If they failed it was because the Congress did not have the guts to find the justice guilty. The Congress has the power to impeach any federal appointed official. There is no appeal if the House finds and the Senate finds guilty. There is no part of the federal government that is above the Constitution, unless the Court has decided that it is the supreme power in the land and has no oversight or that no one or no organization can question its dictatorial decisions. I believe in the Constitution unlike the Supreme Court who believes in the EU.
I agree completely. But a Supreme Court justice hasne't been tried since 1803 and then it was political. It would be seen the same way today. I'd like to see the impeachment charge be for exceeding their authority by using foreign law and opinions in their decisions. I would not consider their actions "good behaviour". However, many members of the House would not consider that a high crime. Not to mention the Senate. I think the answer is an amendment calling for term limits on justices or at least re-confirmation. So that they somewhat answerable to the people.
IMHO, Congress still does not have the guts.
And thus shall it ever be.
Sure, in theory Congress could impeach and remove all 9 USSC justices from the court, and Bush could then appoint 9 more who would interpret the Constitution as it's author's intended. But that will only happen during one of those very rare occasions when flocks of equally rare winged pigs pass overhead on their annual migration to South America.
Regrettably, for all practical purposes Rehnquist is correct.