A few years back I asked a number of people how long does a Supreme Court Justice serve. Almost unanimously the response was until death or resignation. No one's response was constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a Supreme Court Justice or any other federal judge serves for life or until they resign.

Here is what the Constitution says about the term of office of a Supreme Court Justice or federal judge:

    "Article III.

     

    Section. 1.

     

    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." [Emphasis mine]

There is nothing that says the appointments are for life, but does say they shall hold their office during good behavior.

What does it mean 'good behavior'? Some have argued that means moral behavior but the most generally accepted understanding refers to how they conduct themselves on the bench and adhere a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of land. First and foremost is adhering to the Constitution.

So what happens if a Supreme Court Justice does not follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution and starts ruling on what he or she wants the Constitution to say? That Justice is no longer serving in good behavior and therefore should be removed from the bench.



http://constitution.com/congress-has-constitutional-authority-to-remove-ginsberg-and-kagan-from-supreme-court/

Quote from: Cruzman on March 05, 2016, 05:21:03 AM
A few years back I asked a number of people how long does a Supreme Court Justice serve. Almost unanimously the response was until death or resignation. No one's response was constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a Supreme Court Justice or any other federal judge serves for life or until they resign.

Here is what the Constitution says about the term of office of a Supreme Court Justice or federal judge:

    "Article III.

     

    Section. 1.

     

    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." [Emphasis mine]

There is nothing that says the appointments are for life, but does say they shall hold their office during good behavior.

What does it mean 'good behavior'? Some have argued that means moral behavior but the most generally accepted understanding refers to how they conduct themselves on the bench and adhere a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of land. First and foremost is adhering to the Constitution.

So what happens if a Supreme Court Justice does not follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution and starts ruling on what he or she wants the Constitution to say? That Justice is no longer serving in good behavior and therefore should be removed from the bench.



http://constitution.com/congress-has-constitutional-authority-to-remove-ginsberg-and-kagan-from-supreme-court/

They continue to serve as history shows us. I do believe there is an impeachment process, but I have never heard of Sc justice being impeached.

Samuel Chase in 1805 was impeached, but acquitted by the senate.

Careful what you wish for.
This is a can O worms that neither party should open, if not for risk pf revolt by the electorate.

Quote from: Solar on March 05, 2016, 05:58:58 AM
Careful what you wish for.
This is a can O worms that neither party should open, if not for risk pf revolt by the electorate.

Similar to the call for a constitutional convention to change the Constitution.

At least one associate justice if not more was simply ignored during voting by colleagues who determined senility had set in. I have a clip on that I'll try to get uploaded here. It was a good Detroit News story a few years back.

Quote from: Solar on March 05, 2016, 05:58:58 AM
Careful what you wish for.
This is a can O worms that neither party should open, if not for risk pf revolt by the electorate.

Exactly.

We already have a precedent setting President, who decided to govern by executive order... which, if you're a radical liberal, seems like a good idea.. until a conservative takes over.

Quote from: Solar on March 05, 2016, 05:58:58 AM
Careful what you wish for.
This is a can O worms that neither party should open, if not for risk pf revolt by the electorate.

In today's environment, it's more likely that
Congress would remove a Justice
because he DOES follow the Constitution!

Quote from: Cruzman on March 05, 2016, 05:21:03 AM
A few years back I asked a number of people how long does a Supreme Court Justice serve. Almost unanimously the response was until death or resignation. No one's response was constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a Supreme Court Justice or any other federal judge serves for life or until they resign.

Here is what the Constitution says about the term of office of a Supreme Court Justice or federal judge:

    "Article III.

     

    Section. 1.

     

    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." [Emphasis mine]

There is nothing that says the appointments are for life, but does say they shall hold their office during good behavior.

What does it mean 'good behavior'? Some have argued that means moral behavior but the most generally accepted understanding refers to how they conduct themselves on the bench and adhere a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of land. First and foremost is adhering to the Constitution.

So what happens if a Supreme Court Justice does not follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution and starts ruling on what he or she wants the Constitution to say? That Justice is no longer serving in good behavior and therefore should be removed from the bench.



http://constitution.com/congress-has-constitutional-authority-to-remove-ginsberg-and-kagan-from-supreme-court/

Good luck with that cockamamey idea.

While intriguing, I assert that the concept of Judicial Review is far more important and more dangerous.
The right of Judicial Authority to over rule Legislative Authority was neither articulated nor enumerated in Article 111 of the Constitution. Instead, Hamilton argued that it was implied; yet many others, strongly disagreed.
There is an obvious inverse relationship between the concentration of power in DC and the emasculation of States Rights, which many correctly rail against.
Yet this was never an accident, instead being set in motion by two factors;
* the adoption of Amendments 14, 15, 16 and 17 and
* the appointment of judicial activists throughout the GOP political ascendancy, post Civil War.
Remember that the next time some R schmuck insists that the GOP is the party of Strict Constitutional Construction.
Having lived abroad for a lengthy period, I can attest that no European nation tolerates a system whereby its judicial authority dictates to its citizens and their elected parliamentary representatives what the laws they have mutually enacted "means". Why we put up w/this is astonishing.

Ginsberg is 100 years old. God will recall her soon enough. Be patient.

Quote from: quiller on March 05, 2016, 06:39:16 AM
At least one associate justice if not more was simply ignored during voting by colleagues who determined senility had set in. I have a clip on that I'll try to get uploaded here. It was a good Detroit News story a few years back.

I regret my image host won't allow a larger scan of this, but here's the story I mentioned.