The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Ginsburg undergoes lung cancer surgery

by Les Sillars
Posted 12/21/18, 01:03 pm

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery on Friday in New York to remove two malignant growths from her left lung, the Supreme Court said. It’s Ginsburg’s third bout with cancer since she joined the court in 1993. The court said doctors found “no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body” and no additional treatment is planned, though the 85-year-old will remain in the hospital for a few days. The growths were found during tests Ginsburg had after she fractured three ribs in a fall on Nov. 7. She is being treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

A Dec. 14 article on Vox noted “panic spread among liberals” after her November fall because President Donald Trump would get an opportunity to appoint a third conservative-leaning justice if she were to leave the court.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Les Sillars

Les is a WORLD Radio correspondent and commentator. He previously spent two decades as WORLD Magazine's Mailbag editor. Les directs the journalism program at Patrick Henry College and resides in Purcellville, Va., with his family.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • OldMike
    Posted: Fri, 12/21/2018 04:54 pm

    While of course I pray for Justice Ginsburg’s  health and wish her well, I do hope President Trump gets to appoint another conservative Justice. 

  • Big Jim
    Posted: Sat, 12/22/2018 01:08 am

    OldMike, I'm wondering how conservative some of these Republican appointed Justices really are. Kavanaugh (also Roberts) voted not to hear the Planned Parenthood case, keeping the lower court ruling in place and thus giving PP the victory. If there was a straight up and down vote on a Constitutional right to abortion, I'm thinking the vote would go YES either 5-4 or 6-3.

  • Midwest preacher
    Posted: Sat, 12/22/2018 11:45 am

    For my part I don't necessarily want justices that vote for the conservative side every time.  What we really need are justices that vote according to law.  Our probelm, as I see it, has never been liberal justices but justices who believe they can alter the law according to what they believe the framers would have said if they had our tremendous advances in science, social understanding, and raw intellect.  Actually there is a way to amend the Constitution but with our divided country it is a rough road indeed.  Liberal judges who feel they can ammend from the bench are not good judges but a conservative judge who believed the same thing is not the answer.   A good judge would judge according to law even if he or she disagreed with said law.  If the people don't like the law they (supposedly) can change it but they should not be able to do it by stacking the court.  All that being said the "Supreme Court" should be a consevative body putting the brakes of new ideas until they can be debated and decided by the people.  (these opinions are my own and I am NOT an expert)

  • Big Jim
    Posted: Sat, 12/22/2018 02:35 pm

    The Supremes are not supposed to change laws, they are supposed to judge whether a law is constitutional or not. "Liberal" judges tend to look at the Constitution as a living, breathing document, i.e., one that can be altered, changed, "amended" by judicial fiat based on the whims of the people or ideology of the Justice. "Conservative" Justices tend to be originalists - believing and ruling based on the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. You are correct that amending the Constitution the proscribed way, with a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and a 3/4 vote of the state legislatures, is a virtual impossibilty nowadays. A good example of judicial fiat, in my opinion, was the Roberts decision in the Obamacare case. Here, Justice Roberts ruled that the penalty was a tax, despite the fact that the Obama Administration's Solicitor General had argued otherwise in court and in spite of the plain language and understanding of the text. So I think that was a case of "ruling from the bench" or re-writing the law as opposed to simply determining the Constitutionality of the law. And Roberts was appointed by a Republican and is considered a "conservative" Justice. But maybe he's not so much of an originalist.