It would be great if he could be removed from office - not going to happen legally though.
https://legalbeagle.com/6596992-rules-removing-supreme-court-justice.html
On October 6th, 2018, a Senate vote of 50 to 48 officially confirmed Brett Kavanaugh as justice of the United States Supreme Court. Not only was this highly divisive decision among the closest votes for a Supreme Court nominee in American history, Kavanaugh himself – accused of numerous incidents of sexual assault, withholding documents from his time serving in the George W. Bush administration and lying under oath – goes down as the most unpopular Supreme Court justice appointment in modern history. A Quinnipiac University national poll found that nearly 50 percent of American voters, including 55 percent of women, opposed the judge's confirmation. Naturally, this unprecedented unpopularity got many Americans thinking: "What about the removal of a Supreme Court justice?" The short answer is that removal is possible by way of impeachment, but strap in for some history lessons and you'll find out why it's not an easy task.
The Supreme Court justice term is a lifelong position. That's where Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution really comes into play – that's the part that says justices of the United States Supreme Court "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."
That somewhat vague clause boils down to just a few possible outcomes for vacating the position of Supreme Court justice:
•Voluntary retirement.
•Voluntary resignation, as was the case with Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, who resigned before he could be impeached for accepting $20,000 in Wall Street bribes.
•Impeachment.
•Death.
These account for all the available methods of vacating a position from the Supreme Court bench since its establishment in 1790. So, long story short, it's a hard bench to knock someone from.
Of course there is also the Beatles reunion scenario...
Beatles reunion scenario? I’m lost, please explain.
One way that the justices appointed by 0bola could be removed, when he is proven in a court of law to not have been eligible to hold the office of President (or Senator, for that matter), seems to relate to civil law but seems applicable although he’s not in the position any more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quo_warranto
In British and American common law, quo warranto (Medieval Latin for “by what warrant?”) is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold.
Quo warranto today
In the United States today, quo warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff’s claim (and thus a “cause of action” instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or by the corporation’s charter.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quo_warranto
Quo warranto
Definition
Latin for “by what warrant (or authority)?” A writ quo warranto is used to challenge a person’s right to hold a public or corporate office. A state may also use a quo warranto action to revoke a corporation’s charter.