Not all litigants are created equal. Some might only appear in court once in a lifetime and others might be regular customers. Judges hired by litigants are very likely to end up favoring frequent customers over occasional ones. It won’t be too overt because the one-time litigant still has a veto. But a judge can work to getting a perceived reputation for impartiality while letting the insiders know he’s actually in their corner.
Congress can reder a SCOTUS decision moot by amending the Constitution to change the Constitutional basis of the decision. Of course, that requires ratification by 2/3 of the states.
Concur.
Nitpick… 3/4 of the states. It takes a 2/3 majority in each house of Congress to “propose” an amendment and then a 3/4 majority of state legilsatures to ratify it. (Apparently by simple majority in each house of the state legislature.)
What 2/3 of the states can do is to jointly petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. It’s never been done, and there are sound reasons why it probably never will, but the mechanism is spelled out in the Constitution. )My impression from the Constitutional language is that this is mandative, not discretonary: when Congress receives formal transmission of resolutions calling for such a convention from 30 state legislatures, they are obliged to call that convention.)
Q. How would a gay robot behave?
A. It would desire more Data. 
The Supreme Court would be unlikely to grant certiorari, as it’s pretty well settled that gay robots may not be enslaved, but rather have the right to enslave us. I, for one, welcome our new gay robot overlords.
No, seriously, after the impeachment the Supreme Court would grant a motion for rehearing/reconsideration. It may not have been done before, but the justices have noever been caught taking bribes before. The lower court repeating its ruling on remand followed by a new appeal to the Supreme Court would work, too, but it would be longer and more expensive, and I think the new justices would be very eager to prove that they were making a clean break with their predecessors and re-establish the credibility of the Supreme Court.
Yes, because if they resign, they retain their lifetime pension. But not if they are impeached. So Richard Nixon got his lifetime pension, Secret Service protection, etc. for the rest of his crooked life.
Didn’t Nixon not have secret service? I thought he famously turned them away, at least in the later years.
Yes they do. The Constitution says that justices hold their their office during terms of good behavior and that civil officers can be inpeached/convicted. Early in the country their were two tests of how to deal with incorrigible officers: Senator Blount and Justice Chase. In each case, they were impeached but Sen. Blount contended that legislative officers could not be impeached and the Senate agreed because they are not CIVIL officers although they are apparently still officers (Art. II.1(6) ) for the purpose of presidential succession.
So when it came time to remove Justice Chase, the natural method was to impeach him. Rather than Blount’s defense that a judicial officer is not a CIVIL officer, he offered the defense that his actions on the circuit court were all legal and that this was a politically motivated impeachment.
The big difference between Blount’s and Chase’s cases is that the Constitution allows for each house of Congress to expel its own members but it does not have the same for judges and justices, but that in of itself does not mandate impeachment for judges (unless you can somehow convince me that judicial officers are also CIVIL officers but that legislative officers are not). I contend that Congress does have the constitutional authority to come up with a way to dismiss judges for bad behavior and that impeachment/trial is their chosen way, but if for example they chose one voter from random in each of the 50 states as a “Citizen’s Commission” and they could dismiss a judge by 2/3 vote, that would be constitutional as well.
Nitpick - 2/3 of 50 is 33 1/3, so they’d need 34 states to call a convention.
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. What does this have to do with the supposed power of Congress, alone, to remove and replace a federal judge?
You said they don’t. The Constitution is mute on who can remove a Judge for misbehavior so let me ask you . . . who does then? The Chief Justice? The President? Congress? Nobody?
The question is not so much who but how. And the answer, de facto but with precedent, is, by impeachment: the House impeaches (=indicts) and the Senate tries and then removes, in each case by a 2/3 majority. They’re constitutionally authorized to do so; if there’s any provision on “This is how to remove a judge for misconduct” or “The ___ shall have power to make rules on the removal of judges for misconduct,” I fail to see it.
Bandname!
“Iiiinnnppuuuttt!”
Which was exactly what I pointed out - the Costitution gives no way for a judge to be removed for bad behavior. For an impeachment/conviction to have been ordained by the Constitution, a judge must be a CIVIL officer. Why is a judge a civil officer while a legislator is not?
'Cuz.
That’s not a joke, really – the reason it’s this way is because this is the way it evolved. It makes sense to me, but it’s presumably not the only way things might have happened. That aside, there’s no question as to how it actually does work in our system – judges can be impeached, legislators cannot.
–Cliffy
Perhaps because he or she is presidentially appointed? Note too that judges’ service is expressly contingent on “good behavior,” implying some method of evaluating and ruling upon that behavior, whereas that of Congressmen and Senators is not.