In this thread, I’ve been on the side of giving McConnell time. He had a medical emergency, possibly cascading issues since then, and I assume he and his wife are either navigating his condition, recovery, or impending death.
Granger’s case is very different; it wasn’t a medical emergency. From that article, she was having dementia issues even prior to the July vote. By the time you’re in memory care there is no question of prognosis – it’s clear you are unfit.
The right thing to do is to resign when you are unfit. It’s critical to set yourself as an example. The individual doesn’t get to decide “I’ve earned this from my years of service”, that’s an honor that others can bestow if appropriate.
I think the correct thing to do at most jobs is to go on disability leave. Not to quit and leave yourself with no health care. Not to pretend you can still do the job.
I have no idea if members of Congress can go on disability leave, or what happens if they do.
Maybe this is true by the definition of Alzheimer’s. But there are plenty of case reports in the medical literature of Alzheimer’s misdiagnosis and of recovery after others kinds of dementia.
If a member of Congress is unable to resign due to severe mental disability, they cannot be replaced until their term is over. So if a senator becomes unconscious a week into their term, and lives for another six years, that seat remains vacant for six years. There could be laws passed (state or federal?) to address this, but it isn’t a real problem. The way we reasonably address the likelihood of legislators being out sick is by having a lot of members in the legislature.
That may be the mechanism we use to handle certain cases, but having that mechanism doesn’t free an individual from the responsibility to resign if they are unfit.
I could see an argument that a Congressperson is elected for a term, full stop. If they can’t do the job, for any reason, we have enough Congresspeople to cover.
But to be consistent, then there shouldn’t be replacements for any reason, including death or ejection.
The reason for treating ill members of congress differently from those expelled for a criminal conviction is great compassion for the first and little for the second.
Democrats shouldn’t just have compassion for poor people, including poor people who may have made some bad choices in their life. They should also have a little compassion left for rich people who are down on their luck after making bad choices. That’s Mitch McConnell. Sorry if I just made anyone spit up their coffee. But compassion is the Democratic Party brand. I do not think fighting against someone who cannot fight back is the way. Everyone knows how Trump would be talking if the sick man, who might or might not recover, was Chuck Schumer. We cannot out-Trump Trump. I wish McConnell well.
Granger was in memory care for dementia. I have lots of compassion for people there; it’s likely my fate too. But it doesn’t change that the ethical thing for her to do (or Feinstein or anyone with dementia) is to resign and take Federal Disability Retirement. Dementia and death are equivalent in the ability to execute one’s duties.
McConnell’s case is very different in that we don’t know the facts yet like we now do for Granger. As a result, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t understand what compassion has to do with it. I think all Americans should have robust disability benefits. That doesn’t mean disabled people should be able to block someone from actually doing a job.
We have plenty of legislators without any one or two. But constituent services ate also part of the job. My understanding is that Susan Collins isn’t really trying to run on her legislative record, but on her record of superb constituent services. They matter.
That McConnell may just stay in office until his term is up, even if he’s incapable of speaking, is not a him problem. It’s a Congress (both branches, i believe) problem. But it is a problem.
Which there is no formal mechanism for, beyond the Senate itself expelling someone, last successfully done for supporting the Confederate rebellion (during the Civil War itself, not…well, let’s take the obvious joke as read).
I don’t see it happening for someone with a serious physical or mental condition, which even for Senators would look bad.
Not necessarily. CPR on a functioning heart can disrupt the heart rhythm. And CPR almost always result in cracked ribs, especially in older patients. It’s not uncommon for the cracked ribs to lacerate internal organs, like the liver or spleen.
All of these potential side effects are only worth it if the person is going to die otherwise. But certainly not worth it if you don’t actually need CPR. Not to mention the fact that you can screw up the person’s heart rhythm if they don’t actually need it.
Yeah, we keep coming back to this. In 240ish years, no one has established a provision for having a Member of Congress involuntarily pensioned off for disability. The text of the Constitution does not provide an alternative to expulsion for cause and as mentioned it has only been used for cases of grave misconduct (post-Civil War only 3 times, all in the House)
There have been instances of Senators so severely incapacitated they truly missed whole years until either death in office or their term ending and being unable to run for reelection. Meanwhile there have been cases of Congresspeople winning election or reelection but having had something happen too late to be replaced on the ballot, or after election day, that rendered them unable to swear in so the House declared a vacancy. But that’s a different case as at noon on January 3 you are not holding office.
Yes, our constitution is imperfect in many ways. This is one of them.
So the fact that he’s tying up a spot when he’s incapable of performing the job feels to me like a constitutional problem, not a problem with him. Should he resign? It’s he even competent to resign?
Anyway, i find it hard to feel sympathy for the guy, but it sucks to be severely disabled, and his disability is not his fault.
While I don’t know that you’re accusing present company of engaging in political attacks against the person of Mitch McConnell, I do want to point out that few in this thread are doing that. Rather, most all here have been specifically criticizing the cover-up of McConnell’s condition by his staff and current handlers.
Directly attacking the person for his infirmity would be Trumpian. Criticizing the information-handling about McConnell’s condition is very much fair game.
I think I said it before, but he has no obligation to really do anything, legally or (in my opinion) morally. Whether he is capable of it or not. If he disappeared and we never hear anything about it until his term expires and his replacement took office, I’d be okay with it. And not just because he’s a Republican and an empty non-voting seat is a good thing for the country; if he were a Democrat I’d be okay with it too.
The only thing that I’m not okay with is what looks like a bunch of lying from the part of Republicans. If you don’t want the truth to get it, say nothing. Say he’s dealing with medical issues that are personal and his privacy needs to be respected, period.
The only one who doesn’t deserve any blame (in this particular instance at least) is McConnell himself.
Yes, I agree that it’s problematic to lie about his condition. I’m not 100% certain we’ve seen much of that. I suspect he went from bad to worse after being hospitalized.