From what I understand, Supreme Court Justices can serve for life or until they resign.
Question for debate: Should at least 2/3 majority of Congress have authority to impeach Supreme Court Justices?

No debate here, FlutePlayer. From Article II, section 4 of the US Constitution.....



So, Congress can impeach a Supreme Court Justice.

Yes, there is debate. I wasn't referring to high crimes and misdemenaors and the like. I was referring to if at least 2/3 of Congress had enough of Supreme Court Justices they felt a need to remove one, some, or all of them.

No. Exactly why it was set up as it was. The Founders were wise enough to see that corrupt politicians and the will of the angry lynchmob would be a danger to the Judicial branch. This is a subject generally enthusiastically received by those upset with decisions made AGAINST their beliefs. The duty of the judges is to the Law, not public polls and special interest groups. They interpret the law as they best can. If people are upset with decisions they make should STOP sending cases. Either let people live their own lives and treat them fairly and equally as was originally intended and mind your own business or go form a nice little gated community and live with others who reflect your views perfectly. Add a swimming pool and you never need go outside again.


Edited my response. Maybe decaf would be good. 2/3 would be a bad idea. 9/10ths would be good.

At some point it seems to me that we either trust our system of government, and it's foundations as determined by our Constitution, or we don't and look for something else. As it stands right now, a Federal Judge, including a US Supreme Court justice can be removed from office by impeachment from the House and conviction by 2/3rds of the Senate. That has never happened for a Supreme Court justice in our history although it has happened for other Federal judges.


I'd say the system has worked rather well in over 200 years, and quite frankly if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I guess I'm not really sure how a justice gets onto the supreme court. I think Congress has to approve them, so technically - they can't get there without a 2/3rds vote to begin with....is this right?

So what if the justice decides to get radical all of a sudden? What if they flew in under the radar as a moderate and then once on the bench turns into the judge from hell? Technically they wouldn't have committed any crimes, I think. But what if the next Congress decides the justice doesn't represent the people who originally put him there? Do we really have to wait until he dies or commits a crime to get rid of him?

It's an interesting prospect. I always get nervous when a president is leaving and a new president in coming in, because it seems that the leaving president has all kinds of powers like to create some last minute laws without congressional approval, and to pardon prisoners without any checks or balances - or even nominate court seats without approval from congress? Maybe not that extreme, but it does seem like presidents on the way out have a ton of unchecked power. Hopefully this year will be one of those years where a president will be leaving, but I fear even more his farewell shots. Can those special priveledges really never be undone?

Bush Gives Recess Appointment to Pickering

How does this work? Can presidents really do that?

Absolutely they can.

From Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.......




Pickering's term will end next January when a new congress is sworn in.

Edited to add a response to Perspective's first post.....




No. Under the Constitution all that is required is for the Senate to approve a Supreme Court Justice by a majority vote (51). However, under Senate rules (which are determined by the Senate), a vote on any issue may be postponed by continuing the floor debate on that issue. That's a so-called filibuster and in order to cut off debate and move on to a vote, a cloture vote must be approved and that requires, once again under Senate rules, a vote of 2/3 (67) of the Senate.




First of all, even a Supreme Court Justice is only one of nine and any strange or outrageous things that justice might do are subject to review by the full court. Secondly, "high crimes and misdeamors" mean whatever Congress decides they mean. If some judge totally loses it, they would most likely be asked nicely to resign or face impeachment proceedings and Congress wouldn't wait for that judge to go out and rob a liquor store first.

(editorial comment)......

Our system has worked tremendously well for over 200 years. The beauty of the checks and balances built into it is profound. Even in today's world that document reigns and works, pretty much unchanged since it's inception. That is a remarkable thing. It has been under constant attack from all directions but at the end of the day, it survives. It survives primarily because the majority of the people it serves protect it, believe in it and fight for it.

Uh, close but not quite. Recess appointments expire at the end of the next session, not at the beginning of it. Meaning if the Senate still refuses to vote on him, Pickering could be reappointed indefinitely each year during the recess. Clinton did that with Bill Lan Lee who could not get through a Republican congress.

That's all perfectly constitutional, at least as much so as the Senate filibusters of judicial appointments.

I think it erodes the checks and balances. I know Pickering is only one of several justices on the 5th circuit, but if all justices were recess appointments from presidents, what is to keep the president from putting his men on the bench and then taking his own liberty to break laws, knowing that his boys on the bench wouldn't dare condemn him? I know that's far reaching, but you see the implication of one person having sole power of nominating one branch of the government. I assume recess appointments can be done with Supreme court justices too.

Presidents also use recess appointments to delay a confirmation vote until after an election, when the nominee possesses the advantage of incumbency and, ideally, faces a friendlier Congress. President Eisenhower appointed three justices during recesses: Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart. All three occurred immediately before an election, and all were confirmed the following spring by a new Congress. Article here.

I don't blame filibusters for the vacancies, I blame the party that nominates someone that can't be accepted by each side. If your nominated candidate stirs such strong feelings that congress will filibuster that candidate - find a less controversial candidate. Politicians should be experts in the art of compromise, if you aren't willing to compromise, you shouldn't have other avenues available to you - it encourages non-bipartisan behavior. Breeds anger. Not compromise. Recess appointments degrade the political process.

Of course! Given the small number of justices that have actually faced impeachment, I would say the founders did a good job. I'm still awaiting the day when a justice is impeached for political reasons, as opposed to criminal wrongdoing.