169

Summary

Texas Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger, 81, has not voted in the US House since July while reportedly dealing with dementia and living in a senior facility.

Her absence, undisclosed until media investigation, raises concerns about representation in her district and her capacity to serve.

Granger, a long-time legislator and former House Appropriations chair, announced plans to retire in 2025.

Critics argue her condition may have impacted her 2022 re-election. Local Republicans called her absence troubling amid critical votes, prompting broader debates on aging lawmakers’ transparency and governance.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Veedem@lemmy.world 69 points 6 days ago

How the hell does she not retire immediately? She’s in a senior home. She’s not representing her district at all.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 56 points 6 days ago

More to the point, how the hell does that not immediately trigger a special election to replace her? She clearly can't be trusted in the position.

[-] spongebue@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

I agree she has no business having her seat, but if you implement some trigger for an immediate special election for this and similar things like it, either something else will be missed, or it will has a risk of a back door for abuse

[-] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 45 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Age. Limits. And mandatory retirement.

Let that be the fucking legacy of every god-damn boomer.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago

I'd rather have mandatory cognitive tests. Start them at fifty, since some people develop early-onset dementia. Fail a cognitive test, you're out, regardless of age.

[-] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Nah. That's very arbitrary. An age is a definitive and objective number, "mental capacity" is so vague, and should not ever be a thing in political offices (that's up to voters to decide if they are "mentally capable" of doing the job). Using arbitray test like "mental capacity" are like those "literacy tests", its make the test administrators the de facto decision maket of who gets to be in office. Not a good precedent to set.

Rules should be clear and easy to implement & enforce. Example: 65 years old mandatory retirement. Simple, straightforward.

Besides cognitive issues, after 65 you probably won't experience the consequences your decisions in your lifetime.

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 6 days ago

Age is more arbitrary than is the result of a cognitive evaluation.

Cognitive evaluation looks like:

Bernie Sanders = Dementia

Trump = Totally fine and nothing wrong

-Sincerely, the totally unbiased psychologist

[-] Reyali@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

More arbitrary but less abusable. One is applied evenly to all people, regardless of people’s opinions or views. The other can be changed and manipulated in a way that knocks out political opponents.

I agree that cognitive ability is more important to me than a person’s age. I live with that observation every day with my parents. They are both around 80, and I would argue my mom is almost as sharp as she ever was; I have no concerns about her decision making. However, my dad is struggling more and more all the time; he’s shown decline for many years now and is at the point we’re not comfortable with him making many decisions or taking on complex tasks. A rule applied to one would not be equally appropriate for the other.

However, if we implement something, I would rather it be a rule that we can apply to all. I don’t trust the government to consistently and reasonably apply cognitive tests that don’t introduce bias.

Edit: autocorrect typo

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

At the very least, reporting debilitating medical conditions needs to be a legal requirement for holding office. It's a national security issue.

And that legal requirement shouldn't be applied to the congressmember, but to the office itself. There's no way the staff didn't know, so the entire office should carry an obligation to report, that way someone will do it.

[-] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Normal person with dementia: gets fired immediately as soon as employer find out

Congress people: ⬆️

(Edit: Btw, congressmembers have much better retirement fund than a normal person, so there's really no reason for a congressmember to continue "working", other than to stay in power.)

[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 6 points 6 days ago

I highly doubt their retirement plan can outperform their legal insider trading options.

[-] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago

If I didn't show up to work for 6 months, they'd stop paying me - surely there would be a case to force her to return the salary she drew while not actually performing any of her duties?

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 21 points 6 days ago

Bet she still gets paid, regardless.

[-] argh_another_username@lemmy.ca 15 points 6 days ago

And her insurance probably covers EVERYTHING.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The amount of elder-abuse that is happening just so their families can keep sucking down taxpayer money is fucking sickening.

To be clear, that's not the main reason it happens. The main reason it actually happens is that it's really fucking easy to convince someone with fucking dementia that they need to vote a certain way, because they won't even know what they're fucking voting on anyway.

But whether politics or family, the entire enterprise is fucking harrowingly foul.

[-] politicalincorruption@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

If this pathetic human was working at McDonalds she would have been fired the first day she skipped work in July. 😡

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 6 days ago

Tbh I think she owes We The People some of that congressional salary back. And a major apology. The right thing to do would have been to stand the fuck down. Dementia or not, she was unable to do her job.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 days ago

For Pete’s sake can we institute some age limits on these “representatives” already?!?!

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Don't worry guys, after the Elonbrain implant she is back to normal and will be voting correctly for now on!

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Isn't the house currently (2025) separated by 1 seat?

[-] thessnake03@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

She didn't run in 2024

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Donnie Poopypants found another cabinet nominee.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 3 points 6 days ago

if elder- and health- care was treated as a normal part of life and funded socially instead of a premium lifestyle there would be less incentive for her family to abuse her like this :(

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago

As a Texan, I worry that this revelation will make her more popular with the dumb assholes around me

this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
169 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19248 readers
2113 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS