Opinion: Supreme disclosure
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
When the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist underwent surgery for thyroid cancer in 2004, reporters who covered the court -- me included -- had to decipher an opaque press release about his illness. The release said that Rehnquist had been given a tracheotomy ‘in connection with a diagnosis of thyroid cancer.’ But it didn’t specify the type of thyroid cancer, forcing reporters to conduct hurried surveys of cancer specialists willing to speculate about the seriousness of Rehnquist’s condition.
A similar scavenger hunt occurred in 2007 when Rehnquist’s successor, John G. Roberts Jr., suffered a seizure while on vacation. Doctors and journalists alike had to speculate about whether Roberts would be prescribed anti-seizure medicine.
Even so, Americans knew more about these episodes than they did about the senility of previous members of the court until it was documented by the historian David Garrow.
Which brings me to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose surgery for pancreatic cancer was disclosed Thursday -- the same day it occurred. The statement from the court was brief but detailed, including the information that a ‘Computerized Axial Tomography (CAT) Scan revealed a small tumor, approximately 1 cm across, in the center of the pancreas.’
As with Rehnquist and Roberts, Ginsburg was soon the subject of speculative news stories, but in her case there was less of a guessing game. That’s as it should be. Justices are known for their love of privacy -- Justice David Souter once said that ‘the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it’s going to roll over my dead body’ -- but they’re important public officials and the state of their health ought to be a matter of public record.
* Photo of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by Getty Images