Bryan, you’re letting your parliamentary tradition show!
She’s done all she can by getting articles of impeachment passed. Once she sends them to the Senate, it’s out of her hands.
It’s called the Goldwater rule: section 7 of the American Psychiatric Society’s Code of Professional Ethics.
It provides that psychiatrists are not to attempt to diagnose someone they’ve never interviewed personally, and not to make any public statements about a person’s mental state without that person’s consent.
The American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association have similar rules.
That is not a cite that she violated her ethics.
What laws may apply to them at work?
If donnie drops his pants in the oval office does it matter whether she is a co worker or a colleague?
At my place of work, IIRC, if you were working and you did something like that it doesn’t matter who you were with, inside, or outside.
Well I am asking why you have a problem with her interpreting trumps tweets. If you wait for a more perfect warning it may be too late. Unless there is nothing to be looking at in this whole matter. Maybe you’re there?
Scene: The Cabinet room
The President: “By the way, everyone, I’ve decided that when Ginsburg dies, I’m going to nominate Hillary to the Supreme Court. I’m starting to think I’ve been too hard on her and she deserves a reward for her public service. Cabinet’s over. See you next week.”
The President leaves.
The Vice-President: “Colleagues, I’ll be calling Mitch as soon as I’m back at my office. Agreed?”
Cabinet members: “Agreed!”
The Vice-President: “I’m assuming it’s unanimous?”
Cabinet members: “Agreed!”
The Vice-President: “Thanks, I’ll keep you all updated. I think you should all be at your posts for the rest of the day.”
Vice-President and Cabinet secretaries scurry out.
The Constitution. Neither can be fired or disciplined under ordinary labour laws.
Pelosi can only be removed if a majority of the House votes her out of office.
Trump can only be removed by impeachment or by the 25th Amendment process.
She’s a psychiatrist who is purporting to diagnose the President’s mental state, without having examined him. She is discussing her opinion of his mental health in public, without his permission. Both of those actions are forbidden under Section 7 of the APA, Code of Ethics.
So crimes and sex abuses by elected officials are all dealt with solely by impeachment? It’s never a legal matter?
It would be ridiculous to judge this on your framing, sorry. It has to be a real cite about her in the media, hopefully not right wing.
This is entirely too reasonable. Shame on you!
Impeachment comes up only after civil laws or other etc etc…have been broken, as a material matter in the prosection. The potus is not above the law.
Correct. And the applicable law governing his removal for misconduct in office is the impeachment process. And the applicable law for removing him for mental incapacity is the 25th Amendment. Normal labour laws or mental hold laws are superceded by the Constitution, which is the supreme law.
Breach of civil or criminal laws may well be used by Congress in support of impeachment, and if a President is removed by the impeachment process, the impeached ex-president could be found liable under those laws. But if your focus is on removing a president before their term is up (any president, not just Trump), you have to use one of the two methods set out in the Constitution, which is the Supreme law.
You aren’t following my arguments. I’m talking about crimes as would necessarily involve law enforcement as the precursor to suits involving his ability to function. You are just reminding us again of the normal removal method. I’m not committed to his removal. If you read my posts I don’t care. I’m about the act of getting hard on him on every issue until he’s gone. It means looking at all means. I am so not into defeatism on his mental health, or any issue, just because he can’t be removed on that basis. So what? He is a bad wasps nest and you are just saying that you can’t get rid of the nest with impeachment.
**No shit. It needs to be shaken, at every level on every issue before it will come out. It’s not clean.
**
tornup is human, and there is an impulse here to make him superman, on the left and the right. He’s not and he will fail eventually. Why prolong his heyday with defeatism?
If you don’t want trenep to have anxiety every minute of the day until he’s gone, and to always worry about the next phone call, then what do you want?
I don’t agree that this is a valid professional warning, I agree that she has violated her professional ethics, I believe you’ve been given valid cites in regards to that.
Mental stability is always a matter of frame of reference. Within the the population, is the person’s functioning level significantly outside the parameters of expected rational behavior?
We’re talking about US Presidents, here! Perhaps, legally, Federal officeholders. Talk about a low bar!
I have no idea what you mean about the identity of the professional warning she made. I don’t think it matters whether you agree with it though.
No cites on her ethical standing yet. Are you going to step up? You know the Goldwater rule isn’t the only thing in the world? She seems to have been conscientious and I will leave it to her peers to judge her.
She is making an anti-authoritarian activists message, having to do wth the failure of the goldwater rule to address our problem. Of course those kinds of things are ridiculed by…authoritarians, among others.
Well,* you* made the statement about her professional warning, what did you mean by it?
What cites would you accept?
Where are the board’s conservatives? The one time they can legitimately rag us about Trump Derangement Syndrome and they’re blowing it! Oh well, I suppose that always being in the wrong is what makes them conservatives.
Have fun. I’m checking out. Somebody let me know if they show up and get in some good zingers. I’m sure the thread, despite already going in circles, is good for another three days at least.
It has been official Department of Justice policy for decades that a sitting President cannot be indicted for a criminal act while in office. All such prosecutions are held until that President is out of office through one of the four paths I outlined in an earlier post. Should Trump be removed through impeachment early next year I feel he’ll certainly have an interesting time of it with criminal charges being filed. I believe the Southern District of NY would already like to have words with him but have indicated they’re willing to wait.
Civil issues CAN go forward as they did for Bill Clinton.
But your railing to the skies that all that somehow doesn’t apply? It’s nonsense, of course. It does apply. It’s established policy since at least the Nixon administration and has continued straight through until today.
An election is truly a sovereign act. Nothing save Impeachment will override that. The courts have been pretty clear on respecting the choice of the voters and I don’t see any court being willing to suddenly go against that precedent.