Offering common sense solutions for judicial discipline
In the beginning... of the Act
Any study about discipline of federal judges must naturally begin with a search of our Constitution, which the Founder's said is "The Supreme Law of the Land." (Depends on what the meaning of "Supreme" is?)
Frankly, it's amazing how much foresight the Founder's had. They thought of almost everything... and for the things they didn't anticipate, they even included a process for adding those later.
In the Constitution, famous for its system of Checks & Balances, the Founder's assigned Congress oversight of the Judiciary. Let's start with Article III, Section I
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour...
Implied is that judges ought to be removed for "bad behaviour". How does that happen? Article I, Section II.
The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole power of impeachment.
This next part confuses most Americans, but was fleshed out during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. Impeachment is like being indicted for a crime. Then the Senate comes in. Article I, Section III.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. ... And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
So the House of Representatives indicts, and the Senate tries the case. If they find a judge "guilty" of bad behavior, he is removed from office. That much is clear. But now the picture gets murky.
What, exactly, constitutes "bad behaviour?"
NEXT MILESTONE > >