I. Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), 79, was being wheeled into the House by a staffer when Politico photographer Francis Chung took his picture. Punchbowl News reports that the Congressman screamed, “Who gave you the right to take my picture, asshole?” Nice! The First Amendment gives him the right. Scott was in full public view, and has no expectation of privacy. He doesn’t know that? Why is anyone in Congress who doesn’t understand Bill of Rights 101? Scott has served as the U.S. representative of Georgia’s 13th congressional district since 2003. How can he not know this after 20 years in Congress? Did he once know it and somehow forgot? That seems plausible. Scott has chaired the House Agriculture Committee since January 2021, but colleagues in the House have expressed, all anonymously, of course, concerns about his fading mental abilities. They say he often reads from a script and has “trouble” discussing finer points of policy. Scott also frequently leaves Agriculture Committee meetings and does not return, even though he’s the chairman.
Well, heck, if that’s good enough for the President, why shouldn’t Scott get away with it too?
II. Congresswoman Kay Granger (R) represents Texas Congressional District 12, and has been missing in Congress since she last cast a vote on July 24th, 2024. She’s 81. Granger has been in Congress since 1997. The Dallas Express tried to discover where she was and what she was doing, but calls to her D.C. and Texas offices went directly to voicemail. A recorded message from Congresswoman Granger said, “I am sorry we are unable to answer your phone right now. We are really glad you called us. Please leave your name, phone number and a brief message and someone in our office will call you back as soon as possible.” With the budget battle raging last week, reporters wnet to her office in the House and found the door locked, the front door glass window covered, and no sign that anyone was working there. Phone calls were unanswered and voice mails were not returned.
Finally they got a tip: Granger is residing at a local memory care and assisted living home and has been since she was found wandering lost and confused. Nobody told the news media or her constituents. Fortunately for all concerned, Granger did not run for reelection this year but that’s a minor silver lining. Such a situation should never happen. Congress should have mandatory procedures for Congressional staff to inform the public immediately when any elected member is incapacitated, and there should be penalties for defying them. There should also be a mandatory reporting requirement triggering an internal investigation when a member believes another member is no longer fit to hold office.
And no one should be able to run for office if the term would take them past the age of 75. That’s fair and reasonable.
Ethics Alarms 
So far not noticing anyone in our government pushing term limits for any sector of government , including the courts on all levels. I believe term limits is strongly needed in all areas of government.
The most disturbing aspect of both of these cases is that not ONE colleague or staffer thought there was an obligation to bring the obvious deficiencies of either representative to the attention of officials, other reps, constituants, or the media.
See something, say something apparently only applies to those outside the privileged club.
I agree with the age limit and term limit. Being a representative of the people was not meant or ought to be a lifetime career. However, I fear that the more youthful, inexperienced and unwise will be put into power. I point to AOC as an example. Soon she will reach the age of 35 allowing her to run for President. A truly sacry proposition.
I don’t think I really agree with the last part of this. True, the Founders didn’t think of Congress as being a lifelong career path, although it wasn’t exactly unknown even then.
However, I believe they thought of the House as the People’s House, and were all right with the idea that it would include young firebrands. A third of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were under 40, including a couple in their 20s.
But the Founders weren’t believers in pure democracy either, so the Senate was designed to put a brake on the (presumed) excesses of the House.
So I’m ok with someone like AOC being in the House. Not that I agree with her, but we do need people like her in politics. And who knows? People often get more conservative as they get older — maybe she’ll change radically and become a moderate. Or maybe she’ll follow Bernie Sanders’ footsteps.
I will point out that Vance is only 5 years older than AOC.
Those youthful signers of the Declaration were well versed and well read, unlike most of the young of today. I have no problem with AOC having been elected and representing her constiuents. I fear her run for the presidency. Regarding her maturity I remind myself thw words of a mentor in human relations, “once an asshole always an asshole.”
We do not need arrogant,ignorant incurious idiot demagogues in Congress or anywhere else. That goes for AOC, the rest of “The Squad. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bobert, and many others.
Perhaps ‘need’ was the wrong word. However, the characteristics I refer to are passion, advocating for change, new visions, etc. Those sorts of things we need. Then the people can decide what ideas are good, and what are lunatic.
I will point out that many groundbreaking scientists do their seminal work while quite young. Einstein authored the theory of relativity at 26, along with several other landmark papers that year.
That’s probably one thing that Jay Bhattacharya will be looking at with NIH. He has remarked that NIH is being too conservative in awarding grants — perhaps they are primarily looking to older, established scientists and not the young up and comers.
I don’t say that the Founders would approve of AOC, the Squad, MTG, and the like. But they would recognize that type of person.
Congress is certainly not going to propose an amendment. This will have to be like the 17th, 19th and 26th amendments. Those all passed through the house and senate because the states were nearing the threshold to have a constitutional convention. The house and senate will act very fast to avoid such a convention if the states’ legislatures vote to hold a convention.
Our route to entice such an action is clear: With people serving a lifetime in the house and senate, the current state legislative members have minimal chance to every hold a US house or senate seat. If there were term limits, the turnover would give them a far bigger chance to hold the higher office. Our respective legislators need to hear that message and prompt such a constitutional amendment.
It is easy to assume that age and infirmity go hand-in-hand, but that is not the case and we should not discriminate based on age. What can and should be done involves assessing the ability to perform the required duties of the office. If 29 CFR Part 1607 is followed (note this mostly deals with job selection) it should be solid from a legal perspective.
What we have witnessed many times over the years are individuals (yes the are often old) incapable of performing the duties of their elected office. Like the 25th Amendment, there should be a requirement that involves assessing different performance-related aspects, such as cognitive acuity and physical wellbeing (e.g., excessive absences for medical reasons indicate inability to perform necessary duties). By approaching the subject from a performance angle, it is more likely to be supported by a wide range of people. But those are just the thoughts of an I/O psychologist 😉