VIII Removal from Office
Justices serve lifetime appointments. Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no precise standard for determining whether a justice has committed an impeachable offense, though the consensus is that removal should be for criminal or ethical lapses, not for partisan political reasons. No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chaseís opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing but because they disagreed with his decisions. The possibility of impeachment may have been a factor in the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas, who left the Court in 1969 after allegations surfaced that he had accepted a questionable fee from a private foundation. Some conservative groups rallied for the removal of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1960s, but their efforts failed.
In the wake of the controversy over Abe Fortasís financial practices, the Court became more restrained in its public activities. Once confirmed to the Court, justices try to ensure that their investments and outside income do not bring their integrity into question. Common practice now dictates that justices also remove themselves from politics, refraining from speaking out about controversial issues or pending legislation. The justices can make public speeches, but these are usually confined to subjects related to the law in general and to the federal court system. In these and other questions of judicial ethics the Court usually follows the American Bar Association (ABA) Code of Judicial Conduct, although these rules are not binding on the Court.
There could be legal argument made that the SC overstepped their constitutional bounds when they decided a national election, rather than the popular vote as is legally done by US Constitution dictate. Particularly, when it's well known that SC positions are voted by partisanship preferences. Never in the history of the US was federal presidential general election decided by the SC prior to the year 2000.
It's well known Scalia decides based on his RC indoctrination, which has nothing to do with decisions based on the US Constitution.
this man deserves to be impeached
HISTORY IS THE ONLY RELIABLE SOURCE
DON'T MESS IT UP !
NEWSWORLD SHOWDOWN nsnews
[ Shop | Learn | History | Justice | Law | Tribute | Nixon | Kafka | JFK | Links ]