 
|
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/26/04 - 16:35 Post subject: Rehnquist
I don't know much about stuff. Help me understand it all.
Okay, so, what I think I know.....he is 80, a long time smoker and has been diagnosed with Thyroid Cancer, which is usually a 'benign cancer' (what does this mean?) I guess meaning not prone to metastasizing or rapidly growing. But yesterday I heard on NPR (now I know I just lost half of you but hang with me) that they had to do a tracheotomy, which is almost never done in the treatment of thyroid cancer, implying the cancer had in fact spread and was more severe than the initial diagnosis of 'thyroid cancer' would imply. My first question is: what happens? Does he have to step down? how does a Supreme leave again?
lead in for my second question: they said on NPR that the President was quoted as saying recently but prior to this public knowledge of Rehnquist's cancer diagnosis something to the effect of I'll be appointing a new justice shortly after I'm inaugurated for my second term, giving a specific timeline, not just the vague "we'll probably have to appoint another justice" as though he was aware of something the rest of us weren't. So, my second question is: is there any sort of public disclosure of health for the justices like we were discussing for the president?
Obviously no one could have predicted this but there is speculation as to what impact this new news of Rehnquit's health will have on the outcome election. Just want your thoughts, I'm kind of clueless.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 16:52 Post subject: Re: Rehnquist
| cherylpf wrote: | I don't know much about stuff. Help me understand it all.
Okay, so, what I think I know.....he is 80, a long time smoker and has been diagnosed with Thyroid Cancer, which is usually a 'benign cancer' (what does this mean?) I guess meaning not prone to metastasizing or rapidly growing. But yesterday I heard on NPR (now I know I just lost half of you but hang with me) that they had to do a tracheotomy, which is almost never done in the treatment of thyroid cancer, implying the cancer had in fact spread and was more severe than the initial diagnosis of 'thyroid cancer' would imply. |
From what I recall, thyroid cancer has several forms and is usually contained in one or more lobes of the thyroid. First line of treatment depending on the stage, generally early, is with radioactive iodine, which a friend of mine had in high school when she was 17 and fully recovered with no recurrance. If it's anaplastic thyroid cancer, that's more rapidly growing and faster moving beyond the thyroid and that's usually why the do the trache, so yes, it probably was discovered to be more serious than initially reported. I'm doubting it was hidden from the public, because if they were trying to hide it purposely, it wouldn't have come out now so close to the election.
| Quote: | | lead in for my second question: they said on NPR that the President was quoted as saying recently but prior to this public knowledge of Rehnquist's cancer diagnosis something to the effect of I'll be appointing a new justice shortly after I'm inaugurated for my second term, giving a specific timeline, not just the vague "we'll probably have to appoint another justice" as though he was aware of something the rest of us weren't. So, my second question is: is there any sort of public disclosure of health for the justices like we were discussing for the president? |
Didn't someone say, or maybe this was at CR, that there are going to be a total of four appointed during the next term? What was the original flap about Scalia over? I don't know about the public disclosure thing for justices, but did we ever find out that there is such a REQUIREMENT for the POTUS or just that a lot of us thought there should be?
| Quote: | | Obviously no one could have predicted this but there is speculation as to what impact this new news of Rehnquit's health will have on the outcome election. Just want your thoughts, I'm kind of clueless. |
I think, just MHO, that it could and probably will be used to scare undecided voters with the same threats that have been being used all along as far as the human rights issues are being used. 
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 16:57 Post subject:
This may push the SC judges more to the front of the election coverage, but it has been talked about for a while now as an election issue. Probably not much of a change, though it does make me lean more towards Kerry than a 3rd party candidate. It would be as much a vote against Bush as it would be a vote for having a Dem select some justices (or having Not Bush nominated justices)
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 17:03 Post subject: Re: Rehnquist
| genie wrote: | | I'm doubting it was hidden from the public, because if they were trying to hide it purposely, it wouldn't have come out now so close to the election. |
The report yesterday made it sound like its not necessarily being hidden, but it doesn't have to be disclosed, so its not...?
| genie wrote: | | I think, just MHO, that it could and probably will be used to scare undecided voters with the same threats that have been being used all along as far as the human rights issues are being used. |
Definitely makes abortion a bigger issue, as it seems if given the chance Bush would have R v. W overturned. (I don't in any way or shape want to start an abortion debate, btw) so perhaps Republican voters for Kerry would swing back to Bush knowing this? Although, its been pretty clear for a while that there are going to be several justices (how do you know 4 specifically?) will be appointed by this next pres, so I think if this was an issue for a particular voter, it would have been taken into consideration already.
I did read however that Rehnquist was the deciding vote for the 2000 election, which is interesting considering speculation that this election too will be decided by the SC.
I just want to know a little more about 'the supremes', the possibilities of this current scenario and what impact people think this will have.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 17:31 Post subject: Re: Rehnquist
| cherylpf wrote: | | The report yesterday made it sound like its not necessarily being hidden, but it doesn't have to be disclosed, so its not...? |
So if it doesn't have to be disclosed, then should it be an issue, is that an opinion question you're asking? I might be missing the point there but I also have a headache today. 
| Quote: |
Definitely makes abortion a bigger issue, as it seems if given the chance Bush would have R v. W overturned. (I don't in any way or shape want to start an abortion debate, btw) so perhaps Republican voters for Kerry would swing back to Bush knowing this? Although, its been pretty clear for a while that there are going to be several justices (how do you know 4 specifically?) will be appointed by this next pres, so I think if this was an issue for a particular voter, it would have been taken into consideration already. |
I read the four thing somewhere today in my travels and I think it may have been at CR but I can't recall. If I have time to look tonight I will....but I think it was said in the context of "do you realize that four justices will be appointed during this term?" as an anti Bush rant. I'll try and find it, I'm pretty sure it was in a thread over there.....you'd remember if you had seen it here and I know it was today.
That's kinda what I meant about it being used to sway the undecideds who are truly still undecided. I've noticed an increase in pressure at several sites I belong to from one or the other side to grasp at anything they can to make the other side look bad, ostensibly, IMHO, in the hopes of grabbing another couple undecided votes. You're right, for a voter whose main issue is abortion and the possible overturn of RVW, this probably already had its impact, but for some whose, say, third or fourth issue might be something that could come before the SC, then that could be the deciding factor, is I think what I was getting at.
| Quote: | | I just want to know a little more about 'the supremes', the possibilities of this current scenario and what impact people think this will have. |
That I have to ask the roomie about. He's the history buff in the family. Cappy, do you know anything about the Supremes questions?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 17:55 Post subject:
The Supreme Court is the only court required by the Constitution. All others were created by acts of Congress
Justices have their jobs for life, unless they resign, retire, or are impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate
Here's some good info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Jenn
Fresh, Hot & Wild
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 7935
Location: Suite 550
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 18:04 Post subject:
| Quote: | The Supreme Court is sometimes known by the acronym SCOTUS.
|
That makes me laugh and gives me the creeps at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 18:31 Post subject: Re: Rehnquist
| genie wrote: |
I read the four thing somewhere today in my travels and I think it may have been at CR but I can't recall. If I have time to look tonight I will....but I think it was said in the context of "do you realize that four justices will be appointed during this term?" as an anti Bush rant. I'll try and find it, I'm pretty sure it was in a thread over there.....you'd remember if you had seen it here and I know it was today.
That's kinda what I meant about it being used to sway the undecideds who are truly still undecided. I've noticed an increase in pressure at several sites I belong to from one or the other side to grasp at anything they can to make the other side look bad, ostensibly, IMHO, in the hopes of grabbing another couple undecided votes. You're right, for a voter whose main issue is abortion and the possible overturn of RVW, this probably already had its impact, but for some whose, say, third or fourth issue might be something that could come before the SC, then that could be the deciding factor, is I think what I was getting at.
|
When you say "scare tactic" it implies someone is trying to make something that is a non-issue into a big deal. I think the potential appointments to the court IS a big and should be considered in the election. Anyone who is voting for Nader because "there is no difference between Kerry and Bush" only needs to think about the court and who each would appoint to see there IS a difference. Who is appointed will have a long lasting impact, and not just on the high profile issues such as Roe vs. Wade.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 07:32 Post subject: Re: Rehnquist
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
When you say "scare tactic" it implies someone is trying to make something that is a non-issue into a big deal. I think the potential appointments to the court IS a big and should be considered in the election. Anyone who is voting for Nader because "there is no difference between Kerry and Bush" only needs to think about the court and who each would appoint to see there IS a difference. Who is appointed will have a long lasting impact, and not just on the high profile issues such as Roe vs. Wade. |
That's not what I was saying at all. Of course it's a big deal.....there are a LOT of issues on the table, as evidenced by the poll we did here on what each person's three top issues of concern are. I just don't like all the browbeating of the undecided group that's been going on, especially over the last couple weeks. To be perfectly honest, I would not be happy if they overturned RVW (not to start a discussion on that topic) but that is ONE issue and as I told Red yesterday over there, I think it is foolish of him to keep trying to browbeat me into voting for Kerry, which simply is NOT going to happen, over that issue alone. For me personally, and this is just me, there are many issues that are important and like many former undecideds, I feel that making a decision based on one single issue, unless that is the only issue you really care about, is stupid. The decisions each of us make as voters are going to affect us in all areas of our lives, which is why I've stayed out of the political crap over there for a while. They harp on one thing and beat it to death and for some, that might be the thing that sways them, only to regret the decision later, you know?
And don't worry about Nader. The Dems have seen to it that he won't be around in many states to steal votes from Kerry. I'd love to know how that was accomplished since I thought there was some clause somewhere that allowed independent parties (meaning other than the Big Two) to run.
I'm going to start a thread about that separately because I have some questions about that process.
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 07:47 Post subject: Re: Rehnquist
| genie wrote: |
That's not what I was saying at all. Of course it's a big deal.....there are a LOT of issues on the table, as evidenced by the poll we did here on what each person's three top issues of concern are. I just don't like all the browbeating of the undecided group that's been going on, especially over the last couple weeks. To be perfectly honest, I would not be happy if they overturned RVW (not to start a discussion on that topic) but that is ONE issue and as I told Red yesterday over there, I think it is foolish of him to keep trying to browbeat me into voting for Kerry, which simply is NOT going to happen, over that issue alone. For me personally, and this is just me, there are many issues that are important and like many former undecideds, I feel that making a decision based on one single issue, unless that is the only issue you really care about, is stupid. The decisions each of us make as voters are going to affect us in all areas of our lives, which is why I've stayed out of the political crap over there for a while. They harp on one thing and beat it to death and for some, that might be the thing that sways them, only to regret the decision later, you know?
And don't worry about Nader. The Dems have seen to it that he won't be around in many states to steal votes from Kerry. I'd love to know how that was accomplished since I thought there was some clause somewhere that allowed independent parties (meaning other than the Big Two) to run.
I'm going to start a thread about that separately because I have some questions about that process. |
wrong log in.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 07:48 Post subject: Re: Rehnquist
| genie wrote: |
That's not what I was saying at all. Of course it's a big deal.....there are a LOT of issues on the table, as evidenced by the poll we did here on what each person's three top issues of concern are. I just don't like all the browbeating of the undecided group that's been going on, especially over the last couple weeks. To be perfectly honest, I would not be happy if they overturned RVW (not to start a discussion on that topic) but that is ONE issue and as I told Red yesterday over there, I think it is foolish of him to keep trying to browbeat me into voting for Kerry, which simply is NOT going to happen, over that issue alone. For me personally, and this is just me, there are many issues that are important and like many former undecideds, I feel that making a decision based on one single issue, unless that is the only issue you really care about, is stupid. The decisions each of us make as voters are going to affect us in all areas of our lives, which is why I've stayed out of the political crap over there for a while. They harp on one thing and beat it to death and for some, that might be the thing that sways them, only to regret the decision later, you know?
And don't worry about Nader. The Dems have seen to it that he won't be around in many states to steal votes from Kerry. I'd love to know how that was accomplished since I thought there was some clause somewhere that allowed independent parties (meaning other than the Big Two) to run.
I'm going to start a thread about that separately because I have some questions about that process. |
No one's trying to browbeat you, genie. Red was just providing counter attacks to your constant "Them Dems" arguements and LIEberals comments. You pretend to be so anti-partisanship and against spreading discord and division amont the parties and yet you are the worst of the lot. It is really getting sickening.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 07:56 Post subject: Re: Rehnquist
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
No one's trying to browbeat you, genie. Red was just providing counter attacks to your constant "Them Dems" arguements and LIEberals comments. You pretend to be so anti-partisanship and against spreading discord and division amont the parties and yet you are the worst of the lot. It is really getting sickening. |
Well, that must be a perspective thing, then, because I don't see it. (I knew that phrase would come in useful someday, thanks Go!). When the "other" side stops doing it, then I will too. If we can't all hold to the same standard, which people over there don't seem to be able to do, then so be it. Believing that we should be anti-partisan and all work together just doesn't translate into reality, at least not at CR. So, when in Rome....
Jerry, I'm not sure what you meant by that comment, but you should know me well enough to know that I don't need puppets to express my opinions, if that's what you were trying to say. But I did like that term LIEberals......whoever did think that up is apparently very clever.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 08:00 Post subject: Re: Rehnquist
| genie wrote: |
Well, that must be a perspective thing, then, because I don't see it. (I knew that phrase would come in useful someday, thanks Go!). When the "other" side stops doing it, then I will too. If we can't all hold to the same standard, which people over there don't seem to be able to do, then so be it. Believing that we should be anti-partisan and all work together just doesn't translate into reality, at least not at CR. So, when in Rome....
Jerry, I'm not sure what you meant by that comment, but you should know me well enough to know that I don't need puppets to express my opinions, if that's what you were trying to say. But I did like that term LIEberals......whoever did think that up is apparently very clever. |
You do it here as well as there, genie.
Jerry didn't say anything, I just initially posted under the wrong log-in.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 08:22 Post subject: Re: Rehnquist
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
Jerry didn't say anything, I just initially posted under the wrong log-in. |
Oh, sorry....I misread that and thought he was making a comment about what I said. Nevahmind 
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 08:45 Post subject:
I don't think he should step down because he has cancer. I think he should step down because he's frickin' 80 years old. There should be an age cap here.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
Related topics: | |
|
|
