There were two actual attempts to impeach Douglas, one following his vote on the Rosenberg spy case, and one which was allegedly about financial irregularities but was also probably about his votes. Both attempts failed, obviously.
Motion for change of venue to Canada?
Wasn’t there also the threat by Roosevelt to create new justices to pack the Supreme Court if they continued to obstruct the New Deal? IIRC from previous discussions, there’s nothing magical about the number 9. That would take care of quorum shortcomings.
IIRC from my high school history classes, this threat caused a huge shitstorm of outrage (as it should of) and Roosevelt quickly backed down on the idea.
Should have. And you remember backwards (or more likely your high school teachers taught it incorrectly.) Roosevelt’s “court-packing” plan worked; the reason he wanted to pack the court was to stop it from striking down employee rights legislation on “freedom of contract” principles (the “Lochner Era”) - employment rights being a bit part of the New Deal. In 1937 SCOTUS receded from its freedom of contract decisions and Roosevelt no longer had to pack the court.
Well, it “worked” in the sense that Roosevelt introduced legislation and the Supreme Court subsequently widened its interpretation of the Constitution. But the bill never made it out of committee in the Senate and once the Court was seen as being more open to the New Deal the plan was seen as moot.
Nobody’s made any serious attempt to screw around with the structure of the Supreme Court since then.
Could the guardian exercise the powers and responsibilities of the justice’s office instead of resigning them? Would they have to be admitted to the bar as an attorney? E.g. “On behalf of my ward, Justice Smith, I, Smith’s guardian, make the following ruling…”
Put your thinking cap on. If you were in a coma do you think your guardian could show up at your office and start doing your job?
Narrowed, really: they stopped finding an implicit right to contract in it.
As John Paul Stevens once pointed out, the Constitution makes the same mistake.
I can’t see Congress impeaching a justice for any racist statement, no matter how bad. It just isn’t an impeachable thing.
Nope. Justice Baldwin was inaugurated in 1830, people around him warned that he seemed to be going insane in 32, and he was officially diagnosed & hospitalized for “incurable lunacy” in 33. He stayed on the bench till 44.
Justice Grier got three strokes in 1867 and was all but disabled, but still served for 3 years (despite his peers knowing full well how barely cogent he’d become, his addled vote still swung the axe on the Legal Tender Act of 1862)
Justice Frank Murphy was a drug addict when he took the oath, and would buy painkillers & similar opiates twice a day during his term, very presumably delivering justice high as a kite because Demerol is happy funtimes. Rehnquist is another who wound up addicted to funny pills during his time on the bench.
Both eventually cleaned up their acts, but still.
If they decide it’s impeachable, it is. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.
In the case of a judge who is required to apply the law fairly, without regard to the race or religion of litigants, being an outright racist or anti-semite goes directly to the issue of fitness to carry out the duties of the office, so I could see impeachment as an issue.
A clear example of the “nuclear option” threat and it effectiveness in a game of chicken.
But if the need were to repair a problem where, say, 5 of the 9 justices succumbed to brain cancer, or a beam fell on their collective heads while they were sitting in the court, and all ended up severely permanently incapacitated - then the solution would be to create enough new justices to create a quorum… although I’m inclined to buy the “guardian resigns for them” as the less complex course of action.
But I feel we’re looking at a different issue. Racism and anti-semitism are moral failings but they aren’t signs of incompetence.
But I would see them as signs of bias; plus one has to question the judgement of anyone (Hello, Rob Ford?) dumb enough to make such comments out loud where they could be heard, recorded, and repeated. In the case that the Supreme in question refused to resign voluntarily I’m sure that bias issue could be transformed into a sufficient high crime (failure of commitment to uphold the constitution?) that the witch hunt would at least guarantee an impeachment trial, whether the result is removal or not. Who in their right mind, in politics, would vote against applying the highest sanction in a blatantly racist situation. Note the operative word, “Politics”.
How would a justice be removed for violating that Article III good behavior clause? Impeachment or some other method?
“During good behavior” means “until you get impeached and removed.” 
I absolutely agree it’s bias. But the question is whether bias is sufficient cause for removal. That seemed to be pretty much settled as a no by the Chase precedent. That set the standard that you can’t impeach somebody because you disagree with their views.