![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 131. Go back in thread:
Posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 0:21:45
In reply to Re: PLEASE stop any and all proceedings!!, posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 23:59:22
> There has to be some system in place, don't you think?
>
>
> - ScottYou cannot impeach what was never elected. This is not a demomocracy, people are not elected. This is absurd. If there needs to be some "system" then it is up to Dr. Bob.
You can't have a drama with out an audience. Quit attending and it will go away.
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 0:24:43
In reply to Re: PLEASE stop any and all proceedings!! » SLS, posted by Dinah on September 14, 2006, at 0:20:11
> Well, it's not a democracy. So the procedure would likely be that Dr. Bob would privately ask a deputy to resign. But that could be after many complaints from members.
That sounds plenty fair to me.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 0:34:25
In reply to nothing to see here, move along, posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 0:21:45
> > There has to be some system in place, don't you think?
> You cannot impeach what was never elected.
Not true. You can impeach a judge. Judges can be appointed.
> This is not a demomocracy,
So what? That does not preclude the establishment of democratic processes.
> This is absurd.
In your opinion.
> If there needs to be some "system" then it is up to Dr. Bob.
He always appreciates input. That is one of the foundations of the Administrative board.
> You can't have a drama with out an audience. Quit attending and it will go away.Maybe I don't want it to go away.
- Scott
Posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 0:56:38
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along » notfred, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 0:34:25
> > > There has to be some system in place, don't you think?
>
> > You cannot impeach what was never elected.
>
> Not true. You can impeach a judge. Judges can be appointed.
>That is not impeachment. Those who are appointed
serve at the pleasure of an official. Their job is "at will" and they can be removed by the official that appointed them. Most times they loose their job when the official or political party that appoined them leave office.
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 6:10:04
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along, posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 0:56:38
> > > > There has to be some system in place, don't you think?
> >
> > > You cannot impeach what was never elected.
> >
> > Not true. You can impeach a judge. Judges can be appointed.
> >
>
> That is not impeachment. Those who are appointed
> serve at the pleasure of an official. Their job is "at will" and they can be removed by the official that appointed them. Most times they loose their job when the official or political party that appoined them leave office.Justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. They are impeached by Congress.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 7:47:20
In reply to Lou's innitiation of impeachment procedings, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 16:14:14
Friends,
There are more serious causes for the impeachment of an official.
Some of them are:
A. A crime against humanity
B. Violationg the civil rights of an individual
C. Conspiracy to violate the civil rights of an individual
D. A violation of the human rights of an individual
E. Holding an individual to a higher standard than others
F. Using a pretext to justify discriminating against an individual
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 8:05:54
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 6:10:04
> > > > > There has to be some system in place, don't you think?
> > >
> > > > You cannot impeach what was never elected.
> > >
> > > Not true. You can impeach a judge. Judges can be appointed.
> > >
> >
> > That is not impeachment. Those who are appointed
> > serve at the pleasure of an official. Their job is "at will" and they can be removed by the official that appointed them. Most times they loose their job when the official or political party that appoined them leave office.
>
> Justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. They are impeached by Congress.
>
>
> - Scott
Duh. This is an example of an elected judge. Sorry.State and municipal judges are often appointed by governors and mayors respectively rather than being elected. They, too, are removed from office through impeachment processes.
- Scott
Posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 8:16:59
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along - Duh. » SLS, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 8:05:54
> > > > > > There has to be some system in place, don't you think?
> > > >
> > > > > You cannot impeach what was never elected.
> > > >
> > > > Not true. You can impeach a judge. Judges can be appointed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is not impeachment. Those who are appointed
> > > serve at the pleasure of an official. Their job is "at will" and they can be removed by the official that appointed them. Most times they loose their job when the official or political party that appoined them leave office.
> >
> > Justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. They are impeached by Congress.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> Duh. This is an example of an elected judge. Sorry.
>
> State and municipal judges are often appointed by governors and mayors respectively rather than being elected. They, too, are removed from office through impeachment processes.
>
>
> - ScottI think the difference is that they were appointed by someone who is elected. In this case the deputies are appointed by Bob who owns the board not elected. To impeach the deputies would be more like trying to impeach the bouncers at a bar I think.
Personally I like a good drama (specially when I can be the queen) but I don't think this is the right way to go.
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 8:42:02
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along - Duh., posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 8:16:59
> > State and municipal judges are often appointed by governors and mayors respectively rather than being elected. They, too, are removed from office through impeachment processes.
> I think the difference is that they were appointed by someone who is elected. In this case the deputies are appointed by Bob who owns the board not elected. To impeach the deputies would be more like trying to impeach the bouncers at a bar I think.
Perplexed. Sorry.
> Personally I like a good drama (specially when I can be the queen) but I don't think this is the right way to go.I don't think so either. I prefer the scenario that Dinah suggests would occur.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685771.html
- Scott
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 14, 2006, at 9:15:45
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along - Duh., posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 8:42:02
And this makes me feel sooo very pretty...
(I love just using my own, *very* civil language. Hope I'm not being too British if you catch my drift)
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 9:30:25
In reply to Causes for impeachment-more serious, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 7:47:20
Friends,
To innitiate an impeachment proceding, first the charges aginst the official are stated.
We have seen charges against those in the news about judges and Presidents and Slobodan Milosevic. But here we have a differant situation and the charges do not compare with the historical charges brought toward those of world leaders.
Here we have IMO an administrative impeachment that is different from a political impeachment.
In the William Jefferson Clinton impeachment, the constitution stated that there were charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
In this case, I would rule out "high crimes and misdemeanors"
So let us look at the charges?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 9:40:40
In reply to Stating the causes for impeachment, posted by Lou Pilder on September 14, 2006, at 9:30:25
Friends,
I have just seen that Dr. Hsiung has posted that general calls for impeacment he would like to be emailed.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2006, at 10:20:58
In reply to Lou's innitiation of impeachment procedings, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 16:14:14
> In accordance with the stated procedures here for impeachment of a deputy, it is written that this can be done on the administrative board.
I decided against that, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/685858.html
Bob
Posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:38:43
In reply to Nice, *really* nice.., posted by NikkiT2 on September 14, 2006, at 9:15:45
He's very British too!......
Whenever Onslow inquires about foodstuffs (for example, usually beer, bacon butties or smokey bacon-flavoured crisps) and Daisy tells him that they're out, he responds with an exasperated, "Oh, nice!" He also uses this phrase for other unusual situations, usually revolving around Hyacinth or when he is put down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances
You are pretty nicki....you really really are
Lou is a beautiful work of his creator as are we all!! Even though I don't always agree with him I admire his willingness to work with Bob to uphold and respect Bob's vision of civility without compromising his own values.
I think he has been treated unfairly here in the past and I think that is sad.
I think it is pretty......that he is banned for a year at a time while others............
> And this makes me feel sooo very pretty...
>
> (I love just using my own, *very* civil language. Hope I'm not being too British if you catch my drift)
>
>
Posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:46:30
In reply to Do you know Onslow????? » NikkiT2, posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:38:43
> He's very British too!......
>
> Whenever Onslow inquires about foodstuffs (for example, usually beer, bacon butties or smokey bacon-flavoured crisps) and Daisy tells him that they're out, he responds with an exasperated, "Oh, nice!" He also uses this phrase for other unusual situations, usually revolving around Hyacinth or when he is put down.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances
>
> You are pretty nicki....you really really are
>
> Lou is a beautiful work of his creator as are we all!! Even though I don't always agree with him I admire his willingness to work with Bob to uphold and respect Bob's vision of civility without compromising his own values.
>
> I think he has been treated unfairly here in the past and I think that is sad.
>
> I think it is pretty d********e that he is banned for a year at a time while others............
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > And this makes me feel sooo very pretty...
> >
> > (I love just using my own, *very* civil language. Hope I'm not being too British if you catch my drift)
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 14, 2006, at 12:54:30
In reply to Do you know Onslow????? » NikkiT2, posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 12:38:43
Keeping up appearances is an instituion *l* A favourite for hungover sunday afternoons
*smiles*
Nikki
Posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 12:58:51
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along - Duh. » SLS, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 8:05:54
> Duh. This is an example of an elected judge. Sorry.
>
> State and municipal judges are often appointed by governors and mayors respectively rather than being elected. They, too, are removed from office through appointed processes.
>
>
> - Scott
I was speaking of the executive branch of government. There appointed persons serve at will. In the judicial branch impeachment is indeed
how you get a judge out of office.
Posted by Racer on September 14, 2006, at 13:21:10
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along - Duh., posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 12:58:51
"Impeachment" is something that generally happens in a governmental institution. You can impeach an elected official, you can impeach a witness in a trial -- government court, right? -- etc. In a more colloquial sense, you can impeach someone's credibility.
This isn't a government. This site has no links to any government, except in the sense that it is governed by its owner, Dr Bob.
We could, I suppose, impeach the credibility of the deputies, although I don't see how that could be done civilly.
That's not the sense of impeachment I'm getting here, though. So, forgive me for apparently being about as bright as a 15 watt bulb, how does a public impeachment process apply to PsychoBabble at www.dr-bob.org?
Posted by Jost on September 14, 2006, at 13:26:36
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along, posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 0:56:38
Isn't impechment different from removal from office?
Impeachment: to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
But is there a "competent tribunal" here?
Are the deputies "public officials"?
Is there an "office" here such that they could carry out such misconduct?
If these words are being used in some analogic way, what are the analogies? and how really relevant is it?
Do we want to spend time setting up a system for charging one another with misconduct and carrying out complex litigations or investigations and prosecurtions?
I hope the anwer is no.
So, if there are any gross violatons of what we commonly as a community find acceptable behavior, do we really need an elaborate set of institutions and rules to deal with them?
Again, I hope the answer is no.
If not, what is all this about?
I'd really like to know, in a simple cogent and down-to-earth summary, not vague abstract or curtailed and cursory ones.
Jost
Posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 13:40:09
In reply to I guess I don't understand..., posted by Racer on September 14, 2006, at 13:21:10
So, forgive me for apparently being about as bright as a 15 watt bulb, how does a public impeachment process apply to PsychoBabble at www.dr-bob.org?
It does not. That fact has gotten lost in the semantics.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 14, 2006, at 14:35:11
In reply to Re: I guess I don't understand..., posted by notfred on September 14, 2006, at 13:40:09
I think that the term "impeachment" is a loaded word, and not necessarily the most applicable for this site for the reasons that others have given.
I also think that when loaded words are used in broad, non-specific contexts, it increases the likelihood for speculation, projection, fear, defensiveness, anxiety, conflict, and argument.
I think that a perfectly reasonable approach to a complaint about a deputy's actions would be to email the specific concern and any applicable supporting materials to Dr. Bob. I see nothing wrong with making a post on admin announcing that an email has been sent to Dr. Bob about a concern about a deputy's actions.
I also believe that it's courteous, though not required, to inform the person you are making a complaint about regarding the nature of your complaint and your actions. And I think that the manner in which a complaint is raised often positively correlates with the manner in which it's received and considered.
gg
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 18:57:16
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred, posted by Jost on September 14, 2006, at 13:26:36
I think you missed a few lines of text somewhere along this thread. My current thoughts regarding the treatment of deputies does not include a process of impeachment.
> I'd really like to know, in a simple cogent and down-to-earth summary, not vague abstract or curtailed and cursory ones.
I didn't know my submissions were to be subject to such demanding requirements.
I apologize for my entire posting history.
- Scott
Posted by Jost on September 14, 2006, at 19:31:06
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred » Jost, posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 18:57:16
How your entire posting history?
I was referring to the basic issues at stake in this discussion. What are we talking about, actually? ie are there any major bad decisions that occurred here recently? Some seeming misconduct on someone's part such that the discussion has some point-- as opposed to being a formalistic exercise about theoretical possibilities? If so, I haven't noticed it, and would like to know, in terms that I can comprehend, what it is.
If there isn't any, then the discussion hasn't got enough content. IMO discussing issues like this--and alluding to impeachment, etc.-- in a vacuum (ie a space without any context), is useless, because without enough instances and shared examples, there's really no way of knowing what anyone means.
My comment doesn't invoke your posting history. What I don't understand--which is why I'm having trouble even ascribing a cogent meaning to the discussion-- is what the serious problems are that have occasioned, and therefore could inform, the discussion.
From your comments, it seemed that you did see a basis for the discussion. From your comments, I'd also concluded that you'd be likely to be able to state it in a way that I'd understand and could work with.
No criticism of you was intended. I have found some parts of the discussion enigmatic, and was looking for clarification.
Jost
Posted by zazenducky on September 14, 2006, at 19:47:20
In reply to Re: Do you know Onslow????? » zazenducky, posted by NikkiT2 on September 14, 2006, at 12:54:30
Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 19:53:48
In reply to Words matter, posted by gardenergirl on September 14, 2006, at 14:35:11
Hi GG.
> I think that the term "impeachment" is a loaded word,
and not necessarily the most applicable for this site for the reasons that others have given.I can see that. I guess I never attached such a pejorative theme to the word because of my early interest in law. It was just a mechanism being part of a process.
> I see nothing wrong with making a post on admin announcing that an email has been sent to Dr. Bob about a concern about a deputy's actions.This provides visibility and might motivate others who feel the same way to register similar concerns to Dr. Bob.
> I also believe that it's courteous, though not required, to inform the person you are making a complaint about regarding the nature of your complaint and your actions.Would this be through Babblemail?
- Scott
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.