Ruth Bader Ginsburg made this jaw dropping announcement about her health

Questions about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s status on the Supreme Court continue to swirl around Washington, D.C.

The leader of the court’s liberal block was heavily rumored to be considering stepping down.

And now Ruth Bader Ginsburg made this jaw dropping announcement about her health.

Ginsburg appeared at a book festival in Washington, D.C. and gave a stunned audience an update on her health.

The liberal Supreme Court justice recently had surgery to remove a tumor on her pancreas.

Ginsburg told the audience that despite being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer she was on her way to being well.

The Daily Caller reports:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said her health is improving after a fourth bout with cancer Saturday, telling a friendly audience in Washington, D.C., that her work sustains her during difficult periods.

The Supreme Court announced Aug. 23 that the 86-year-old progressive icon was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

“This audience can see that I am alive,” Ginsburg said during a Saturday appearance at the National Book Festival in Washington, D.C. “And I’m on my way to being very well.”

The justice was present to discuss a volume of her writings published in 2016 called “My Own Words.” Mary Hartnett and Wendy Williams, the justice’s biographers, also joined Ginsburg on stage.

A Ginsburg retirement would set off the judicial confirmation apocalypse in Washington, D.C.

For the first time since Clarence Thomas’s nomination in 1991 a Republican President could flip a Democrat held Supreme Court seat.

Replacing Ginsburg would also give conservatives a six to three majority on the court, which means that even if one Republican-appointed justice went rogue, conservatives could still win every hot-button case.

And Democrats and the media’s conduct during a confirmation hearing to replace Ginsburg would cause them to overplay their hand and reveal to the American people who they really are.

Loading...

You may also like...

62 Responses

  1. f9h says:

    Must be nice to be the elite and get healthcare that’s unheard of for us proles. She could live to be 100, God forbid. The adrenochrome kept the cancer at bay.

  2. Gregory Sullivan says:

    It won’t be long till this old liberal fossil is gone for good so she can be replaced by a decent concervative constitution loving judge.

  3. Marge Wall says:

    If this ‘seemingly’ intelligent woman were 46 instead of 86 then, her comments would make sense.
    She is not omnipotent and it is NOT her Supreme Court ….. The court serves the American People NOT an elderly woman in denial!

  4. Ken Marx says:

    Actually, another constitutionalist on the court would not be 6:3. It would finally be 5:4. Justice Roberts has demonstrated that he is not a constitutionalist.

  5. Iris Williams says:

    Regardless of one’s politics, it’s impossible not to admire Judge Ginsberg. I agree that she will not retire. She will die on the bench. She has made an enormous contribution to the country and the judicial system. When the time comes, someone will replace her, and I hope that replacement judge will be as dedicated as Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been.

  6. mzaz says:

    IF, and that’s a BIG IF that’s RBG she will never retire. She’ll die on the bench. I believe they have found a look a like. I underwent 6 1/ 2 weeks of radiation treatments and 6 days in the hospital with a radiation implant. I was down for several months and i was 40 at the time. So i don’t believe she did chemo and radiation then up and about in a week after treatments. I call B.S..

  7. DIANNA BURTON says:

    That is not what I meant.Do you really think this woman is the real RBG?Someone that had broken 3 ribs,had 2 nodules removed that was cancerous,got pneumonia,and returned to the bench within a couple of weeks and lastly got radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer?Even a younger person would be almost dead by now. (this is a new comment in a reply to another reader that commented on my first post.)

    • Alaska Woman says:

      Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a prime example of women’s strength. Our ancestors did as much and more, hence. upi live in a free country. Suggest you study more about the women I our Nation’s history.

  8. Vasu Murti says:

    Instead of packing the courts with conservatives, I think pro-lifers should be pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn. The central issues in the abortion debate are the “personhood” or moral status of the unborn, and the extent of individual and marital privacy.

    Stephen Douglas has been quoted as having said in debate with Abraham Lincoln that human slavery be resolved through the democratic process.

    Let the people decide: if they “want slavery, they shall have it; if they prohibit slavery, it shall be prohibited.”

    Whether or not democracy is the ideal form of government is not the issue here, but since we live in a democracy, what is wrong with Douglas’ statement? It was through the democratic process that we gave women the right to vote, gave 18 year olds the right to vote, and even attempted the Equal Rights Amendment. Isn’t this how we should extend human rights to the unborn? Isn’t this how we should extend rights to animals?

    Pro-lifers compare Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott decision of 1857. In both cases, rights were denied to an entire class of humans based upon an arbitrary criterion, such as developmental status or the color of the skin. The conclusion author Paul Nowak draws from this in Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues is that the Supreme Court is not infallible.

    Roe v. Wade was decided in part by denying rights to the unborn, but also by assuming a right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut assumed a right to marital privacy regarding the use of contraception) not clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

    Can we overturn Roe without overturning Griswold?

    Is the solution to the abortion crisis to pack the Court with conservatives who might also oppose things like church-state separation (Nat Hentoff, an atheist, must have known that in the Newdow case regarding the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, Justice Scalia had to recuse himself from the case, because he didn’t believe in complete church-state separation) and deny us contraception and a right to privacy (Griswold)… or is the solution to enact a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn?

    And again, as Paul Nowak says, the Supreme Court is not infallible. The views of the Court are constantly changing. In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld a sodomy law. Years ago, they reversed themselves, which outraged the religious right, but pleased lesbians and gays, the parents and friends of lesbians and gays, and political liberals.

    I cannot understand how pro-life liberals and pro-life Democrats, most of whom respect the private nonviolent behavior of consenting adults, most of whom support church-state separation, and most of whom support contraception and better sex education as the most effective way to prevent unplanned pregnancies, would want to align themselves with pro-life conservatives and pro-life Republicans in order to pack the courts with conservatives in the hopes of eventually overturning Roe v. Wade.

    It’s my conviction that we do have a fundamental right to privacy, and I cannot advocate putting the women of America unwillingly under electronic surveillance, probing their past without their consent, denying them contraception, or even going through their personal effects (although the Fourth Amendment does protect us against unwarranted search and seizure). There must be a better way.

    Until we pro-life Democrats have enough numbers to change our Party platform to one calling for a Human Life Amendment (as is the case with the Republican Party), I think we should be advocating: easy access to contraception; better, more comprehensive sex education; real social support for pregnant women and children; and reasonable restrictions on abortion (e.g., a ban on partial-birth abortion, parental notification or consent, 24 hour waiting periods, informed consent or “women’s right to know” laws, etc.)

    Doing this would dramatically reduce the abortion rate, which would please both pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike within our Party. It would also be consistent with Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare” position. If “safe, legal and rare” becomes the new mantra in the Democratic Party with regards to abortion, I will consider it real progress from the 1970s, when pro-choice bumper stickers read: “Abortion is every woman’s choice.”

    Again, instead of packing the courts with conservatives in the hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade, I favor grassroots activism and educating the American public about when human life begins, prenatal development, etc. in order to get them to eventually support a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn.

    If we Democrats prove to the American people *we’re* a “big tent” too, we can easily win, even in red states.

    Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favored a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)

    Eighty-nine percent of Americans favored informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)

    Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)

    Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion “destroys a human life and is manslaughter.” (Zogby Poll, December 2004)

    Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)

    Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)

    Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, “Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted.” However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.

    During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.

    A “conscience clause” which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:

    “We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.”

    Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said in 2014: “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

    • Bill says:

      You are wrong. What we need is at least one more true rock- ribbed conservative justice on the Supreme Court so we can get these rogue district judges back in line. We need constitutional law, not judicial make law. The way to do that is to confirm justices who interpret laws according to what the document says, not what these obscure judges wishes it said.

    • TexanForever says:

      Far too long to read. … sorry.

    • True Dan says:

      Please re-read the First Amendment to the U.S. Cnstitution. No where in the Constitution is the separation of Church and State mentioned. What is guaranteed is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The “Separation of Church and State” was only mentioned in a letter written by ThomasJefferson. However, that letter was not part of the Constitution. What is meant by the First Amendment is for the State to stay out of the affairs of the Church, and for the Church to stay out of the affairs of the State. We cannot have an official Government-designated religion and no religion should try to influence the Government

    • Native American Man says:

      We do NOT live in a democracy, it’s a Representative Republic. Untill we get people in office that will actually represent the people that elected them instead of a political party, we will not be going in the right direction.

  9. Manny Fritz says:

    I notice that she is no longer wearing her shock collar.

    • gandolf the White says:

      She looks like a vampire to me.

      • Mike Otrok says:

        Fox news said she died a couple years ago. Maybe she got treatment in on of the five countries in Mexico Fox mentioned. Can I get a map of the five countries in Mexico. And why won’t anyone tell me what hamberders are? What’s the secret?

    • TexanForever says:

      “shock collar” … LOL (good one)

      It always reminded me of the ruffles around the base of a buzzard’s neck.
      .

  10. Shirley says:

    If your being honest and your claiming that’s a recent picture of her then your lying through your teeth. For one she never smiles, two she has not weighed that much since well before she fell and broke her ribs and three the resemblance of the picture to her is rediculous. That woman isn’t 86 years old and just recovering from “Chemo” treatments for pancreatic cancer. What kind of fools do you people think your dealing with. OH I FORGOT “WE”RE THE SMELLY WALMART SHOPPERS” “THE BASKETFUL OF MORANS”. You can pull the wool over our eyes because anyone who would vote for Trump isn’t too bright. Especially because we’re religious and we believe in GOD. WE ARE CHRISTIANS OR JEWISH BUT WE HAVE A CONSCIENCE WHICH IT SEEMS A LOT OF YOU POLITICIANS DO NOT!!!!!!!!!!

  11. DIANNA BURTON says:

    This woman is a double and not the real Justice Ginsberg.The real one died several months ago and the Liberals do not want President Trump to select another Conservative.Just compare the real one with the body double.The difference will and do stand out.

    • gandolf the White says:

      I believe you are right. Cancer and chemo makes one age very fast.

      • DIANNA BURTON says:

        That is not what I meant.Do you really think this woman is the real RBG?Someone that had broken 3 ribs,had 2 nodules removed that was cancerous,got pneumonia,and returned to the bench within a couple of weeks and lastly got radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer?Even a younger person would be almost dead by now.

        • Mike Otrok says:

          What planet is Melania from? What are hamberders? What is Trump’s natural skin color? Why ish he shlurring shtumblig droonk alsh duh tiyme?Why he nah cun shpel en englylush? Are there war memorials to the soldiers that battled British airports under the command of Washington? Why does Trump try to hide his gay love of dominereing sex loverd like Putin. Does Putin use his KGB skills to tie him up and beat him? What are hamberders? And people actually do live long lives after cancer. Luckily she stayed away from windmills- they cause cancer.

  12. Coldcowboy2 says:

    She will die on the court instead of retiring!!!

    • The Real M says:

      Coldcowboy2, I agree, it had just gone through my mind she will continue to work, go to bed at home and expire or take one of her regular naps at work and expire! There will be no warning until we hear it as a “news alert” and that’s okay if that is the way she wants to end her life.
      I worked all my life and decided to retire before I died at my desk without knowing the “feel” of retirement and guess what? I love retirement, I was burned out from a stressful career (I also loved my job) and didn’t realize how much until I got my freedom through retirement. But different strokes for different folks and Lord knows, we are all different!

      • The Real M says:

        Coldcowboy2, P.S. She will not retire because of President Trump, thinking she will live longer than he is President. Powerful dislike for DJT will not extend her life cycle. She, like the rest of us, has no power to extend her life whether she believes it or not.

    • Marge Wall says:

      That is one decision that should NEVER rest with the office holder.
      That decision truly belongs to the American people! What are we? A bunch of idiotic dunces?
      Bureaucrats should never be allowed to police themselves.

  13. Stephen says:

    I believe that President Trump will be picking her replacement sometime within the next 5 years.

  14. Gary O says:

    Look the woman is 86 years old and has done enough damage to the Supreme Court and the Country and need to step down. Secondly I must call bull $hit on the so called accounts of her current conditions. I have personal knowledge of what these diseases do to you and the effects of the treatment, so once again I must call bull $hit.

    • Vernon Devine says:

      You are a real idiot thinking you more about her condition than she does. Do you have even half a brain in your head???

    • june says:

      she is looking younger and younger, no wrinkles — check out her forehead and cheeks – makes you wonder what she uses on her skin, It even looks like she gained actual weight, not the puffy water edema, Yup the person in the picture sure gives that younger healthy look appearance.

  15. Jan says:

    Is it really her or a look alike? Her posture has changed dramatically if you look at many of her pictures.

  16. Jan says:

    Is it really her or a look alike? Her posture has changed dramatically if you look at many of her picures.

  17. Carbine Williams says:

    Please God call this dim witted Liberal home so he can send her to hell.Satan is frothing at the mouth waiting for his favorite female judge to burn in eternity.

  18. Dale Roberts says:

    RBG will only leave the job in a box. If she passes, the dems will turn her over to a taxidermist and carry her to her seat everyday until a Dumbocrat is back in the WH (hopefully, never).

    • Peggy says:

      I truly believe you are correct on this !

    • Loyd says:

      Dale with her health record, and age we know that she can’t really be a asset to the highest court in the land,it is wrong to let these people make a living at our expense, when we know they can’t function as they should to be on top of so many things that effect us the American people.

      • Mark says:

        Someone should find some old DNA and test this person! No one that old can survive that many health issues over and over…
        Everything about democrats is fake smoke and mirrors, this is no different!

  19. Betty Sakai says:

    Everything that attacks this Republic within our judicial and political power structures materializes in the form of the majority either willfully or ignorantly permitting unconstitutional actions to occur. Every graduate from every 8th grade school must be required to pass a test on the U.S. Constitution to prepare them for citizenship. Whereas the U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 1 requires Supreme Court judges to “… hold their Offices on good Behavior” and whereas “behavior” is defined as the decisions they make, a judge’s job being to judge the Constitutionality of cases brought before them, the life-time appointments of Supreme Court Justices must be conditioned upon them doing their job. If any judge inserts their opinion to affect the outcome of a decision they make in such a way as their decision fails to reflect the intent of America’s founders (those who wrote the Constitution), educated Americans must demand that judge step down. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decisions — if her political views are included in her judgements and as judged unconstitutional, make her subject to being removed from the Supreme Court. Ruth should save the Court the anguish, and herself the embarrassment. She should retire.

  20. Mel Hardman says:

    To the editor who writes the headlines for these news articles: My jaw has been dropped on the hard floor so many times, my mind has been ‘blown away’ so many times….. (hope you get the idea.) Yes, I realize you’re trying to catch reader attention, but greatly exaggerated figures-of-speech only make you readers just roll their eyes. Surely you can come up with headlines of a little more credibility?

    • P j says:

      I totally agree! The headlines you put up are just like fake news! Makes me believe all of you so called media are all alike! Propaganda readers and sensationalizes! We aren’t stupid! We don’t believe the national media, you are losing our trust fast!

    • chief1937 says:

      I agree it would be nice if the story actually resembled the headlines which it seldom does.

  21. Bill Segal says:

    Politics is a dirty business! Time has proven that they are ALL full of crap. Just look at history.

  22. morefamdave says:

    So long as there is a Republican in the White House, RBG will only leave the Court at room temperature

  23. Fred says:

    Force her to retire. She’s lying about health. She’s a known liar. She said “if Donald Trump becomes president, I’m leaving country”! Well her filthy, corrupt, leftist, mentally challenged, America hating ass must go.

    • Sharon Jenkins says:

      You can’t force her to retire… She was appointed and she can stay for life which i believe she will do. I don’t agree with her decisions she had made from the bench but she has a right to her opinion.. People need to make sure Pres Trump will be re-elected again.

  24. Mike Flanagan says:

    Yup Had several friends beat different cancers only to suddenly relapse and die …
    Liberals just think President Trump will be nominating Supreme court Justices and Federal Judges for the fetter part of 6 years … that is until the Inauguration of a new President on 20 January 2025. All you that said you’d move to Canada and didn’t well start Packing maybe you should be deported for UN AMERICAN ACTIVITIES such as Treason.

  25. Chick says:

    Ginsburg is the cancer on American freedom. And WHY do they called liberals Progressives? They only progress toward evil and stupidity.

  26. W says:

    Evil goes on and on but the odds r in our favor with 4 more years

  27. T. Bell says:

    Hope she is DEAD SOON !

  28. jack says:

    the old bat is in denial, she’s gonna be approached to star in “the walking dead”, to end here horrible supreme court tenure.

  29. Will Penny says:

    Ruthy just likes hanging around giving us true Americans a little bit of Hell , she’s a tuff old Witch , I’ll say that for her , , Ruthy would you just please say Good bye , Hehehe

  30. Linda M. says:

    Oh I think we already KNOW what would happen during the confirmation hearing to replace RBG if she retired or passed away. Just the same hate, lies and deception that the Democrat’s have demonstrated since Trump was elected.They have already revealed what they stand for to the American people. So nothing would be a surprise. How to handle it , now that is a different agenda…

  31. John Keebler says:

    RBG will not leave the Bench except for one of two reasons: 1) the next President is a fellow Communist; 2) she finds out what happens after life ends.

  32. JHD/BJK says:

    I think they already “revealed who they are” during the Kavanaugh Inquisition: vile, nasty, lying, obnoxious “people?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: