Rep. Giffords doesn’t have to face this inevitable decision now or tomorrow or in the next few weeks. She will have to face it, however, and as soon as she is well enough to evaluate her situation realistically, she owes it to her district and the country to step down, and let someone take her place as Representative of the 8th District of Arizona.
I would not mention this now, so soon after her horrific shooting, had there not been a news item on the Washington Post’s website with the bizarre headline, “Arizona Statute Could Endanger Gabrielle Giffords’ Hold on Seat.” A statute endangers her seat? I would say that the daunting task of recovering from a bullet hole in her head endangers her seat; and virtually guarantees that she won’t be able to fill it. Almost no medical experts foresee a woman with such massive head injuries being able to return to work within a year, if she can return at all. She only has a two-year term. Is it fair to the people of Arizona, not to mention the country, to have a member of Congress who is unable to work during the days ahead, which are critical to the nation on so many fronts?
In a corporation, a top executive with a similar injury would be put on leave, with a qualified associate taking her place. There is no provision for substitute or temporary members of Congress, however. The nature of Giffords’ injury, even considering her remarkable progress so far, all but guarantees that she won’t be able to fulfill her official duties before the next election.
In these situations, sentiment and compassion tend to overwhelm reality. Everyone wants to see the touching, inspiring moment when Gaby Giffords walks back into the House Chamber, as her colleagues and the nation cheer. We may see that moment, but it is a long way off, and in the meantime there is vital work to be done. The media shouldn’t be sounding alarms about a state statute that would force Giffords to vacate her seat because of disability. The media, and the rest of us, should be concerned about governing the country with a missing representative from Arizona. A tragedy doesn’t alter the priorities. Pray for, root for, cheer on Gabrielle Giffords and look forward to that inspiring comeback in the future. Governing the country still comes first.
Ethics Alarms 
Has she been of her right mind yet, so that she could have resigned?
Almost certainly not. But the Post made it sound like whoever is advising her hasn’t even considered it—which is nuts.
Think I’m with Jeff on this one. Given the nature of head injuries such as hers, I don’t think Giffords should be in any position to make ethical judgments (or important decisions of any kind) until she’s made a complete physical and psychological recovery. It’s too soon to hold her personally responsible for anything done following the shooting until more about her condition is made public. If there are ethical questions to be raised about her seat, we should be asking them of her state, the procedures in place – if any – to handle such a situation, and those responsible for handling those procedures.
I’m certainly not suggesting that she needs or can be expected to make that decision now, but as soon as she can comprehend her situation, it needs to be made—and if she can’t or won’t, the decision needs to be made for her. The fact is, the call could be made immediately, based on what the time-line for recovery is likely to be.
Since when is discriminating against the handicapped ethical?
If she had a broken leg, you wouldn’t be talking this way, the truth
is that mental infirmity has never been grounds for dismissal from
political office. Strom Thurmond comes to mind. Also, it would be
allowing Loughner to profit from his crime. The Seat should remain
Democratic until her term is up, and that means keeping her in there,
and there is no reason for us to allow an act of political violence to
hand everything she cares about politically on a silver platter to her
opponents, the Tea Party. I know about head injuries — I have one,
and we face discrimination at every term, and here, you have the balls
to call yourself an ethicist and advocate this barbaric stance. You
disgust me. No one was asking Ronald Reagan to resign, and he had
Alzheimer’s. In the olden days, when the Washington I grew up in
was civil, for each vote, the Republican and Democratic reps who
could not attend the vote because of family or illness would be paired,
that is to say, a rotating Republican would go see his family to make up
for Giffords’ being unable to vote. That is how a Gentleman handles
these things. If we allow terrorists like Loughner to decide our crucial
votes, and we replace people who are injured and have a good chance
at recovery, just because we don’t like the messy business of life, which
includes injury and impairment, we are giving in to Nietzscheanism,
and abandoning all thought of morals and ethics in favor of might-makes-
right power politics. Instead of her resignation, her Chief of Staff should
be given the ability to vote for her, to enable her policies and bills to go
forward, as a reasonable accommodation of her condition, just as we allow
people who are unable to speak to indicate an aye with a raised hand.
Usually in these cases, a fellow Democrat becomes the co-sponsor of her
bills, and sees them through on her behalf.
You people don’t know anything about brain injury, obviously. The kinds
of impairments she may or may not suffer is completely unknown at this
point. Her impairments could be limited to motor control, or show up in
language, or all sorts of other systems, and she may be completely able
to act as a congresswoman in a few weeks, or, she may be severely
impaired, and unable to contribute except in keeping a Republican from
voting against her votes by the Gentleman’s Agreement. She may only be
able to stand as a symbol. But this does not mean she is not contributing,
or should lose her job due to her disability.
Stomp on the handicapped all you want, it will never be ethical.
Impressive rant. The logic, not so much.
1) Gifford’s District didn’t elect a brain-injured congresswoman. Thurmond was elected with his infirmities well known. Bad analogy.
2) This is not discrimination, any more than telling a one-legged man that he can’t play Tarzan is discrimination. And no court would find it to be such. Get serious.
3) “The Seat should remain Democratic until her term is up, and that means keeping her in there, and there is no reason for us to allow an act of political violence to hand everything she cares about politically on a silver platter to her
opponents, the Tea Party.” If this were in a newspaper, I’d make it the Unethical quote of the Week. The Tea party had nothing to do with her injury, and the important thing is the citizens’ right to be represented, not the parties. Hold a election. If the voters want a Democrat, let them vote for one. The seat is empty if no one’s sitting in it.
4) There’s nothing barbaric about insisting that a Congresswoman should have to be able to read, speak, and do a full day’s work for the bulk of a two year term. I’d have no objection to you taking the job.
5) Reagan was not diagnosed with Alzheimers until he left office. If he was diagnosed in office, he would have resigned—and should have. Another bad analogy. That’s TWO.
6) “Instead of her resignation, her Chief of Staff should be given the ability to vote for her, to enable her policies and bills to go forward, as a reasonable accommodation of her condition, just as we allow people who are unable to speak to indicate an aye with a raised hand.” Write your own Constitution—that’s not how it works, and never has. I gather you were fine with Mrs. Wilson and Wilson’s doctor secretly running the country after President Wilson’s stroke?
7. I know a lot about the history and likelihood of recovery for people shot in the head. To say no one can say whether she will be fully functional is disingenuous, and you know it.
8. Who, exactly, is “you people”? I’m not speaking for anybody.
9. Your argument boils down to this: “I’d rather have a non-functioning Democrat in the position than a duly-elected, fully functioning Republican.” That’s neither ethical, fair, or logical. It’s just partisan bias…
10. …shamelessly using victim-mongering as a cover. You’re busted, pal.
Jack, I think you’re way ahead of things. Already she’s made what her docs called amazing progress. I don’t know what the Arizona law says about special elections, but commonly House vacancies aren’t filled until the next election, which could be November, 2012. So what’s the hurry?
It depends if we think the job of House member is important or not. Most jobs as important as janitor are considered worth keeping filled with able workers–I don’t know why we would say “what’s the hurry?” when a legislator is involved. The woman lost part of her brain. Admittedly, this might put her on even terms with some members, but I’ll lay you 10-1 odds that she’s not coming back to work within the year. [See: Jim Brady]
I would add my voice to those who think a decision on this is a bit premature. It certainly deserves consideration, to be sure. The responsibilities of the State and her district require it. However, despite what we “know” about these kinds of brain injuries (Brady, et al), Giffords *has* shown remarkable progress if the news reports are credible (interviews with her doctor are compelling, at least). Given these reports of a remarkable recovery, it could be said that, given the best case scenario, her recovery time could be no different than other surgeries or health conditions requiring an extended convalescence. In addition to waiting for a more definitive report as to her mental status, there are also concerns about which party would benefit should it be decided she should step aside.
I would agree the issue should be discussed, and I suspect among her family, staff and the party, it probably already has.
What? Who cares “which party”? The state needs full-time representation; the woman lost part of her brain. Politics should have nothing to do with it. I can find no example of someone with an injury of similar seriousness being able to return to work within a year or less.
Perhaps I was being a bit cynical in my comment about one or another party clamoring to fill the seat, but I’m sure it is indeed a strategy being considered. Given the recent news, it would appear you may be correct.
Jack, I take back what I said about your being way ahead of things. After a lot of reflection I think you’re just wrong. You’re taking a consequentialist approach: what’s best for the most people. On this one I’m a Kantian, or maybe even an Aristotelian: It’s wrong to ask this person, shot while doing her job, now making what looks like a brave (partial?) recovery, to give up her life’s work–perhaps even her main reason for living. Her staff can do the constituent service in her absence–they do that anyway. Her district will be without a voting rep until she returns. As far as I’m concerned it’s right and just for her to occupy the seat until January 2013. Unless she’s re-elected.
Oh so puzzled, Bob. I’ve been following this carefully. Nobody is coming right out and saying it, but it is clear that Giffords will be incapacitated to some extent, almost certainly permanently (she has a hole in her brain, and lost part of it.). All frank accounts talk about months of recovery at best, with an uncertain result. Why is it too soon to talk about getting a working Congressional representative into her seat? Are the rights of her constituents really less of a priority than her recovery, outlook, or employment? Again: is this an important job or not? When Gladys Spellman went into a coma before taking office as a Maryland Rep., they vacated the seat and had a special election. Why should this be any different?
I also think the fact that Giffords was injured in the line of duty is completely irrelevant. Would the Army keep a disabled commander in charge on the field of battle who couldn’t function, on the theory that he was owed the right not to do his job, to the detriment of those under him, becuase he was disabled in the line of duty?
This situation is a pure clash between sentiment and empathy with responsibility and citizenship. I want an honest assessment from doctors about how soon she is likely to be able to do her job, and if the answer is, “we don’t know that she ever will,” then there should be a new election.
Let her name be on the ballot: if the citizens of her District want a non-functioning Congressional representative, that’s their (poor) choice.
Strom Thurmond kept getting re-elected, after all.
Sometimes the consequentialist and the Kantian can’t agree. I just think it’s wrong to ask her–or to force her–to step down. Now if she decides that on her own that’s a different story.
Wait a minute—don’t call me a consequentialist! How does that compute? I’m making a flat comparison of relative duties: she is a public servant, and it is ethical for her to choose the public welfare over her own…a duty, in fact. If she won’t or can’t make the call herself, then the government has a duty to make the call for her.
And I would tell Kant that this is a universal principle I would apply is every such case.
And he would agree with me.
Consequentialism—BAH!
yeah, yeah, the republicans create an atmosphere of hate and then one of their opponents get shot and they start calling for her to resign. – the right wing in America has no shame – but I guess when you have no morals or values it’s hard to know what shame is.
Himmmmm. Should I start a feature called: “Idiotic Comment of the Day”? The thing is, I don’t get enough of them, and I certainly don’t need any more. This one, however, is terrific.
You could do it everyday, but you’d have to go to a site that has more traffic. Perhaps you should make it the idiotic comment of the month and keep it pinned to the top of the site for a full month.
Jack, you have time to suggest that Gaby Giffords will not recover quick enough to serve her term in Congress. Where is the ethics in you making a medical diagnosis without being a doctor, nor examining the patient?
I also notice that Gaby (a democrat) should resign so that her position be filled, but you can’t find the time to comment on Clarence Thomas’ lapse of ethics (see http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2011/01/23/copy/u-s–justice-thomas-didnt-disclose-wifes-pay-for-years.html?adsec=politics&sid=101). You should be calling for him to resign, but I guess your politics will get in the way of your ethics.
Needlessly antagonistic and over-the-top comment, Ken….plus you are illogical. 1) There is nothing political about my Giffords comment. If I were Giffords. I’d resign, If I were her advisor, I’d tell her she has an obligation to resign. My opinion would be exactly the same if she were a Republican—I don’t think Republican Congresswomen should stay in office when they are going to be rehabbing for months either. It doesn’t take a medical degree to figure out that anyone with a through and through bullet hole through their brain won’t be back at work any time within a year or more…simple research tells us that. There is nothing unethical about my stating the fact. If she recovers by 2012, she can run for her old seat, and undoubtedly would win in a landslide. If her job is an important one, then it should be filled with someone capable of doing it. I don’t know why that concept is so hard to grasp, or so offensive. When she’s back at work in three months, you can tell me I was wrong, and I’ll happily write a post admitting it. Experience and common sense says she won’t be.
And what the Clarence Thomas story has to do with this, I have no idea. I didn’t know about it (thanks for the link); if I did, I’m not sure I would write about it until I heard his explanation, if any, and no judge would be asked to resign over something like that, even if it was proven to be intentional. A wife’s views,employment and income do not generally create a conflict for a lawyer or a judge in the 21st Century; as Judge Reinhardt wrote recently regarding the imputing of bias to his ruling on the Cal. same-sex marriage case because of his wife’s position as head of the ACLU:
“My wife’s views, public or private, as to any issues that may come before this court, constitutional or otherwise, are of no consequence. She is a strong, independent woman who has long fought for the principle, among others, that women should be evaluated on their own merits and not judged in any way by the deeds or position in life of their husbands (and vice versa). I share that view and, in my opinion, it reflects the status of the law generally, as well as the law of recusal, regardless of whether the spouse or the judge is the male or the female.”
. . .
“Proponents’ contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife’s opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between spouses. When I joined this court in 1980 (well before my wife and I were married), the ethics rules promulgated by the Judicial Conference stated that judges should ensure that their wives not participate in politics. I wrote the ethics committee and suggested that this advice did not reflect the realities of modern marriage–that even if it were desirable for judges to control their wives, I did not know many judges who could actually do so (I further suggested that the Committee would do better to say “spouses” than “wives,” as by then we had as members of our court Judge Mary Schroeder, Judge Betty Fletcher, and Judge Dorothy Nelson). The committee thanked me for my letter and sometime later changed the rule. That time has passed, and rightly so. In 2011, my wife and I share many fundamental interests by virtue of our marriage, but her views regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me, no matter how prominently she expresses them. It is her view, and I agree, that she has the right to perform her professional duties without regard to whatever my views may be, and that I should do the same without regard to hers. Because my wife is an independent woman, I cannot accept Proponents’ position that my impartiality might reasonably be questioned under § 455(a) because of her opinions or the views of the organization she heads.”
I don’t think Thomas’s wife creates a conflict for him any more that Reinhardt’s wife does, and thus while Thomas’s failure to divulge the information about his wife’s income may be an ethics violation, it is not one that goes to his ability to serve on the court.
This is not a partisan website, and it is unfair and unjustified for you to attribute political motives to my choice of topics or what I say about them (your comment, however, is nakedly partisan)—and if you bothered to read a representative number of posts, you would realize that your insinuation just isn’t supportable. The device of attacking opinions and analysis based on bootstrapping assumptions of bias…”You must be biased, because only a biased person would say something I disagree with”…is old, moldy, intellectually lazy, unconvincing and boring.
And Rep. Giffords still has an obligation to resign.
Sorry if you feel that I am being antagonistic and illogical. I just think that it is ethically wrong for you to be calling for her resignation at this point. You wrote this 9 days after she was shot. Why not give her time to recover instead of kicking her while she is down? There is precedence for her to not resign. Sen. Tim Johnson had bleeding in his brain in Dec 2006 and did not return to the Senate for almost 6 months. If her constituents want her to be replaced, they can call for it, not you.
As for Clarence Thomas, it had nothing to do with this story, other than the lack of a call for resignation for Thomas who is a liar while you call for Gaby to resign for having had the gall to get shot. I wasn’t challenging his wife’s ability to do what she wants. I was challenging his reporting his spousal income as “none”. Since her income was non-zero and he knew it, this was an intentional untruth, or lie. I believe that a Supreme Court justice who is a know liar should resign. Why don’t you?
1) A failure to fill out a form correctly, or even honestly, does not make an official a “known liar” to the extent that it requires resignation. He is not required to resign; if he chose to do so as a self-imposed punishment, I would admire it, but it is not necessary—and it sure ain’t gonna happen. No judge has been forced to resign, that I can find, because of filling out a disclosure form wrongly. And we don’t know, at this point, if it was s lie or a mistake. We probably won’t know, either.
2) Your equivalency is false, and you know it. I am not saying that Giffords should resign because she did anything wrong. I am saying this because she can’t do her job. I knew she would have to resign the second I learned what her injury was. Why wait to state the obvious?
3) You do know that a Senator served 6 years and a Rep serves two, right? That’s a big difference. Johnson is a close call, but 6 months disabled out of 6 years is 1/12 of a term. Giffords is likely to be disabled for 100% of hers. You see the difference, I presume.
4) You don’t understand the site, apparently. I didn’t call on Giffords to resign; I said that ethically she had an obligation to resign. The first is political activism, the second is stating a fact in my area of expertise. And members of Congress work indirectly for all Americans, not just their District’s constituents. Even if I was approaching the issue as a citizen, rather than an ethicist, I have an interest in seeing all Congressional seats filled by competent, functioning individuals. So do you. Running the nation takes precedence over sentiment.
By the way, I just did post on the Thomas story, thanks to your link. I did not call on him to resign, however. When and if he ever gets a bullet through his head, I promise I will suggest that he resign too. And yes, I do understand that if that tragedy ever does occur, Paul Krugman will claim it’s my fault.
Dear Jack:
After reviewing your responders on this issue, I get the definite impression that the basis for many is not whether or not Giffords should resign for health reasons, but a fear that, should she do so and a special election be held, that a dreaded Republican would take her seat! As she represents a majority Republican district, that is a distinct possibility.
But that is not, as you’ve attempted to point out, the final and only concern. It shouldn’t even be a relevant one. Gabrielle Giffords is disabled by a terrible injury to the head. That she’s even alive is a small miracle. If she manages to recover and lead a normal life afterwards, it will be a major one. It COULD happen, of course, and has before. If so- and if Miss Giffords seeks to run again for office- that would be fine. But the present reality is that she cannot perform her duties as congresswoman and will certainly not be able to within her term of office.
I don’t know what Arizona and federal law requires under such circumstances. But, as you say, the people of her district deserve representation in the meantime. As a responsible official, I think that she, herself, would agree with this. But in her present condition, how could she evaluate? Some one must.
I recall an old novel called “Night of Camp David”, the scenario of which involved a President who, through the pressures of office, becomes a paranoid lunatic. However, with a “lunatic’s cunning”, conceals his fits of madness from all but one close friend and advisor. The final message of the book was this. There’s no good legal instrument for removing an official from office due to mental incapacity.
I’m not calling poor Miss Giffords a lunatic, mind you. But I think the analogy applies. In cases like her’s, there’s no telling from day to day how such an injury will affect her. In any case, this raises the point of under what conditions an elective official should be “retired” from office. Honorably, in her case. But the right of the citizens to representation is the highest factor. Life must go on.