The Congress can impeach a supreme court member for lack of “good behavior”. Why haven’t they???
Because voting for something we don’t like is not bad behavior. If that were the case both sides would put up all 9 justices many times over and we literally would be replacing justices as much as we change our underwear. Liberals think that Roberts and Alito are not legitimate because President Bush was appointed not elected.....both sides have issues with the justices in one way or the other. Yes did this stink? Yes. But liberals thought Citizen’s United stunk so we get some and we lose some.
“Because voting for something we don’t like is not bad behavior. “
When the court makes an obvious excursion into politics and violates the constitution, yes, it can be called bad behavior. The writers of the constitution said so.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78:
According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State. Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.