Justice Ginsburg had colon cancer 10 years ago. Because of that, she has a screen every year as part of her physical. This is standard procedure for cancer survivors.

How many of us get abdominal CT scans at our annual physical? I know I sure don't. My doctor never suggests I have one and if he did, I wouldn't be able to afford it. Perhaps Justice Ginsburg had the scan because of her history of colon cancer, but it seems to me that the wealthy in this country avail themselves of an awful lot of screening (for cancer, aneurysms, AVM) that 99% of us cannot.

Huh? Do you know how to read?

I hope and pray this surgery didn't affect her mentally. Anesthesia can really be hard on older people.

Is everything about politics and how "your party" shapes up? My god, I do not like Jimmie Carter at all but my heart goes out to him as he lost many of his family to this dreadful cancer. Do you go a wake and ask if the person lying there is a Republican or Democrat?

So shallow, the two of you. I hope your not EMT's or doctors as I would have to hide my political views before you treated me.

Grow up.

Did I stir up a fuss? Of course I was being coy in that first post. Of course I'll say it: I'd much rather see Scalia or Thomas go down than Ginsburg. She's a great woman full of humanity and those two ghouls aren't fit to touch the hem of her robe. And forget cancer, I'd like them taken out by a lightning strike or something quicker if it can be found. Cancer would just give their ghoulish supporters something to sympathize with.

It's all so unfair in so many ways. In these early days of the Obama presidency, when we're already seeing signs of the hard road ahead -- the Republicans continuing to vote as a bloc with the stick still firmly up their collective ass; the media's continuing ability to ignore complexity and celebrate inanity; a significant portion of the population still unconvinced that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 -- it sure would be nice for our Fearless Leader to have a chance to replace a justice who needs replacing. Why the hell are we shouting at each other about who wished what on whom? We all need help. Together. Badly.

Can find someone who's occasionally paid their taxes when it comes time to replace her.

You're right of course and I appreciate you stating that to me without all the name calling. It's nice to have a forum where people can treat each other respectfully while disagreeing.

That being said, I think the problem so far with this thread and my participation in it has not been about having a preference or even stating a preference, it's been about atatching actual names to that preference. The very first letter in this thread was by a writer that stated a preference but didn't name names. Another writer said that cancer isn't a creative enough death for Scalia or Thomas. Yet I am the one that get s called a "huge yawning asshole" and told that I should fuck off. So the anger I seem to have provoked doesn't stem from having a preference or even stating that I have a preference, it's that I actually expressed what that preference was. Why is that any different?

As to the central point of you letter, you're right of course; me stating that I have a preference doesn't change a damn thing and it doesn't affect the eventual outcome, no matter what it is. But people all the time express preferences over things they can't control and things that won't happen. People who get cancer express a preference that it had never happened to them, but it did. Lots of people on these very boards have expressed at one time or another that George W. Bush or Dick Cheney be removed from office even though that was a futile dream that was never going to happen.

I guess my problem with all of this is that all I did was state a preference, and named names, where others only stated that they had a preference but didn't name names, even though we might be able to make an educated guess as to who they WOULD have named. Why aren't you pointing out to THEM that they shouldn't even bother with stating a preference since their preference won't have any affect on this horrible situation. I still think I am labeled the "huge yawning asshole" because I actually named names of people I would prefer get sick ahead of Justice Ginsburg and not because I stated thatt I have preference in the first place and then stopped writing, your very respectful letter notwithstanding. But I do appreciate your tone a great deal more than that taken by Aeschylus who I assume to be a Caribbean-educated chiropractor.

A heartfelt wish for a speedy recovery for Justice Ginsberg. I'm quite sure that an "esq" as accomplished and classy as Justice Ginsberg is not spending her time speculating who else on the Court she wishes would have gotten it instead of her (but all the while making it clear that she is NOT, of course WISHING it on anyone else...)

Gavin,

Since none of us can choose who would get this horrible illness, it makes no sense to have a preference. I can say that I would prefer that a large asteroid not hit the earth tomorrow and wipe out all human life, but it really makes no difference what I prefer. There is therefore no point in stating the preference.

My God. As I specifically said in the first in the very first sentence of my very first letter, I do not wish cancer on anyone. But if cancer must happen, as indeed it must, apparently, why WOULDN'T I want Scalia or Thomas to get it instead of Ginsburg?

Keep in mind that this letter was in response to another poster who was not as impolitic as I apparently must have been as he refused to name names. Never mind that his sentiment was pretty much the same as I expressed and never mind that I have said multiple times that I don't want cancer to claim ANYONE. Just pay attention to the fact that if someone has to get sick, I would prefer it be someone that can be replaced with a new justice by a POTUS that I want picking for the Supreme Court.

If I could, I would wipe cancer off the face of the Earth entirely and no one would ever get it again. Like everybody, I know people who have died from cancer and I have seen people dear to me suffer greatly as a result of it. I don't like it and it's not that I WANT Scalia to get it, but I don't want Ginsburg to get it either and and I have a great deal more respect and admiriation for her than I do for Scalia and Thomas.

Look at it this way: If someone you know or know of has to get cancer, would you prefer it be a family member or friend or someone you don't know and/or don't like? Anyone here choosing a family member? Of course not. And while I am not related to Justice Ginsburg, the same concept applies here. I want the people I like, love, respect, admire, etc. to be happy and healthy and I have no problem saying that I would prefer some I do NOT know get this horrible disease over my own wife/mother/daughter.

This is the same exact concept I applied to Justice Ginsburg except that I don't know her. But, like my own family members, what she (and Scalia and Thomas) do affects me directly. Their rulings have practically limitless effects on how I live my life day-to-day, so if someone has to get sick I want it to be the person who will make the rulings that affect my life in the way I want it affected.

If God himself came to me and said "One of these people will get cancer, you pick who, George W. Bush, Antonin Scalia or your mother, I can damn sure tell you who I will NOT be picking. Aeschylus, are you going to pick your mother? I don't feel like I need to apologize for the fact that I will NOT be picking my own.

Again, to be clear: NOT wishing cancer on anyone. Wishing cancer didn't exist at all. But if it must, I would not in the least object to Scalia getting it instead of Ginsburg just as I have no problem preferring that ANY of them (Ginsburg included) get it instead of my own mother.