How can one get forcibly kicked off the U.S. Supreme Court?
Would any of these scenarios qualify:
The only way to be removed from the Supreme Court is to by congress. There is no automatic process, even being convicted of a felony would require a separate process to impeach and remove the justice.
Well, that and death (or retirement)
Brian
There are exactly three ways to remove a Supreme Court justice:
The first two have happened many times. The third was tried just once, and he wasn’t convicted.
If a Justice was incapacitated but still alive, would it really take a full impeachment trial to remove her? Or can some next-of-kin offer her resignation if she is unable to.
It seems vaguely cruel to have, say, Justice Sotomoyor go down in history as the first Justice to be successfully impeached just because she has a stroke and goes into a coma or whatever.
The a Constitution says impeachment is only for treason, bribery, or other high crimes. So getting a senility conviction out of Congress would be tough.
According to Bob Woodward’s book, Justice Douglas resisted retirement well into the beginnings of dementia, and even after he finally stepped down, he kept trying to crash the Justices’ conferences.
Article III says judges shall hold their seat during “good behavior.” That is far less specific requirement than what is needed for impeachment of Executive Branch officers.
Right you are.
In any case, the Supreme Court can operate without all nine justices if necessary, and frequently does so when one must be recused due to conflicts of interest. A quorum of the Supreme Court is 2/3 of its members, which right now means six justices must be in working order to hear a case.
One concern about determinations of incapacity due to mental health issues is that they can be easy to abuse for political reasons. Many corrupt and/or totalitarian governments have had a history of using vague mental health diagnoses to take away the civil rights of dissidents who hadn’t committed any specific crime. The USSR was especially known for this.
E.g. a Republican controlled Congress could sic a hand-picked psychiatrist on liberal SCOTUS judges that they wanted “out”. Since the judges wouldn’t actually be incapacitated in a real sense, they would probably defend themselves. So it becomes a fight (on the floor of Congress?) Maybe the judge does have some not-so-serious mental health issues and it becomes a real thorny question as to whether or not they are sick enough to be considered incompetent.
These kinds of reasons are why it is so hard to get someone committed involuntarily to a mental institution today. The hearings, second evaluations, etc. are not just there to rack up costs - they are there to protect innocent people from tyranny, at least in theory. Make sure that the people being sent away are really and truly-o sick, not “sick” for having pissed off the Governor over protesting highway costs. Yeah, the patient displays antisocial behavior by protesting loudly against social betterment activities such as transportation improvement initiatives while displaying obsessive-compulsive thoughts over environmental and cost issues. Crazy!
SCOTUS has justices. Court of Appeals and the District Courts have judges.
/pedant
Good points otherwise.
What happens if there isn’t a quorum? Let’s say, the Supreme Court takes a case, but it turns out that justices Scalia, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Breyer all have a conflict of interest, and must recuse themselves. That leaves only 5 justices. What would happen then?
There is a principle called the “rule of necessity” that says judges need not recuse themselves when there will be nobody left to decide a case.
SCOTUS has Justices, if you want to be pedantic. But in any event it is not incorrect to refer to SCOTUS’ members as judges, because that’s what they are.
There have been times when the Supreme Court has declined to hear a case because they could not muster a quorum. Recently American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza, a case concerning companies that had business operations in apartheid South Africa, was automatically affirmed because Roberts, Breyer, Kennedy, and Alito all had conflicts of interest. (In Kennedy’s case, his son was employed by one of the many defendants; the other justices owned stock in some of the other defendants. It was a hugely complicated case involving many companies.)
Interesting, thanks.
Harry Claiborne, a U.S. District Court Judge, drew his salary even while in federal prison for about 2 years until he was Impeached.
Rehnquist wrote a good book on the impeachment process “Grand Inquests” which is a case study of the impeachments of Justice Chase an President Johnson. The OP might find then interesting.
Well, in a manner of speaking. He had to pay it all back as part of his restitution. Claiborne was admitted back to practice by the Nevada bar after he got out of prison, amusingly.
Any person so incapicated would normally be placed under guardianship. Then their guardian could take legal actions on their ehalf, including resigning from the Court.