They're appointed to the bench for life per the Constitution. Nominated by POTUS and confirmed by Senate, the same as his cabinet officials. The exception is POTUS cannot fire them (i.e. accept their resignation). Most retire in very advanced years. Most of the deaths from old age occur on SCOTUS, not on the Appellate or District Courts. Only three ways to be rid of them:
I understand the imperative Regarding separation of the 3 branches.They're appointed to the bench for life per the Constitution. Nominated by POTUS and confirmed by Senate, the same as his cabinet officials. The exception is POTUS cannot fire them (i.e. accept their resignation). Most retire in very advanced years. Most of the deaths from old age occur on SCOTUS, not on the Appellate or District Courts. Only three ways to be rid of them:
The historical basis for lifetime appointments were the judges appointed by the Crown (reigning monarch) during the Colonial Era. The Crown could remove and replace a judge at will. King George III did so when he didn't like one that wasn't sufficiently tyrannical and doing his bidding. It was to create an independent bench and bar POTUS or Congress from being able to exert political leverage over them. Not all judges appointed by a given president turn out to be ones that do their bidding. That is why one specific political party is screeching about requiring judicial appointment expirations (i.e. terms only a few years vs lifetime) and/or appointment reaffirmations every few years. They're pissed off because they cannot control the judges and their decisions to force them to do their bidding. Civics Lesson for the week.
- Death,
- Voluntary Retirement, or
- Impeachment & Conviction by House and Senate.
Congress does through the impeachment process…
The lower court judges do not work for SCOTUS. They have their own constitutional authority when established by congress. So it is up to congress to discipline them…
The term lengths for president and members of Congress are designated in the Constitution. As you quote, there is no such limitation for justices. It seems that if the Founding Fathers wanted one, they would have put it in the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional amendment just as happened when the 22nd Amendment limited the President to 2 terms.
What I remember from Civics class 30 years ago is. Judges are to hold themselves at the highest standards. Even ruling by another judge's decision that is similar to their case. The Supreme court is the highest court in the country. But lack the power to remove a judge. They only make discissions, not investigative work or to prosecute. Congress is the only branch that has the power to remove a judge. In my opinion is if the Supreme court gets too many cases that is similar to what they have already ruled, They can order the lower court to hear it again or refer a judge to Congress for impeachment.
Federal courts have done that in the past . . . made referrals to Congress for impeachment action. The operative language on judges in the Constitution is "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". That means -- in the language of the 1780's -- that there is no limit on how long their appointment runs, i.e. it's lifetime. However if there is "bad Behaviour", that could result in removal from the bench. As stated above, the mechanism in Congress to act on a judge to remove one is the impeachment process. That process has been used and, if I counted them correctly, has resulted in seven Senate convictions that removed Federal Judges, with only one of them a SCOTUS Justice in the early 1800's. Numerous other judges either resigned in the face of almost certain removal, or were acquitted by the Senate not attaining the necessary votes to convict. Most of the latter served on the bench until death or retirement.
lol, the other day I shut a Libtard down that was crying about the Biden impeachment. I simply said that people are treating your president just like you treated theirs. It's your turn to deal with it. lol
@JALFWIW, one of the notable impeachment removal attempts was against William O. Douglas, an FDR appointee, brought into the House in 1970 by its Minority Leader (1965-1973), Gerald Ford, when he was a Congressman. (Ford resigned his seat in Dec 1973 to become VP when Spiro Agnew resigned after being legitimately indicted for corruption in Maryland from when he was governor; never was connected to the Watergate break-in. VP for about 8 months until Nixon resigned in Aug 1974.) There was considerable political wrangling over SCOTUS appointments from 1968 when LBJ announced he was not running for reelection (he was eligible to), making him a "lame duck", and into the first term of the Nixon administration. It generated turmoil within the court itself among several of its justices.
Sordid political history lesson for the week.
I anticipate an impeachment of at least Clarence Thomas if the Democrats gain control of the House (similar attempts for similar reasons in the past have never succeeded, either failing in the House, or failing in the Senate). They'll also go after all three of Trump's appointees hammer and tongs. I won't get into the details here regarding the Douglas impeachment attempt. It's an historical footnote about impeachment of SCOTUS justices.
I return you now to our regularly scheduled thread regarding Saint Benitez and his second ("remake") injunction regarding California's magazine ban.
We had a mechanism and a will, they were called control of the Senate and Trump+Turtle. We gained a lot of yardage, and you would not be seeing this thread or any of the other pro2A court decisions without them. Even the 9th has tacked a bit rightward, against it's masters' wills. They keep having to throw together lefty-stacked en banc re-do's to override the mini-banc 2A decisions.
www.firearmspolicy.org
Southern District of California holds California's AWB unconstitutional:
CA AWB is DOA:
FPC WIN: Federal Judge Again Strikes Down California “Assault Weapon” Ban
Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California has issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta, once again holding that California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Launch the fleet of Magpul drones!
Not happening. The Assembly just passed it, what makes you think they would turn around and repeal it?
40 million people that can now (legally, I know that CA is like Crete, the more the laws, the less compliance) purchase mags.
I meant via the courts.
