[P_A_I]

Rehnquist is 'begging the question'. Judges should indeed be concerned that their judgment on Constitutional issues be questioned, as judges are not "independent" in such matters.
They are bound by the Law of the Land, as are all officials in the USA.
In 1992, the chief justice published a book, "Grand Inquests," in which he recounted the politically driven effort to remove Justice Samuel Chase from the bench two centuries ago. Though Chase was impeached by the House, the Senate's decision not to convict and remove him "represented a judgment that impeaching should not be used to remove a judge for conduct in the exercise of his judicial duties," Chief Justice Rehnquist said Friday.

A bold, and incorrect assumption. The Senate refused to convict on the evidence presented at the time, in the case at hand.

They made no binding political judgment on the power or reasons to impeach. Such a limitation could only be made by an Amendment to the Constitution.
` 127 P_A_I

Rehnquist is of course correct. Judges have life terms during good behaviour and those terms are not contingent on having the Mob agree with their decisions.

Silly "Mob" hype.. Judges are subject to impeachment if they dishonor their oath of office.

Taney was not impeachable for his terrible finding, nor was Warren nor any other judge.

That's up to Congress, not you.

You have fundamentally flawed views of the Constitution which go through all your comments on it.

You've been make that attack without basis for quite awhile now. My comments speak for themselves, unless coherently challenged. All you do is opine.

It this case you are willing to throw out the clear meaning of the impeachment clause.

Total fabrication. I say enforce it as written.

Direct democracy in judicial matters is as dangerous, if not more so, than it is in legislative ones. Fortunately the Founders understood this and guarded against it by establishing an independent judiciary which you, unfortunately, are laboring to destroy.

More fabrication. My arguments here speak for themselves unless coherently challenged. All you do is offer irrational personal opinions.

Chase's impeachment was much closer to what the document required in that his behaviour in his courtroom was highly unprofessional and abusive. Even though it was directed at Jeffersonians it was not appropriate.

As I said just above, 'The Senate refused to convict on the evidence presented at the time, in the case at hand'. -- What's your point?

[justshutupandtakeit]

All you have are opinions: that the SC is wrong; that the Constitution really doesn't mean "good behaviour" when that is the only standard given for impeachment of judges; that the Founders did not mean to ensure an independent judiciary and that the Court should only make popular rulings or face the wrath of the mob. Nothing could be further from their intentions which are clearly explained in the Federalist which says nothing pertaining to "dishonoring their oath of office" (according to some vague standard or the other.)

Rehnquist's statement did not consider only the Chase impeachment but also that of another Federal judge who was both insane and an alcoholic. If there was ever a case for impeachment for that was it but it never happened.