September 25, 2009 10:21 AM

Supreme Court's Ginsburg Hospitalized

By
CBSNews
(CBS/ AP)  Last updated at 11:17 p.m. Eastern

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized Thursday after becoming ill in her office at the court following treatment for an iron deficiency.

The 76-year-old justice, who underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in February, will remain in the Washington Hospital Center overnight as a precautionary measure, according to the Supreme Court Press Office.

She had received an iron sucrose infusion at 4:50 p.m. to treat a deficiency 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.

The July evaluation found "that she was in completely normal health with the exception of a low red blood cell count caused by deficiency of iron. Intravenous iron therapy was administered in a standard fashion," the court statement said.

Ginsburg underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in February but returned to work quickly.

It's not uncommon for Justices, especially the older ones, to have ailments from time to time, said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. Most recently, the former Chief Justice William Rehnquist was able to perform his duties despite the fact that he was very sick, in many ways more ill than Ginsburg.

"She survived pancreatic cancer," Cohen said. "But clearly the treatments and side effects take their toll from time to time, especially for a 76-year-old woman. She's only the second female Justice and by all accounts a key part of the Court's inner dynamic."

Two months after her surgery, Ginsburg told law students at a symposium at Ohio State University that serving on the Supreme Court was "the best and the hardest job I've ever had." She said at the time that she wanted to match the tenure of Justice Louis Brandeis, who served for more than two decades and retired at age 82.

Nominated by President Bill Clinton, Ginsburg took her seat on the Supreme Court on Aug. 10, 1993. She had been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 1980.

CBS/ AP
Add a Comment See all 13 Comments
by gboyd41 September 25, 2009 4:16 AM EDT
HaroldR1074- I do agree with your reply to Sabe, but you left out good-ole Pete Stark and Claire McCaskill. However ,if you look at the polls regarding Reid, he may not be in the spotlight much longer. The good people of Nevada may just send him packing. Oh, don't forget about Congressman Cleaver, who voted for ACORN.
Reply to this comment
by jaslet101 September 25, 2009 2:02 AM EDT
Ginsburg is a terrible SC nominee. She doesn't even need to hear the arguments; she automatically sides with the liberal side, and then picks and chooses asinine points to justify her liberal indulgence. She couldn't possibly be any more liberal. And I'm glad to know that she's all for free speech at least, because that gives me the right to say that she won't be missed by me when she croaks.
Reply to this comment
by tmittelstaed September 25, 2009 2:54 AM EDT
Clarence Thomas is even worse than her on the other side, he is even opposed at times by the rest of the conservatives on the court due to his extremism. He's the only one who voted for strip-searching 14 year old girls in school, every other conservative on the court opposed that.

If Ginsburg is even as half as liberal as you say, then she has to be that way to counterbalance Thomas.
by democracy1 September 25, 2009 9:29 AM EDT
jaslet101--cite a reference to back up your assertions. Give me a break.
by tiredofthebs September 24, 2009 9:59 PM EDT
I wish Justice Ginsburg well. Just as LIBERALS feared the court would swing too far RIGHT, I fear it will swing too far LEFT for my moderate views if President Obama gets too many opportunities to appoint.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 September 24, 2009 10:16 PM EDT
He didn't with his first pick.

Sotomayor was right down the middle with her previous rulings.
by hungry1968-16 September 24, 2009 9:57 PM EDT
What we REALLY need is for Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito to retire / step down / move on.... whatever.

Then Obama can appoint someone that thinks more like main stream America, rather than the nazi like, tobacco chewing, trailer dwelling extremist conservatives that make up 15% of the country - mostly in the deep south.
Reply to this comment
by tmittelstaed September 25, 2009 2:50 AM EDT
He didn't say Republicans he said trailer dwelling extremist conservatives. Unfortunately, way too many Republicans don't seem to understand how a minority of trailer dwelling extremist conservatives within the Republican party has ended up in control of the Republican party and handed it over to the religious nutcases to run. It's them who produced George Bush and while the rest of you all agree that he was a terrible President who did enormous damage to your party, you don't seem to have figured out that until you get rid of the trailer trash who are in control of your party, your not going to win the Presidency again.
by democracy1 September 25, 2009 9:01 AM EDT
by HaroldR1074 September 25, 2009 12:21 AM EDT
If you went to college, you deserve a refund on your tuition. And if the average Republican makes more than the average Democrat, please explain why the majority of the wealth is concentrated in the Blue states. Even allowing for people such as yourself, statistically your assertion is highly suspect.
by jaslet101 September 24, 2009 9:14 PM EDT
I hope she gets better too, only so that Obama doesn't get another SC pick anytime soon. She says this has been the hardest job for her? I don't see how it could be hard to ALWAYS vote with the liberal viewpoint. This woman never met an affirmative-action, minority victim legitamizing, big-government, liberal hearing she didn't vote for. Her rulings are filled with some of the most distorted logic, which often countervene her stated basis for previous rulings, proving that her liberal mind automatically sides with the liberal position and then she uses some obfuscating reasoning to justify her position. She's been as close to an activist judge as you can possibly find.
Reply to this comment
by lloydbest1 September 25, 2009 1:12 AM EDT
So what? Ya think Scalia's or Thomas are any better?
by sabestu September 24, 2009 8:40 PM EDT
HaroldR1074... What you state is solely one person's opinion in which I totally disagree with you. You know what is said regarding opinions, do you not?

It's great to be an American, huh Herold!?
Reply to this comment
by democracy1 September 25, 2009 8:56 AM EDT
by HaroldR1074 September 24, 2009 9:02 PM EDT
The problem with Ginsburg is that she was never voted in and she is employed for life. What a travesty.
**************
Please name one, just ONE justice of the SC that does not meet that description, now or EVER!

Have a problem with Article 2 Section 2 of the United States Constitution, do ya?
See all 13 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook