[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. [see Art VI]

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

All you have are opinions:

My words are backed up by the Constitution, as cited, which you ignore.

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.

You're imagining those things as being my opinions. I've never taken those positions.

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.)

Article VI requires all officials in the USA to support the US Constitution. It is not vague.. Obviously, if an official dishonors this oath, he could be impeached on that as a 'bad behavior'.

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.

Thats a pointless comment. It does not change the fact that the Senate refused to convict on the evidence presented at the time, in the case at hand.
The Senators 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.
-- Rehnquist is wrong on this issue, as proved by the Constitution itself.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The House could ignore the meaning of the term "good behavior" and impeach a Justice for political reasons. And the Senate could convict for political reasons. They have that power since there is no institution which could overrule them not even the Court. But they cannot honestly claim that this would be in direct contradiction with the idea of an independent judiciary as described within the Federalist.

While the Federalist is not law it is the first writing examined by Justices when looking for Original Intent among the Founders. Marshall consulted it regularly.

While you can pretend that "good behavior" means "unpopular in some circles decisions" that is not what the Founders had in mind.