Rehnquist Diagnosed with Cancer - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

maleficent · 10-25-2004, 06:25 PM

Prognosis for Rehnquist Depends on Which Type of Thyroid Cancer He Has
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN

Published: October 26, 2004

he prognosis for William H. Rehnquist, the 80-year-old Supreme Court chief justice who is being treated for thyroid cancer, depends on the specific type of cancer he has, thyroid experts said in interviews yesterday.

The Supreme Court released no information about the pathologic findings or how the disease is being treated beyond saying Chief Justice Rehnquist needed a tracheotomy. That surgical procedure involves cutting a hole into the trachea, or windpipe, to aid breathing.

Because a tracheotomy is not part of routine thyroid cancer surgery, the experts, who were not involved in Mr. Rehnquist's case, said they were puzzled why Mr. Rehnquist needed one. The Supreme Court did not say whether Mr. Rehnquist underwent a thyroidectomy, which is a surgical removal of the thyroid gland and a common treatment for thyroid cancer.

An estimated 23,600 new cases of thyroid cancer will be detected this year in the United States, mostly in women, the American Cancer Society says.

The thyroid is a gland that is in front of the trachea in the neck. Cancers affecting it are often detected when a doctor feels a nodule, or bump, in examining the thyroid. Such cancers may also come to attention when an individual's voice becomes hoarse, as observers said Mr. Rehnquist's has been in recent weeks.

Of the four main kinds of thyroid cancer, the papillary type is by far the most common. The cure rate is about 95 percent among younger people. But among older people, the cure rates for papillary thyroid cancer are often lower.

A second type, follicular, accounts for about 15 percent of thyroid cancers, and its prognosis is not as favorable as the one for papillary thyroid cancer.

Two less common types are anaplastic and medullary thyroid cancers.

Dr. Lewis E. Braverman, chief of endocrinology at Boston University, said, "When anaplastic thyroid cancer occurs, it is mostly in old people."

Anaplastic thyroid cancer is nearly always fatal and generally runs a rapid course, said Dr. Braverman, editor of a leading textbook on thyroid disease. Medullary thyroid cancers can be familial and is often more aggressive than papillary and follicular. Rarely, a different kind of cancer, lymphomas, can develop in thyroid glands.

The need for a tracheotomy in the chief justice's case implies a number of possibilities, said Dr. Paul W. Ladenson, a thyroid expert at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who is president of the American Thyroid Association. One is that the cancer was squeezing on the windpipe, impairing breathing.

Another is that the two recurrent laryngeal nerves that control the voice box were accidentally or purposely cut in surgery or that the cancer had spread to invade the nerves, Dr. Ladenson said. He also said the fact that Chief Justice Rehnquist's voice recently became hoarse suggests that the problem may have resulted from an invasion of the nerves. In such cases, a tracheotomy may be needed to help a thyroid cancer patient speak.

Still another possibility is that Chief Justice Rehnquist may have needed a tracheotomy because of lung damage that resulted from being a longtime smoker.

The court did not say whether the tracheotomy was temporary or permanent. Because it usually takes some time for patients to adapt to a tracheotomy and to care for it like learning to clean it to avoid blockage and infections, the experts said they were surprised that Chief Justice Rehnquist was expected to return to the court next Monday.

<hr>

So, your 80 year old, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer... If you are the president... what do you do?

daswig · 10-25-2004, 06:34 PM

Hand him a carton of smokes?

/tracheotomy-man reference

guy44 · 10-25-2004, 07:07 PM

Nothing. It is beyond your jurisdiction. Besides, thyroid cancer has a very high survival rate and it is quite possible that Rehnquist will be able to serve for several more years. If he retires or is incapacitated, then you attempt to get a new SC Justice approved by the Senate. He or she will likely be moderate, as this very polarized populous would make it very difficult for a "radical" liberal or conservative to be approved. It is doubtful that this justice would be particularly likely to repeal Roe v. Wade.

Superbelt · 10-25-2004, 09:37 PM

If he dies before the election, Bush either decides to sit on it, or he has to go moderate. Creating that wedge can easily destroy him. If he dies after the election, or resigns... But before January 20 when Kerry would take office he tries to get a right winger in, but the Senate filibusters through January so Kerry can make his first appointment.

They lost their chance when they let the last 4 years go by. I guess they didn't wan't the stigma of having their replacement appointed by the man they made the decision to install in office. SC Judges care about their legacy. As long as GWB doesn't win the election, Rehnquist's replacement will be moderate to liberal.

Locobot · 10-26-2004, 04:06 AM

I wouldn't think a lame duck president would be able to pass a supreme court nomination before the end of their term. There must be a precedent for this in our history though, no pun intended. It seems though that that is what Rehnquist is insinuating by leaking this news one week before the election. Rehnquist is the leading conservative member on the court and has repeatedly said he wouldn't retire unless a Republican was the president. So if Kerry is elected I predict Rehnquist's health will take an immediate turn for the worse (although it already seems quite grim for the chief justice) forcing him to retire. If this scenario plays out I would expect senate filibusters through Jan. 20 and, of course, ceaseless whinning from the right.

SirSeymour · 10-26-2004, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

As long as GWB doesn't win the election, Rehnquist's replacement will be moderate to liberal.

I actually think it will moderate regardless. An appointment has to pass the Senate which will likely not approve anyone that is beyond moderate in either extreme. The only way around this is if Bush wants to appoint a current court member to the position of Chief Justice and that has a better chance of getting through with an extreme conservative (like Scalia). However, whoever gets added to the court will likely come from the political middle regardless of who is President.

It is interesting that the next President's legacy, whether Bush or Kerry, is likely to be who they appoint to the bench of the Supreme Court. With Rehnquist, O'Conner and Stevens all possibly retiring in the next 4 years, the make-up of the court could be very different. In those 3 you have a solid conservative (Rehnquist), the consumate moderate swing vote (O'Conner) and the current most liberal (Stevens). My guess is the Senate will actually shy away from anyone with a history of extreme liberalism or conservativism and want to approve nominees who are most like O'Conner.

Superbelt · 10-26-2004, 09:26 AM

I wonder though, if Kerry would try to get a liberal in there to replace Stevens specifically, how long could the senate republicans realistically filibuster the nomination before their reputation becomes tarnished and they get labeled obstructionists.

What is the history of opposition to SC justices?

SirSeymour · 10-26-2004, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I wonder though, if Kerry would try to get a liberal in there to replace Stevens specifically, how long could the senate republicans realistically filibuster the nomination before their reputation becomes tarnished and they get labeled obstructionists.

I don't think it is a matter of filibuster. It is a matter of votes. You only filibuster when the other side has the votes to beat you. Because issues are no longer so cut and dried along party lines, I think it will be tough to get a straight party vote to approve anyone. Hence it becomes the job of the President to nominate someone that will be palitable enough to a majority of the Senate, regardless of party, to get approval. This will necessitate going more moderate in nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

What is the history of opposition to SC justices?

Just from doing a bit of quick research, it appears that there have been 5 rejections of nominees in the last 40 years or so. Here they are with information on the specifics of each from this source:

Douglas Ginsburg, Reagan appointment, 1987 (smoked pot) Reagan finally nominated Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed in 1988.
Robert Bork, Reagan's first choice to replace Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Nominated in 1987. Rejected largely for his legal philosophy. He was an ultra-conservative, but brilliant. Political right has never forgiven this rejection.
Clement Haynsworth, Nixon appointment. Another Southerner with racist tinge. Second consecutive rejection, following Carswell. Nixon finally appointed Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1972
G. Harold Carswell, Nixon appointment. Southerner with racist tinge and mediocre. Senator Mundt asked "what's wrong with appointing a mediocre person to the Court?" Vacancy arose when Justice John M Harlan died in office in 1971.
Abe Fortas, Johnson's choice for Chief Justice in 1968 was withdrawn under pressure in 1968. He received a $20,000/year stipend for being on the Board of Directors of the Parva Foundation. Fortas resigned from court as Associate Justice because of the appearance of impropriety. This gave Pres Nixon the opportunity to nominate two justices. Completely changed the direction of the Supreme Court. Opened door to appointments of Warren E. Burger, as Chief Justice, and Harry Blackmun, as Associate Justice, to the court.

I do find it interesting that all of these nominees of Republican Presidents but I guess that can be explained by the Democratic majority in the Senate up to the Reagan years and then the close split every since.

Superbelt · 10-26-2004, 10:04 AM

Republicans had a huge advantage over the past 40 years of getting their Presidential nominees elected. I bet you will find the ration of Democrat to Republican nominations (post FDR) to severely be weighted to the Republicans.

SirSeymour · 10-26-2004, 10:09 AM

Republicans have actually only held the White House for one more term than the Democrates since FDR. Eight Terms for the GOP and 7 for the Democrats.

Edited for spelling

Superbelt · 10-26-2004, 10:19 AM

If you go back since FDR, yes. But if you stop at 40 years ago, the basis of which I get from:

Quote:

Just from doing a bit of quick research, it appears that there have been 5 rejections of nominees in the last 40 years or so. Here they are with information on the specifics of each from this source:

then the split is 60:40 That starts 40 years ago with Lyndon Johnson.

16 for Democrats and 24 for Republicans.

And in the 24 year span between Nixon in 69 and Bush I up to 93, only Carter split that block for 4 years. That's a lot of SC turnover that the one party got to handle.

63-69

69-74

74-77

77-81

81-89

89-93

93-01

01-05

05-..

SirSeymour · 10-26-2004, 10:48 AM

Ok, I see your point. I was focused on your statement of "post-FDR" and not the last 40 years as a hard number. Since LBJ there have been 11 appointments to the court and all but 2 were made by Republican Presidents. Of course, in the usual way it is with the court, some of those have not worked out like the Presidents would have wished. I am thinking specifically of Lewis Powell who was a appointee of Nixon. His career on the court can only be characterized as moderate and he was often the swing vote (the position currently held by O'Conner). This was said to have vexed Nixon seriously as he was after a genuine conservative for that set.

Also noteworthy is the era prior to this time which was dominated by Democratic Presidents and an incredibly long line of appointments by them. 15 out of 19 appointments were from Democrats. Ike had 4 in the middle to break it up a bit but at one point the entire court was composed of appointements from FDR and Truman, which is something that has not happened since (the whole court being appointments of one party, I mean).

10-25-2004, 06:25 PM	#1 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	Rehnquist Diagnosed with Cancer Prognosis for Rehnquist Depends on Which Type of Thyroid Cancer He Has By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN Published: October 26, 2004 he prognosis for William H. Rehnquist, the 80-year-old Supreme Court chief justice who is being treated for thyroid cancer, depends on the specific type of cancer he has, thyroid experts said in interviews yesterday. The Supreme Court released no information about the pathologic findings or how the disease is being treated beyond saying Chief Justice Rehnquist needed a tracheotomy. That surgical procedure involves cutting a hole into the trachea, or windpipe, to aid breathing. Because a tracheotomy is not part of routine thyroid cancer surgery, the experts, who were not involved in Mr. Rehnquist's case, said they were puzzled why Mr. Rehnquist needed one. The Supreme Court did not say whether Mr. Rehnquist underwent a thyroidectomy, which is a surgical removal of the thyroid gland and a common treatment for thyroid cancer. An estimated 23,600 new cases of thyroid cancer will be detected this year in the United States, mostly in women, the American Cancer Society says. The thyroid is a gland that is in front of the trachea in the neck. Cancers affecting it are often detected when a doctor feels a nodule, or bump, in examining the thyroid. Such cancers may also come to attention when an individual's voice becomes hoarse, as observers said Mr. Rehnquist's has been in recent weeks. Of the four main kinds of thyroid cancer, the papillary type is by far the most common. The cure rate is about 95 percent among younger people. But among older people, the cure rates for papillary thyroid cancer are often lower. A second type, follicular, accounts for about 15 percent of thyroid cancers, and its prognosis is not as favorable as the one for papillary thyroid cancer. Two less common types are anaplastic and medullary thyroid cancers. Dr. Lewis E. Braverman, chief of endocrinology at Boston University, said, "When anaplastic thyroid cancer occurs, it is mostly in old people." Anaplastic thyroid cancer is nearly always fatal and generally runs a rapid course, said Dr. Braverman, editor of a leading textbook on thyroid disease. Medullary thyroid cancers can be familial and is often more aggressive than papillary and follicular. Rarely, a different kind of cancer, lymphomas, can develop in thyroid glands. The need for a tracheotomy in the chief justice's case implies a number of possibilities, said Dr. Paul W. Ladenson, a thyroid expert at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who is president of the American Thyroid Association. One is that the cancer was squeezing on the windpipe, impairing breathing. Another is that the two recurrent laryngeal nerves that control the voice box were accidentally or purposely cut in surgery or that the cancer had spread to invade the nerves, Dr. Ladenson said. He also said the fact that Chief Justice Rehnquist's voice recently became hoarse suggests that the problem may have resulted from an invasion of the nerves. In such cases, a tracheotomy may be needed to help a thyroid cancer patient speak. Still another possibility is that Chief Justice Rehnquist may have needed a tracheotomy because of lung damage that resulted from being a longtime smoker. The court did not say whether the tracheotomy was temporary or permanent. Because it usually takes some time for patients to adapt to a tracheotomy and to care for it like learning to clean it to avoid blockage and infections, the experts said they were surprised that Chief Justice Rehnquist was expected to return to the court next Monday. <hr> So, your 80 year old, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer... If you are the president... what do you do? __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

10-25-2004, 07:07 PM	#3 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Nothing. It is beyond your jurisdiction. Besides, thyroid cancer has a very high survival rate and it is quite possible that Rehnquist will be able to serve for several more years. If he retires or is incapacitated, then you attempt to get a new SC Justice approved by the Senate. He or she will likely be moderate, as this very polarized populous would make it very difficult for a "radical" liberal or conservative to be approved. It is doubtful that this justice would be particularly likely to repeal Roe v. Wade. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

10-26-2004, 04:06 AM	#5 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	I wouldn't think a lame duck president would be able to pass a supreme court nomination before the end of their term. There must be a precedent for this in our history though, no pun intended. It seems though that that is what Rehnquist is insinuating by leaking this news one week before the election. Rehnquist is the leading conservative member on the court and has repeatedly said he wouldn't retire unless a Republican was the president. So if Kerry is elected I predict Rehnquist's health will take an immediate turn for the worse (although it already seems quite grim for the chief justice) forcing him to retire. If this scenario plays out I would expect senate filibusters through Jan. 20 and, of course, ceaseless whinning from the right. Last edited by Locobot; 10-26-2004 at 04:17 AM..

10-26-2004, 10:09 AM	#10 (permalink)
SirSeymour Ambling Toward the Light Location: The Early 16th Century	Republicans have actually only held the White House for one more term than the Democrates since FDR. Eight Terms for the GOP and 7 for the Democrats. Edited for spelling __________________ SQL query SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 Zero rows returned....

10-26-2004, 10:48 AM	#12 (permalink)
SirSeymour Ambling Toward the Light Location: The Early 16th Century	Ok, I see your point. I was focused on your statement of "post-FDR" and not the last 40 years as a hard number. Since LBJ there have been 11 appointments to the court and all but 2 were made by Republican Presidents. Of course, in the usual way it is with the court, some of those have not worked out like the Presidents would have wished. I am thinking specifically of Lewis Powell who was a appointee of Nixon. His career on the court can only be characterized as moderate and he was often the swing vote (the position currently held by O'Conner). This was said to have vexed Nixon seriously as he was after a genuine conservative for that set. Also noteworthy is the era prior to this time which was dominated by Democratic Presidents and an incredibly long line of appointments by them. 15 out of 19 appointments were from Democrats. Ike had 4 in the middle to break it up a bit but at one point the entire court was composed of appointements from FDR and Truman, which is something that has not happened since (the whole court being appointments of one party, I mean). __________________ SQL query SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 Zero rows returned....

10-25-2004, 06:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Hand him a carton of smokes? /tracheotomy-man reference

10-25-2004, 09:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	If he dies before the election, Bush either decides to sit on it, or he has to go moderate. Creating that wedge can easily destroy him. If he dies after the election, or resigns... But before January 20 when Kerry would take office he tries to get a right winger in, but the Senate filibusters through January so Kerry can make his first appointment. They lost their chance when they let the last 4 years go by. I guess they didn't wan't the stigma of having their replacement appointed by the man they made the decision to install in office. SC Judges care about their legacy. As long as GWB doesn't win the election, Rehnquist's replacement will be moderate to liberal.

10-26-2004, 09:26 AM	#7 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I wonder though, if Kerry would try to get a liberal in there to replace Stevens specifically, how long could the senate republicans realistically filibuster the nomination before their reputation becomes tarnished and they get labeled obstructionists. What is the history of opposition to SC justices?

10-26-2004, 10:04 AM	#9 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Republicans had a huge advantage over the past 40 years of getting their Presidential nominees elected. I bet you will find the ration of Democrat to Republican nominations (post FDR) to severely be weighted to the Republicans.