McCain's Glioblastoma

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 21345
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

McCain's Glioblastoma

Post by Addie » Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:01 pm

Thread title changed

---------------------------------

New York Times
McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

The condition for which Senator John McCain had surgery on Friday may be more serious than initial descriptions have implied, and it may delay his return to Washington by at least a week or two, medical experts said on Sunday.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has already announced that votes on a bill to dismantle the Affordable Care Act will not begin until Mr. McCain’s return. A statement released by Mr. McCain’s office on Saturday had suggested that he would be in Arizona recovering for just this week, but neurosurgeons interviewed said the typical recovery period could be longer.

The statement from Mr. McCain’s office said a two-inch blood clot was removed from “above his left eye” during a “minimally invasive craniotomy with an eyebrow incision” at the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix, “following a routine annual physical.” Surgeons there are not conducting interviews, and Mr. McCain’s communications director, Julie Tarallo, said no further information was available.

A craniotomy is an opening of the skull, and an eyebrow incision would be used to reach a clot in or near the left frontal lobes of the brain, neurosurgeons who were not involved in Mr. McCain’s care said.
¡Qué vergüenza!

SLQ
Posts: 1573
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by SLQ » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:07 pm

Is it just me, or does this seem awfully convenient?

TexasFilly
Posts: 16934
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by TexasFilly » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:24 pm

I don't think it's convenient, but it's incredibly ironic.
I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 12962
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:18 am

TexasFilly wrote:I don't think it's convenient, but it's incredibly ironic.
Thanks Obamacare!

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8563
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:23 am

A two inch blood clot ANYWHERE is not a minor thing. I would be willing to bet there are more issues than what they have mentioned. Particularly for someone of his age and general ill health, this is not something you get up and walk away from in a a week, particularly not at his age. I am expecting him to be out longer than a week, and probably longer than two.

I do find it interesting that they don't want to vote without him there, is it really that close?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Dan1100
Posts: 1410
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Dan1100 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:32 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:A two inch blood clot ANYWHERE is not a minor thing. I would be willing to bet there are more issues than what they have mentioned. Particularly for someone of his age and general ill health, this is not something you get up and walk away from in a a week, particularly not at his age. I am expecting him to be out longer than a week, and probably longer than two.

I do find it interesting that they don't want to vote without him there, is it really that close?
Rand Paul and Susan Collins both say they will vote "No" on whether to proceed with debate.

That makes only 50 "Yes" Republicans and 48 Democrats plus 2 Republicans "No", so Pence breaks the tie. If McCain isn't there, it is only 49 Republicans "Yes" and 48 Democrats plus Paul and Collins makes 50 "no" and they lose .
"Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, 'I forgot armed robbery was illegal.' "

-Steve Martin

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 13378
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by kate520 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:23 am

Does the clot explain his rather incoherent questions at the Congressional hearing last whenever?
Patriotism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel.
Samuel Johnson
April 7, 1775

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Suranis » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:41 am

To my mind, the big danger in McCain being out is that it reduces pressure on the other senators. If the Legislation is DOA then there is no pressure to vote yes, so the unsure people can toss a "No" in and fuck McConnel. If its a nailbiter McConnel will be whipping everyone towards a yes position with everything he has got, and the individual Senators don't have much of a defense.
"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 4990
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:26 am

Suranis wrote:To my mind, the big danger in McCain being out is that it reduces pressure on the other senators. If the Legislation is DOA then there is no pressure to vote yes, so the unsure people can toss a "No" in and fuck McConnel. If its a nailbiter McConnel will be whipping everyone towards a yes position with everything he has got, and the individual Senators don't have much of a defense.
Or could it work the other way: if the bill mathematically cannot pass (assuming Democrat loyalty, which I think is a good assumption), then a Republican senator can vote either way, whichever suits his/her personal preferences and views on what will play with his constituents. So s/he can vote "yes" if s/he thinks it's an appalling bill that absolutely must not pass, while believing that a "yes" vote will play much better with constituents and the leadership.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Suranis » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:37 am

Very true.
"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

Judge Mental
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:29 am

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Judge Mental » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:24 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:A two inch blood clot ANYWHERE is not a minor thing. I would be willing to bet there are more issues than what they have mentioned. Particularly for someone of his age and general ill health, this is not something you get up and walk away from in a a week, particularly not at his age. I am expecting him to be out longer than a week, and probably longer than two.

I do find it interesting that they don't want to vote without him there, is it really that close?
Apparently Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska's vote is a potential problem for the Repubs even if McCain is there voting.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ealth-care

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by pipistrelle » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:55 am

kate520 wrote:Does the clot explain his rather incoherent questions at the Congressional hearing last whenever?
I was going to post this as well. It could explain intermittent incoherence, especially if there's an underlying issue causing it.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by pipistrelle » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:58 am

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Suranis wrote:To my mind, the big danger in McCain being out is that it reduces pressure on the other senators. If the Legislation is DOA then there is no pressure to vote yes, so the unsure people can toss a "No" in and fuck McConnel. If its a nailbiter McConnel will be whipping everyone towards a yes position with everything he has got, and the individual Senators don't have much of a defense.
Or could it work the other way: if the bill mathematically cannot pass (assuming Democrat loyalty, which I think is a good assumption), then a Republican senator can vote either way, whichever suits his/her personal preferences and views on what will play with his constituents. So s/he can vote "yes" if s/he thinks it's an appalling bill that absolutely must not pass, while believing that a "yes" vote will play much better with constituents and the leadership.
Given the "popularity" of all these Republican proposals, this is playing well with a tiny minority of constituents anywhere.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8563
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:36 am

pipistrelle wrote:
kate520 wrote:Does the clot explain his rather incoherent questions at the Congressional hearing last whenever?
I was going to post this as well. It could explain intermittent incoherence, especially if there's an underlying issue causing it.
That is along with my thoughts on the issue, I think there has to be some serious underlying conditions if that is happening.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 1654
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by MN-Skeptic » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:11 pm

Just curious... does anyone know what the Arizona rules are to replace McCain if he is forced to resign because of health issues?

noblepa
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by noblepa » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:18 pm

MN-Skeptic wrote:Just curious... does anyone know what the Arizona rules are to replace McCain if he is forced to resign because of health issues?

Google is your friend!

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- ... enate.aspx

According to this site, the AZ governor gets to appoint the replacement, but he/she must be of the same party as the vacating senator. So, if McCain did resign for health reason, it would not change the balance of power in the Senate.

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Gregg » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:21 pm

Most states do Governor Appointment to next national election, if its not when the term would have ended, election is only for unfinished term.
Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14069
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Reality Check » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:26 pm

MN-Skeptic wrote:Just curious... does anyone know what the Arizona rules are to replace McCain if he is forced to resign because of health issues?
I found this link:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- ... enate.aspx

In Arizona the governor appoints a replacement who serves until the end of the term or the next general election. The appointee has to be from the same political party as the vacating senator. So if McCain retired he would be replaced by a Republican who would have to run and win in 2018 to serve the last four years of the term.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40882
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:13 pm

noblepa wrote:
MN-Skeptic wrote:Just curious... does anyone know what the Arizona rules are to replace McCain if he is forced to resign because of health issues?

Google is your friend!

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- ... enate.aspx

According to this site, the AZ governor gets to appoint the replacement, but he/she must be of the same party as the vacating senator. So, if McCain did resign for health reason, it would not change the balance of power in the Senate.
I believe the statute that requires same party appointments to be unconstitutional. It goes beyond what the constitution permits a state to do.

bob - has that law ever been tested? I see standing problems, although they can be overcome if the Governor has the will to defy the law. (And if the Governor orders a quick election, who cares.)

noblepa
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by noblepa » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:12 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
noblepa wrote:
MN-Skeptic wrote:Just curious... does anyone know what the Arizona rules are to replace McCain if he is forced to resign because of health issues?

Google is your friend!

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- ... enate.aspx

According to this site, the AZ governor gets to appoint the replacement, but he/she must be of the same party as the vacating senator. So, if McCain did resign for health reason, it would not change the balance of power in the Senate.
I believe the statute that requires same party appointments to be unconstitutional. It goes beyond what the constitution permits a state to do.

bob - has that law ever been tested? I see standing problems, although they can be overcome if the Governor has the will to defy the law. (And if the Governor orders a quick election, who cares.)
Right now, its somewhat of a moot point. The current governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, is a republican. He is likely to appoint a republican, should the need arise.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Sterngard, but what part of the Constitution do you base your contention on? The only thing I can find about the election of Senators is Article I, Section 4, sentence 1.
US Constitution wrote:Section 4

1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

I can see an argument FOR same-party appointments: the voters elected a republican/democrat for six years, and they deserve to have a member of that party serve for six years. It could be argued that, in the case of AZ, a democrat governor would be thwarting the will of the people by appointing a democrat.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40882
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:23 pm

noblepa wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
noblepa wrote:

Google is your friend!

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- ... enate.aspx

According to this site, the AZ governor gets to appoint the replacement, but he/she must be of the same party as the vacating senator. So, if McCain did resign for health reason, it would not change the balance of power in the Senate.
I believe the statute that requires same party appointments to be unconstitutional. It goes beyond what the constitution permits a state to do.

bob - has that law ever been tested? I see standing problems, although they can be overcome if the Governor has the will to defy the law. (And if the Governor orders a quick election, who cares.)
Right now, its somewhat of a moot point. The current governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, is a republican. He is likely to appoint a republican, should the need arise.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Sterngard, but what part of the Constitution do you base your contention on? The only thing I can find about the election of Senators is Article I, Section 4, sentence 1.
US Constitution wrote:Section 4

1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

I can see an argument FOR same-party appointments: the voters elected a republican/democrat for six years, and they deserve to have a member of that party serve for six years. It could be argued that, in the case of AZ, a democrat governor would be thwarting the will of the people by appointing a democrat.
Remember that until the 17th amendment senators were elected by state legislatures, so there was no need to have a replacement provision, but then We the People got the vote! So here it is:
The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Short argument: Legislatures which require same party appointments are adding a qualification not in the constitution.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by bob » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:39 pm

:sterngard: is correct that this situation is governed by the 17th Amendment. And there has been some litigation generally around the replacement of senators. (Not that long ago, the 7th Cir. weighed in about the vacancy of then-Sen. Obama's seat.)

Vikram Amar agrees with :sterngard: that this kind of rule is unconstitutional. (Amar specifically references McCain.) The courts, however, would likely punt ("political question") and let the U.S. Senate decide whether to seat a senator appointed by a cross-party governor.

Amar's article discusses John Barrasso. In 2007, Barrasso's predecessor died, but state law required the Democratic governor to consider only the nominees put forth by the Republican party (because Barrasso's predecessor was a Republican). It does not look like Barrasso's appointment was challenged.

The Arizona law (ARS sec. 16-222) has never been challenged in court.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40882
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:07 pm

bob wrote::sterngard: is correct that this situation is governed by the 17th Amendment. And there has been some litigation generally around the replacement of senators. (Not that long ago, the 7th Cir. weighed in about the vacancy of then-Sen. Obama's seat.)

Vikram Amar agrees with :sterngard: that this kind of rule is unconstitutional. (Amar specifically references McCain.) The courts, however, would likely punt ("political question") and let the U.S. Senate decide whether to seat a senator appointed by a cross-party governor.

Amar's article discusses John Barrasso. In 2007, Barrasso's predecessor died, but state law required the Democratic governor to consider only the nominees put forth by the Republican party (because Barrasso's predecessor was a Republican). It does not look like Barrasso's appointment was challenged.

The Arizona law (ARS sec. 16-222) has never been challenged in court.
Let's tell the Lunatic of Rancho Santa Margarita. Maybe she will challenge it even though she's not a citizen of Arizona. She does useful things like that and her star has faded. This would be just the thing to put her back in the spotlight. (Of course, the appointee would have to be from a minority group to get her stirred up.)

User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3071
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Occupation: Senior Scheduling Manager
Chemtrails Program
Human Factors and Behavioral Sciences Division

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Dallasite » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:23 pm

noblepa wrote:the voters elected a republican/democrat for six years, and they deserve to have a member of that party serve for six years.
No, the voters elected a person, not a party, to represent them.
"I drank what?!?!" - Soctates, 399 BC

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 21345
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: McCain's Surgery May Be More Serious Than Thought, Experts Say

Post by Addie » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:08 pm

Whoa, brain cancer. CNN

Adding:
WaPo: Sen. John McCain diagnosed with brain cancer
¡Qué vergüenza!

Post Reply

Return to “Congress”