the way I live, because I believe it is moral and right, not because “it is written.” Yes, I do it “my way.” Nothing wrong with that.
Bravo Hal.
As a Jew who has conversed with an Orthodox rabbi on the subject, I am fairly fluent in how traditional Jews view abortion, which is definitely another conversation for another time, but I will say that “People who support unlimited killing of their fellow human beings go totally against Judaeo-Christian moral teaching and are NOT Christians or Jews” is waaayy too much of a blanket statement. Torah-observant Jews are against abortion, but each situation is viewed on its own when a woman seeks advice from her rabbi.
I think that instead of discussing where Justice Bader Ginsberg will go in the afterlife, we should hope that she suffers as little as possible from this disease and is granted as many more days on earth as possible.
AM,
” Torah-observant Jews are against abortion, but each situation is viewed on its own when a woman seeks advice from her rabbi.”
To me, this seems like situation ethics which wasn’t invented until the 1800s by Joseph Fletcher, at least not formally spelled out. It may be the way things are done now, but is this the historical understanding of it? Would a 3rd century Jew understand the morality of abortion in the way you’ve described it? Thanks, God love you.
No clue as to the olden days :) I only asked the rabbi about what goes on now, and Jewish thought regarding it. What it boils down to (and as I said this is a long story for a different time!) is that according to the rabbi, the mother has a life and the fetus has a life. Yet since the mother is already born her life takes precedence (he used much prettier language here!), so if her life is in danger due to the pregnancy, the fetus must be aborted to preserve the mother’s life. Mental health of the mother is also considered- if she is thrown into a deep depression or is so traumatized by the pregnancy that she is in danger of hurting herself, abortion is also permitted. The rabbi did, however, make it very clear that abortion is never allowed just because the mother doesn’t want to have a child. There has to be serious danger to her health.
Keep in mind this is the Orthodox mindset. Conservative and Reform Jews are sometimes more liberal, sometimes not, totally depends.
I don’t want to get into a big debate here about this, because it always gets into religion and who’s going to heaven, who’s going to hell and that’s not the point of this blog post. Just trying to clarify for Bobby.
No, I hope this doesn’t turn into a religion debate either, AM. Thanks for the candid reply. In fact, that clears things up quite a bit for me because I now see that it isn’t situation ethics like I had previously thought.
“I do what I do, and live the way I live, because I believe it is moral and right, not because “it is written.” – Hal
===========================================
Hal,h ow do you know something is moral/right?
In order to judge something it must be against a standard or a rule….(ie..how do you know if a person is short or tall?…you compare it against something else)
So what standard do you base your knowledge of what is moral/ right?
RSD, philosophers have been debating the origins of morality for centuries, and I’m no philosopher. I decide for myself what’s moral and right, based generally on how I would want to be treated, what is motivated my love, mercy, kindness, fairness, justice, and the like.
You don’t need to read the Bible to know that these traits are “good” and worth striving to.
Hal; Where did I say anything about the constitutionality Oregon’s “go home and die” health plan? I was referring to a future case that will hit the Supreme court when Obama nationalizes health care. What the state of Oregon does to its own citizen unfortunate enough to have only the Oregon health plan is up to the voters of Oregon to fix.
The fact is the every government that has nationalized health tells a lot of its citizen to go home and die. That is why American hospitals have so many Canadians in them. If Obama nationalized health care Canadians will have to go to another country for treatment their own country denies them.
And Ginsburg is in the category to receive a letter like the one Barbara Wagner got.
WOW..I am appalled at the ignorance on this site
Hal, Bravo again. Encore!
WOW..I am appalled at the ignorance on this site
Posted by: Amanda at February 6, 2009 9:14 PM
Amanda, just stopped in long enough to be apalled and leave or are you going to say your never coming back again? :
RSD, philosophers have been debating the origins of morality for centuries, and I’m no philosopher. I decide for myself what’s moral and right, based generally on how I would want to be treated, what is motivated my love, mercy, kindness, fairness, justice, and the like.
You don’t need to read the Bible to know that these traits are “good” and worth striving to.
Posted by: Hal at February 6, 2009 5:16 PM
Hal, you may not realize it but your lack of respect for the Word of God may be the reason you haven’t yet realized that parents killing their unborn children is evil. Which of those traits that you espouse were the ones that drove you to kill your unborn children? How do you rationalize that a decision to kill the unborn life you create your lover be a decision motivated by your love, mercy, kindness, fairness, or justice?
Hal, you may not realize it but your lack of respect for the Word of God may be the reason you haven’t yet realized that parents killing their unborn children is evil.
Posted by: truthseeker at February 7, 2009 1:06 AM
Well, that exactly it truthseeker. Believing in God (or as you put it, having “respect for the word of God”) is what makes some people believe that abortion is evil. If you don’t believe that God creates each life, then you look at things differently. Not wrongly…. differently.
“If you don’t believe that God creates each life, then you look at things differently. Not wrongly…. differently.-Asitis”
“I decide for myself what’s moral and right” – Hal
—————————
Ahh…Moral Relativism rearing it’s ugly head again…there you go folks…Very good examples c/o our resident pro-aborts.
Yes RSD, some good examples. However, you must understand we are as convinced of our righteousness as you are of yours.
So, from our perspective, it’s the strange and confusing philosophy you expose that is “reading it’s ugly head again.”
You have no superior claim to being moral, or to being right, than we do. That’s not relativism, that’s a fact.
Hey Hal.
“You have no superior claim to being moral, or to being right, than we do.”
But that isn’t quite right, depending on how we understand this. Because what we claim is the GROUNDS for our morality. We claim that the grounds for our morality are grounded in the nature of God, and hence, certain moral laws are transcendent.
So we at least claim that our moral law is grounded in something transcendent. That is at least a basis for why a law should be held.
So your moral law is “grounded” in what what you believe someone that might exist says is right?????
Sorry Bobby, but I’m with hal on this when he says: You have no superior claim to being moral, or to being right, than we do.
Bobby, If I understand correctly, you’re basically saying “If we’re right about our belief in God, then our morality is transcendent.” I suppose that’s true, but it doesn’t settle the question.
“So your moral law is “grounded” in what what you believe someone that might exist says is right????? ”
No. It is grounded in the very nature of the divine creator. When someone takes an innocent life, they are violating the law of justice which is the very nature of God. That is the only understanding there is to claim that justice is actualized. You can point to specific instances and examples of justice, but that is not justice in-and-of-itself. If justice by itself does not exist, then certainly all the applications of justice which we see all the time can not exist.
We also have more epistemic justification because we have a theory of where objective moral values would come from. I have never heard any grounds from humanistic philosophers for the existence of objective moral values besides a subjective opinion. True, you may argue that belief in God is a subjective opinion. But it provides a basis for such a transcendent law.
What would be a humanistic grounding of objective moral laws outside of oneself? They can point to love of one’s neighbor or the Golden rule, but these are arbitrary starting points based on an a priori worldview. Why not start with the worldview of egoism or selfishness? Outside of some sort of transcendent cause, there is no objectively correct worldview to hold to, and each and every world view is as good as the next. Who’s to say?
Wait, so what is the question then? All I”m arguing is that we have more epistemic justification because our morals are grounded in something that we claim is transcendent. We may be wrong, but at least our theory has a foundation that we claim is objective. How do you argue that you have an objective basis for your morality based on your worldview?
No. It is grounded in the very nature of the divine creator.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 7, 2009 4:04 PM
That’s what I said Bobby:
So your moral law is “grounded” in what you believe someone that might exist says is right?????
Asitis,
“That’s what I said Bobby:
So your moral law is “grounded” in what you believe someone that might exist says is right????? ”
No, that isn’t what you said. It isn’t because he SAYS. It is because of who he IS. They are grounded in his nature, not in his commands.
How do you argue that you have an objective basis for your morality based on your worldview?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 7, 2009 4:07 PM
When did I ever argue that? Never said that I had, or need, an objective basis for anything.
If I thought a fertilized human egg was created by God in his image, had a soul, and all that other stuff you guys believe, I might be against abortion too. (might not, however, as I understand some religious people don’t oppose abortion. Don’t know their rationale)
Hal,
“When did I ever argue that? Never said that I had, or need, an objective basis for anything.”
That’s true, I guess you never said that. Ehh, I think I”m turning this conversation into something it wasn’t; a direction it wasn’t really going. I’ll just go back to the dehydrated Woman thread and continue to annoy people by pointing out their self-refuting statements…
bobby you are a good man
And I stand corrected. I change that to : so your moral law is “grounded” in what you believe someone who might exist IS.
Thanks asitis. I didn’t mean to be a pedantic jerk, but it’s actually a pretty crucial point. If something is good just because God says it, well, then it becomes arbitrary and had God commanded that rape or hating your neighbor was good, then we would have to hold to that. Yet it can’t be that God commands something BECAUSE it is good, for then there would be this “goodness’ which is transcendent over God, making God not God. So the way we understand it is that what is good is God’s very essence (in fact, it IS who God is; God IS justice, he IS mercy, he IS love and those are all the same thing) and to act in violation of that essence is not good.
Ehh, much more than you wanted to know. OK, good, all done :)
Thanks Bobby.
Just a couple points from a different perspective:
“If something is good just because God says it, well, then it becomes arbitrary”. It’s all a bit arbitrary anyway, seeing as it’s all based on assumptions anyway, isn’t it?
“to act in violation of that essence is not good”. Sure, if you believe in God and you believe your understanding of Him is correct.
Have a good day!
RSD, philosophers have been debating the origins of morality for centuries, and I’m no philosopher. I decide for myself what’s moral and right, based generally on how I would want to be treated, what is motivated my love, mercy, kindness, fairness, justice, and the like.
You don’t need to read the Bible to know that these traits are “good” and worth striving to.
Posted by: Hal at February 6, 2009 5:16 PM
Hal, you may not realize it but your lack of respect for the Word of God may be the reason you haven’t yet realized that parents killing their unborn children is evil. Which of those traits that you espouse were the ones that drove you to kill your unborn children? How do you rationalize that a decision to kill the unborn life you create your lover be a decision motivated by your love, mercy, kindness, fairness, or justice?
Posted by: truthseeker at Feb 7, 2009 1:06 AM
And again second time:
Truthseeker, apparently we disagree on the morality or immorality of abortion. It’s not that I don’t “respect” the “word of God.” I doubt that there is a God and I am certain that that he/she has not given us “words.”
But, to each his own. If your faith brings you joy, it’s no problem for me.
Have a nice day.
Hal,
How do you rationalize that a decision to kill the unborn life you create your lover be a decision motivated by your love, mercy, kindness, fairness, or justice?
Hal,
How do you rationalize that a decision to kill unborn life is motivated by your love, mercy, kindness, fairness, or justice?
Ts, I don’t see a problem there. I’m sorry.
How do you rationalize a decision to force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy? Love for the “unborn?” I remain unconvinced.
Hal,
because that “unwanted” pregnancy is another human life and a product of the love you have for your wife? If you had chosen to allow the children you now have to be killed in the womb would that have been loving, merciful, kind, fair or just? Sometimes what a person “wants” is not always best for them. If I can borrow a phrase from Obama; killing your unborn children means you don’t want your own life to be “burdened” by children. You love yourself more than your children. Would you be o.k. with your wife getting rid of your newborn or toddler bercause of the “burden”? The only difference is that you can get away with killing the unborn.