lordy, you sure love to dance.
first you say I believe cruel and unusual are too specific, then you say the meanings I derive from the Founders is too vague.
Then you mischaracterize my beef with the SCOTUS as a belief that "rulings I do not like" constitutes a breach of "good behaviour", while utterly failing to address the multiple iterations of explanations of how the SCOTUS is usurping power and exercising authority in a clearly unconstitutional and extraconstitutional manner.
you MUST be a lawyer.
Nope, no lawyer but I do try to pin down meanings and examine logic and history.
The fact remains that "good behavior" did not include only good judgment or even proper judgment or exclude halfassed judgment.
It meant specially not violating the standards of the Founders' day for conduct. This is a great example of how the words don't have the same meaning now that they did then and why we have to be very careful with them.
Then one could kill a man in a duel, as did Justice Livingston, and not be proscribed from the Court. Now, no way. Then one could own slaves now one cannot even hire an illegal nanny. Then being a fag would have meant no nomination now it would be trumpeted by the RATmedia. Transexuals would not be prevented from the bench now but then they would have been, rightly, in an insane asylum. Then an abortion advocate would have been run out of the state. Now our oldest political party refuses to support any who are not abortion advocates. Staggering.