Sandra Day O'Connor announces likely Alzheimer's diagnosis





WASHINGTON (AP) - Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court, announced Tuesday that she has the beginning stages of dementia, "probably Alzheimer's disease."

The 88-year-old said in a public letter that her diagnosis was made some time ago and that as her condition has progressed she is "no longer able to participate in public life."

"While the final chapter of my life with dementia may be trying, nothing has diminished my gratitude and deep appreciation for the countless blessings in my life," she wrote. She added: "As a young cowgirl from the Arizona desert, I never could have imagined that one day I would become the first woman justice on the U.S. Supreme Court."

O'Connor's announcement of her diagnosis came a day after a story by The Associated Press that she had stepped back from public life and in which her son Jay O'Connor said that his mother had begun to have challenges with her short term memory. He also said that hip issues have meant she now primarily uses a wheelchair and stays close to her home in Phoenix. O'Connor last spoke in public more than two years ago.

O'Connor was a state court judge before being nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, who fulfilled a campaign promise by nominating a woman to the Supreme Court. O'Connor had graduated third in her class from Stanford Law School and was the first woman to lead the Arizona state senate. She was 51 when she was unanimously confirmed to the high court. On the Supreme Court, her votes were key in cases about abortion, affirmative action and campaign finance as well as the Bush v. Gore decision effectively settling the 2000 election in George W. Bush's favor.

O'Connor was 75 when she announced her retirement from the court in 2005. It was a decision influenced by the decline in the health of her husband, John O'Connor III, who himself had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement that he was "saddened to learn" that O'Connor "faces the challenge of dementia."

"Although she has announced that she is withdrawing from public life, no illness or condition can take away the inspiration she provides for those who will follow the many paths she has blazed," Roberts wrote.

COMMENTS

More Related News

Your "Forgetfulness" Could Be a Sign of a Another Problem-and It's Not Alzheimer's
Your "Forgetfulness" Could Be a Sign of a Another Problem-and It's Not Alzheimer's

You can't remember something you never heard and you can't follow directions if you didn't hear them right.

War memorial or religious symbol? Cross fight reaches U.S. high court
War memorial or religious symbol? Cross fight reaches U.S. high court
  • US
  • 2019-02-22 12:42:06Z

There was nothing about it that made me think it was anything other than a Christian cross," Edwords, 70, said in an interview. Edwords and two other plaintiffs filed a 2014 lawsuit challenging the cross as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion and bars governmental actions favoring one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause's scope is a matter of dispute, most Supreme Court experts predict the challenge to the Peace Cross will fail, with the justices potentially setting a new precedent allowing greater government involvement in religious expression.

Does a 40-foot Latin cross honoring World War I veterans violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court will decide.
Does a 40-foot Latin cross honoring World War I veterans violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court will decide.

The Supreme Court considers whether a Latin cross to honor World War I dead violates the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously to Limit Civil Forfeiture Laws
Supreme Court Rules Unanimously to Limit Civil Forfeiture Laws

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously to Limit Civil Forfeiture Laws

SCOTUS Cracks Down on Civil Asset Forfeiture
SCOTUS Cracks Down on Civil Asset Forfeiture

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that state and local governments are not exempt from the Constitutional prohibition against imposing "excessive fines" on citizens, significantly constraining the ability of law enforcement to seize the property of criminal suspects.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight of the nine justices, argued that state and local governments unconstrained by the Eighth Amendment's excessive-fines clause are likely to abuse their power."For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties," Ginsburg wrote. "Excessive fines...

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Economy

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.