AP is reporting (via HuffingtonPost) that Justice Ginsburg was hospitalized this evening.
The 76-year-old justice, who underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in February, was taken to Washington Hospital Center at 7:45 p.m. EDT as a precaution, a statement from the court said.
Earlier in the day, she had received an iron sucrose infusion to treat an iron deficiency anemia that had been discovered in July.
About an hour later, she "developed lightheadedness and fatigue," the statement said. She was found to have a slightly low blood pressure, which the court said can occur after the type of treatment she received.
Although an examination found her to be in stable health, she was given fluids and taken to the hospital as a precaution, the court said.
While this sounds like another scary story that amounts to nothing, it does remind that two of the strongest liberal voices on the court are dangerously close to leaving, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Stevens.
Are we really prepared for the full court press that we're going to need to force President Obama not to decide to push the court further right . . . again?
If you're not a court watcher, it may be time to read up.
Suggestions?
Jeffery Toobin's The Nine
Marbury v. Madison -- a seminal case identifying the role of the court in constitutional review, either a power grab or the actualization of the ideals of checks and balances as enunciated in the constitution (still very relevant to discussions of "activist judges).
Suggest more!
I fear that Obama has a world view of the court that is becoming passe. He appears to view the court as a place of respect and reverence. A place of intellectual arguments and reasoned thoughts. A pre-Souter view of the court.
When Souter didn't dance the way Bush I expected him to, the Republicans stopped selecting thoughtful and cautious justices.
With the coming of Justices Alito and Roberts (joining Justices Scalia and Thomas, the most stringent of ideologues), the court has taken a very hard turn toward the right. One key test for this is the recently discussed Hillary the Movie case (aka Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) in which the court requested that the parties re-brief and reargue the case on a much more extreme point of argument -- whether McCain Feingold can legally bind corporations, or whether the Supreme Court should trod on precedence and radically alter campaign financing laws.
This is the kind of change that will have profound and immediate implications on American Politics, allowing the Republicans to recover the finance lead -- essentially tapping into the virtually limitless cash supplies of U.S. corporations. (Imagine if wal-mart could put a sign on the front door telling customers that Democrat Y is going to raise your taxes and force them to close the local superstore, doesn't that sound peachy?).
So that's where we are on the right -- politics are in the court house. The issues are ruled on the basis of the needs of the political party which sent the Justice.
On the left, we have careful and due deliberation.
Damn.
Update: More good suggestions from down the comment tree:
(hopeful suggests)
Mapp v. Ohio - applying the exclusionary rule to states. The exclusionary rule bars prosecutors from bringing in evidence which was obtained improperly without a warrant.
Miranda v. Arizona - Law and Order fans should be able to guess -- but this established notification rights for folks being taken into custody (i.e. you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you . . . etc)
Brown v. Board of Education - ending segregation, after a few tries.
Griswold v. Connecticut - barring states from preventing married couples from using contraception.
Roe v. Wade - everyone should be at least familiar with the broad strokes of Roe, essentially protected a woman's right to choose from government interference on privacy grounds. (That is to say, an enumerated right, one not explicitly stated in the constitution, like Judicial Review.)
And I'm going to add Loving v. Virginia - which brought an end to anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S. (laws banning interracial intercourse).