Skip to comments.Congress Can Remove Ginsberg and Kagan from the Supreme Court!
Posted on 05/04/2016 7:53:28 AM PDT by huldah1776
A few years back I asked a number of people how long does a Supreme Court Justice serve. Almost unanimously the response was until death or resignation. No ones response was constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a Supreme Court Justice or any other federal judge serves for life or until they resign.
Here is what the Constitution says about the term of office of a Supreme Court Justice or federal judge:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. [Emphasis mine]
There is nothing that says the appointments are for life, but does say they shall hold their office during good behavior.
What does it mean good behavior? Some have argued that means moral behavior but the most generally accepted understanding refers to how they conduct themselves on the bench and adhere a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of land. First and foremost is adhering to the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitution.com ...
Get rid of Roberts first....
It would require the proper showings under the impeachment process. Several lesser court judges have faced such discipline. Cox for one.
It should be a very formal process and guarded by rule. Lest ye’ be hoisted on your own pike at a later date and time.
They could, but it’s a major disgrace to the justice to be impeached. To get congress to go along, you have to have a substantial case. And you’re talking about political battle that will have the press up in arms.
Trump should tap Gingrich to start putting together impeachment cases against lower federal judges. Gingrich has suggested we impeach judges. And it’s a target rich environment. We need experience before we take on SCOTUS with impeachments.
That’s where you need a psycho pitbull on the Supreme Court who will stop at nothing. Ted Cruz.
We don’t need judical temperment, we need pitbull temperment.
You give sage advice there.
Poor Sore Loser Eric, what Conservative nominee have you supported? Mitt Romney or John Mc Cain? I see a Chapter 11 in your future
Congress has to be careful about setting precedent.
If one Congress starts removing SC justices, future Congresses will do the same. That would make SC justices susceptible to presidential elections.
Gingrich had a better plan when running. Repeat what Thomas Jefferson did:
“Upon ascending to the presidency, Jefferson then did something remarkable he and his congressional allies passed the Judicial Act of 1803 that simply abolished the newly-created judgeships and the courts they presided over. He reminded the deposed judges that they had no cases to hear, no building in which to hear them, and no funding for their salaries. The former judges took their case to the Supreme Court, demanding that their positions be restored. Under the plain terms of the Constitution, however, they didnt have a leg to stand on, and President Jefferson emerged victorious.
Today we face a similar issue: those whose policies are unable to win at the ballot box are seeking to build a stronghold of government power in the courts, without needing to garner a single vote. Just as it did in 1803, the Executive and Legislative branches could take action today and reorganize the Ninth Circuit Court right out of existence!”
Now, you couldn’t do this with the supreme court, but you could with every other federal court.
The tenure of Supreme Court Justices is for life under Federal law (pursuant to Art III powers vested in Congress). Removal of a Justice requires impeachment unless the law is changed.
After Cruz's cozying to the establishment, I can't get behind Cruz.
Wishful thinking. That is NOT the "most generally accepted understanding" at all.
But if a standard could be defined -- which it can't, by the way -- then it would seem Congress has the power to remove a Justice without impeachment.
I say a standard cannot be defined because there are at least two schools of thought regarding Constitutional adherence: the Strict Constructionsists like the late and grievously missed Antonin Scalia, and the revisionists/progressives/claptrappists like Ginsburg and Breyer.
You'll never get the legal community to agree on what constitutes "good behavior" in the Constitutional sense.
The president nominates supreme court justices, who have to be confirmed by the Senate. The idea of removing any Justices, without controlling the replacements is asinine.
The next president will replace Scalia and may also replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer (all of whom will be 80+ during that term). If a democrat is elected or if Trump does not pick reliable conservative justices, abortion on demand will be the law until 2050.
my first thought.
That will certainly shake things up.
Yes they can, but they won’t.
The Senate Republicans would love to see him leave (GTFOOH), and Presidential Candidate Trump could gain brownie points for supporting this highly qualified Conservative, constitutional scholar, and douche bag on the Supreme Court.
I say it is a win-win-win-win for Cruz, the Senate, the country, and Trump.
Time to be pragmatic!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.