TonyRo76 replied:
Yes! And it is our obligation under the Constitution (Article III, Section 1) to impeach their @sses!
Perhaps TR76 should reconsider his assertion, as it contains, at a minimum, two explicit errors and another implicit error. Let us consider them.
Explicit Error #1: We, as citizens, have no obligation to impeach judges. Nor do we have the right. Nor do we have the power. The power to impeach is given to our representatives. And, even given the power, our representatives have no obligation to impeach. That is a political, not a moral, decision. Niggling, I know, but not unimportant.
Explicit Error #2: Article III, section 1 provides, in part, "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..." Given that judges can only be impeached for breaking this dictate, TR76 is clearly stating that adopting a particular interpretive stance is paramount to impeachable behavior. Clearly this is wrong. Why? Because Congress has yet to pass a law establishing a particular interpetive stance and requiring judges' compliance. As a result, judges may choose a wide variety of interpretative stances (which no doubt will piss somebody off) without fear of impeachment. To achieve TR76's goal, Congress would have to first, under the Art. 3, sect. 1 powers, outlaw certain interpretative methods. Then, and only then, could statutory or constitutional interpretation rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
Implicit Error #1: Both NCB and TR76 are getting exercised over a state court judge's decision concerning a state (here Massachusetts) Constitution. I would be remiss in not pointing out that the US Constitution provides no means for Congress to exercise power over state court judges and that any effort would violate the historic division between state and federal government. Perhaps TR76 lives in MA, where he might be able to have some voice in the state's constitution, otherwise he has no recourse.
Cheers!
Everett Volk