That's what I thought. Seems a bit... scary, honestly.
That's what I thought. Seems a bit... scary, honestly.
can a justice be impeached, as well? (or at least, in theory?)
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
So...yes, they can be impeached (for failing at the "during good Behaviour" clause). So far, fourteen judges have been successfully impeached, with Judge Samuel Kent being the latest. Not all were convicted; many resigned before going to trial (remember, "impeachment" is a formal offer of charges by the House; the matter then proceeds to trial in the Senate).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges
@tRidiot: there are very good reasons for giving judges and justices lifetime tenure. First, it insulates them from political concerns, allowing them to make their rulings strictly according to the law without having to worry about losing their offices for displeasing the populace (see, e.g., the rape case here in Oklahoma a few years back; the ruling was absolutely correct despite being hugely unpopular). Second, our system is based on precedent; keeping the same judges for long durations lends a certain stability to the law that wouldn't be there if we had frequent turnover of judges.
Magistrate judges are tax/fine collectors to benefit the Municipality.
The above statement of how it should be, is not followed by the 9th Circuit. In fact it's routinely overturned by Scotus.
There are federal Magistrates; they handle routine scut work like approving warrants. They don't actually preside over trials, and they don't enjoy lifetime tenure.
It's the most reversed in absolute number, but it's also the busiest by far. As far as reversal rate, it's about middle of the pack.
Ah, I was thinking you were referring to municipal magistrates that work by the hour in local government with no formal legal training.
I've paid a couple of speeding fines to those legal scholars.
Dennis, you're buying into this idea that the 9th circuit court is over ruled routinely . What exactly does that mean?
Fewer than 1% of the cases decided by the 9th circuit are ever even heard by the Supreme Court. The rest are allowed to stand.
Your sources tell you that the 9th circuit is reversed "almost" 80% of the time? What's 80% of 1%?
Fewer than 1% of the cases decided by the 9th circuit are ever even heard by the Supreme Court. The rest are allowed to stand.
Your sources tell you that the 9th circuit is reversed "almost" 80% of the time? What's 80% of 1%?
Last edited:
I get that, and I agree, to a degree. I have some reservations about certain things, though.
You had to go and say that out loud now didn’t you? That is the stuff nightmares are made of.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar threads
