Can Federal Judges Be Recalled? (ref: California 9th Circuit Court)

FairOpinion ^ | Sept. 15, 2003 | FairOpinion

[FairOpinion]

In CA they recalled Judge Rose Bird, who was on the CA Supreme Court in 1986.

So, obviously State judges can be recalled in CA.

Is there a law that would allow recall of Federal Judges?

If so, some of the Judges on the CA 9th Circuit Court really should be recalled.

Maybe we can get their recall elections scheduled for March too, right along with the Davis recall and kick them all out together.

[FairOpinion]

(PS. There is no link, but I couldn't post it without one, so I just put the general FR link)

[p. henry]

No. However, they can be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.

[Publius]

Federal judges may not be recalled. They may only be impeached, convicted and removed by Congress.

[B Knotts]

Federal judges cannot be recalled.

They can be impeached by Congress, but that seems to require official malfeasance (fraud, bribe-taking, etc.).

[CheneyChick]

These bozos need to be recalled. They don't reflect the will of the people. They are a waste of money and time - all their stupid decisions get overturned.

[Catspaw]

No. They're not elected, so there's no recall. They can be impeached, but I don't know if any federal judge has ever been impeached because of a decision made from the bench.

[RichInOC]

Our state judges go up for reconfirmation by popular vote every seven years or so, and that's how Rose Bird et al. got run out. Unfortunately in this case, federal judges don't, they'd have to be impeached, and even more unfortunately, boneheaded stupidity and liberal bias are not in and of themselves high crimes and misdemeanors.

[swilhelm73]

No - the only way to get rid of a fed judge is impeachement.

The founders never expected judges to wield as much power as they do, hence their positions being so safe from democratic interference.

[RichInOC]

Uhhh...I guess you got your answer. Sorry.

[Barney Gumble]

Their decisions are so blatantly partisan, it's quite disgusting. Look for another big Supreme Court decision.

[SpyGuy]

They can be impeached by Congress, but that seems to require official malfeasance (fraud, bribe-taking, etc.).

I would argue that they are continually committing official malfeasance (fraud).

[Huck]

I'd rather have them fix the machines now than have them do the recall, THEN have the court challenge, and then go through the whole chad counting fiasco again. Much better to get rid of the stupid punch card machines now. Seems to be based on Bush v Gore.

[Boatlawyer]

Judges aren't supposed to reflect the "will of the people" they are supposed to interpret law. Will of people is the province of legislators.

Hate to say it, but the Supreme Court opened the door on this one in Bush v. Gore. Now it seems federal court is the venue for state election disputes.

Law of unintended consequences strikes again.

[Positive]

Judge Rose Bird, was the anti-Death Penalty Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. Not a Federal Judge.

Supreme Court Justices in California are given a set term of office then they have to run for re-election in the general election.

Rosie was trounced and sent home in the election of November of 1986 and left at the end of her term in January of 1987.

Federal Judges (eg. 9th Circuit) are appointed for life. A California Recall would not apply to them - they have to be impeached like Alcyee Hastings of Florida by the House of Represenatives. Of course Alcyee (sp?) then ran for the house himself and is now referred to as "My Good Friend" by the republicans who impeached him.

Our political system is sick and has been for a long time.

[Paleo Conservative]

No. However, they can be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.

Unless Republicans make remarkable gains in the Senate, the Houwe will not bother impeaching judges.

[Leatherneck_MT]

I would have to argue that impeachment is only one of 2 ways of getting rid of them. However the 2nd option is too terrible to even think of.. at this time.

[B Knotts]

Well, it's kind of interesting. Impeachment is defined as requiring high crimes or misdemeanors, however...that definition specifically applies to the president and vice-president.

The legitimate causes for impeachment of judges is not actually defined.

Article III, Section 1 states that:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

So, really it could boil down to the interpretation of the phrase "good behaviour."

[BookmanTheJanitor]

I'm afraid more drastic steps must be taken.....tax payments stopped, marches, sit-ins all seem to be the only choice to have these people listen (even then, who knows?). I do know it's time for people to stop taking this crap lying down. The apathy among the general public is so disappointing.

[familyofman]

"..really it could boil down to the interpretation of the phrase "good behaviour."

I think you would be hard-pressed in finding anyone in congress that would take that to mean anything concerning their decisions. If you really intend on stirring up trouble - start impeaching federal judges for their decisions. I think you will find the original intent of "good behavior" means doing nothing unlawful almost akin to "high crimes & misdemeanors".