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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Once down that road you would get Justices following more the political wind than the law.
A liberal Congress and Senate would remove thinkers and put operatives in.
Only our side has principles rooted in the Constitution.
Playing with fire, things would get much worse.
Amazing.
5.56mm
Samuel Chase, 1803
Purely academic mental exercise, and quite frankly a fantasy of unicorns f@rting skittles over the rainbow.
So, if this were tried, it would be challenged, and wind up in the supreme court. What do you think the outcome would be?
Is today stupid day or what?
Good luck with that...
"The only real security of liberty, in any country, is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers. Should they find a combination against their liberties, and all other methods appear insufficient to preserve them, they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. That power which created the government can destroy it. Should the government, on trial, be found to want amendments, those amendments can be made in a regular method, in a mode prescribed by the Constitution itself [...]. We have [this] watchfulness of the people, which I hope will never be found wanting." - James Iredell, Elliot, 4:130. Iredell appointed by President Washington to First Supreme Court.On the topic of "religious liberty," Iredell wrote:From the North Carolina History web site, comes this information about him:
When the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 proposed the federal Constitution, Iredell was its foremost advocate in North Carolina. He inaugurated the first public movement in the state in favor of the document and wrote extensively in hopes of creating a new government. In particular, he responded to Virginia’s George Mason’s eleven objections to the Constitution and gained national attention in doing so. A Norfolk printer, for example, shelved other political tracts in 1788 to publish Iredell’s “Answers.” The essay preceded 49 of the 85 essays that constitute the Federalist Papers and appears to have been widely distributed.
At the first North Carolina ratification convention, Iredell was the floor leader for the Federalist forces. After the 1788 convention refused to ratify the federal Constitution, he then wielded his influential and skillful pen to fell Anti-federalist arguments and champion the Federalist cause and the benefits of the Constitution. When North Carolina finally ratified the document at its second convention (1789), Iredell was widely considered the intellectual general of the Federalists’ victory. For Iredell’s ratification efforts, President George Washington rewarded the North Carolinian with an appointment to the original U.S. Supreme Court, where he served for almost a decade. (Even before ratification, his acquaintances had speculated that his future included a federal judgeship.) During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Iredell closely dealt with Presidents Washington and John Adams and offered vigorous and partisan support for their administrations. He also chronicled important events and personalities.
"“Had Congress undertaken to guarantee religious freedom, or any particular species of it, they would then have had a pretense to interfere in a subject they have nothing to do with. Each state, so far as the clause in question does not interfere, must be left to the operation of its own principles.” - James Iredell - Debates on the Constitution, NC, 1788 (Appointed by Geo. Washington to First Supreme Court of the U. S.)
All of the people saying, “Oh, we wouldn’t want to do that. The Democrats might do it to our judges.” Are looking at this wrong.
...Yes they probably will do it to us. Good.
The court has become a tool of the political parties to do their bidding. That is not what they were supposed to be. In the future, justices will have full knowledge that ANY opinions which are not completely backed by the constitution and which appear to have ANY political influence will cost them their judgeship.
Sounds like a good outcome to me.
Judges can be removed. My first wife’s mother was a state judge (about 42 years ago). She was removed from office, dis-barred, and served 18 months in a minimum security detention facility. Ticket fixing. When she got out, the best she could do for the rest of her life was court stenographer.
If Ifs were wood, and wood were good, we would not need maybes to warm our babies
Thank You thank you! Send all donations to ‘feedthestarvingpoet.com’
Congress isn’t going to remove them- The reason noone answered that they can be removed is that essentially they can’t/won’t- while it’s technically possible, it won’t happen-
Having said that- it’s never good to say never- (or won’t) so I’ll just leave with ‘it’s very very likely that it won’t happen’