|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
Members of Congress are currently filing resolutions to impeach federal judges who are blocking the work of the Trump administration.
But what does the Constitution actually say about how long a federal judge may serve on the bench?
ART III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Judges, both of the supreme & inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior…” It does not say that the judges will hold their offices until they resign, die, or commit “a high crime or misdemeanor.” It just says that they stay on their bench while their “behavior” is good.
Now if a federal district judge had previously served on the board of directors of an organization when it received tens of millions of dollars in federal funding and he or she issued an order requiring that the federal spigot feeding that organization could not be closed instead of recusing himself, would that be considered “good behavior?”
Such a case recently came up when District Judge John McConnell Jr. blocked a funding freeze by the Trump administration without disclosing his role on the board of Crossroads Rhode Island: a nonprofit which had received $128 million in government funding during his tenure.
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R – Georgia) announced that he was drafting articles of impeachment against the judge. Rep. Eli Crane (R – Arizona) just filed a resolution for impeachment regarding another federal judge. Others may be filed as well. Thus, the standard of proof in such events needs to be revisited.
The Constitutional provision of “good behavior” is quite different from the provisions that discuss “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Good behavior does not seem to have such a low threshold that asks a judge to only avoid criminal conduct. It instead anticipates that judges are to be held to a much higher standard than government executives. The Constitution also does not use the words “lifetime appointment.”
Desiring simplicity, the founders did not dictate that those reviewing conduct of a judge or justice should be severely restricted to only that which met all the elements of a criminal charge. The Constitution’s founders wanted judges who could not be swayed by money, politics, or personal advancement.
From the most quoted book in the history of Congress (the Bible), particularly in the earlier Congressional days comes these words, “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.” (Leviticus 19:15) In that regard, the Constitutional framers appear to have aspired for righteous judges. They held out no such hope for legislators or executives.
As the Constitution makes quite clear, it only created a single federal court, that being the Supreme Court. All other courts owe their existence, jurisdiction, and continuation to the U.S. Congress. As my Constitutional Law professor would occasionally add, “Congress brought all federal courts but the Supreme Court into being, and it can take them out.”
Certainly judges can be impeached. We had two cases for impeachment of federal judges while I was on the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives. However, before even getting to the issue of impeachment, shouldn’t Congress be able to subpoena a judge to determine if conduct is outside the realm of good behavior?
We have seen federal judges in January 6 cases seemingly aspiring to the level of Judge Roy Bean justice. Would “good behavior” be violated when a judge describes a defendant’s conduct as “insurrection” during sentencing when that defendant had not been charged with it and not convicted of it? There seem to be numerous questions of judicial “good behavior” raised during the January 6 cases.
Though the Executive and Legislative Branches are constantly flexing their checks and balances on the other, the Judiciary continues to claim that they and they alone should regulate their own personnel when it comes to misconduct. However, when the highest court in the land does not enforce its own rules of ethics, it leaves the public wondering, “Who does?”
Congress passed a law years ago that created a judicial standard of ethics, but it has basically gone unenforced. It was in 1948 that Congress passed and the President signed into law 28 U.S. Code § 455 “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge.” It states in the very first subsection, “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Would that apply to a Supreme Court judge who presides over a same sex marriage ceremony before a final opinion changes the law to make it lawful? Clearly, higher federal courts have not adequately enforced what Congress and the President considered “good behaviour” in 1948.
For years I suggested that it might be a good idea to bring judges in before the Judiciary Committee to ask them about matters in which a judge may have violated the “good behaviour” standard. Maybe it is time that idea was finally utilized. Perhaps it is time to have checks and balances on the Judiciary Branch, just as the Judiciary Branch has used checks against the Legislative and Executive Branches.
Deference is due to my delightful late friend and phenomenal Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, who once essentially told me at lunch, “Congress has the ultimate check on every federal entity. It’s called the power of the purse. If you don’t like something, stop paying for it! Stop running to us every time you don’t have the nerve to stop something yourself.” He said it with a smile.
Former Rep. Louie Gohmert is a David Horowitz Senior Fellow for Political Statesmanship, a Former Congressman, Chief Justice, Judge, and prosecutor.
Once again the constitution shows us what gods the founders were. Brilliant men solving a complex problem.
If they run, they’re Liberal judges. If they stand still, they’re ENTRENCHED Liberal judges.
Impeaching these activist “judges” is a delicate matter, and MAGA won’t be in power forever. The first thing the Democrats will do, should they ever regain power, is start impeaching conservative judges.
Yes, you’re right, but removal should be available for “bad behavior” on both sides, with the Code of Judicial Conduct setting the standard of proof. Judges are and should be held to a higher standard. Either the judge sat on the board and then failed to disclose it or he didn’t.
In a perfect world, maybe.
Exactly right. And laws are necessary because men are not angels, and thus the civilizations we create are imperfect.
So it seems time for Congress to a t against judge Merchan and others partaking in a ti-Trump coup attempts.
Imperialists Judges who abuse their Power should be totally removed from the Court and retired to a rest home for Judges who abuse their authority
No rest for the wicked. Isaiah 48:22.
“No rest for the wicked” actually means that inappropriate judges would have to be sent to a labor camp.
Eggsellent idea, mate. Let them drive each other barmy. Or would that be barmier than they are at present?
Behold the corruption of justice.
Partiality has been shown, bribes have been accepted, blinding the eyes of the wise. They have twisted the words of the law to their own demise.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they failed to uphold justice. It begins with the cities and spreads throughout the nation.
We all know that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to impeach ANY Judge appointed by oblama/biden and some even by Trump! The House needs a simple majority, which shouldn’t be an issue (except for the three or four DEMOcrat R’s) but the Senate must vote 2/3’s to remove – IMPOSSIBLE! Even if a “judge” stood up in court and shot a new born baby and proceeded to eat it , getting DEMOcrats to vote to impeach would be dicey!!
We KNOW that DEMOcrats are nothing more than anti-America gang – intent to DESTROY anything good and decent! They’ve done a pretty good job so far but hopefully their days are OVER – for GOOD!
Not impeach (except USSC) but bring them before Judiciary Committee to explain decisions which are unreasonable and opposes sound judicial judgement. Also Congress could pass laws restricting certain types of jurisdictions or removing entirely.
Consider Judge John McConnell. He recently ruled the Trump administration must continue with grants to, among others, Crossroads Rhode Island organization. Judge McConnell served as the president of that organization for 18 years until attaining judgeship and becoming president emeritus. During his tenure, Crossroads received over 120 million in federal and state grants. These grants account for over half its revenue. Naturally, Judge McConnell did not recuse himself as required by 28 US Code 455.
Alcee Hastings (D-FL) (one of only five* judges impeached since the 1930s) was convicted of bribery and perjury and a year later ran for congress and won. He served over two decades until he died in office. I guess bribery and lying is considered enhancers for congress.
* Only five judges in over 80 years. Four convictions and one resignation. Only five not necessarily because only the most righteous get appointed to a federal judgeship. Unfortunately, politics is part of the impeachment process. If you impeach one of ours, we’ll impeach two of yours the next time we’re in power. This has led to only the most grave abuses leading to impeachment.
I have seen and heard District court judges accuse ordinary people (not high profile cases like Jan6) of things from the bench that the defendant was not charged with. Is this taught in “judge school”? Ha!
Perhaps there should be a minimum IQ, a requirement to have law license and many years experience and, first and foremost TOTAL UNDERSTANDING OF U.S. CONSTITUTION. MOST CURRENT SCUM ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY ARE THE LAW.
I would oppose the requirement that any judge MUST have a law license. Particularly these days because of the rampant corruption in education amongst the institutions issuing those tickets……
There are dozens already that should be removed, and the DOJ knows who they are and what they’ve done.
When did part of the judicial comportment and professional conduct come to include activism which by definition reveals bias and the willingness to forego impartiality and restraint for an intended result?
And furthermore, why have we as American citizens tolerated this encroachment within our judiciary for so long?
Part of what we have previously learned about the difference in the American judicial system vs others is the presumption of innocence requiring guilt to be proven with reliable evidence.
These judges have shown a deliberate disregard for the law and should be removed from the bench! The last four years of politicizing the law by both unscrupulous lawyers and now those judges left reeling from the closing of the federal grifters spigot is certainly prima facie evidence warranting immediate action and removal.
The truth is evident and their removal should be concluded immediately!!
Make them behave?
Willingness to rule against America and for the Democrats, criminals, foreign enemies, and corrupt organizations
is the qualification that put these anti-judges on the bench.
They do not care about the Rule of Law, the law, the people, the nation, the planet, humanity, virtue, the future, air, water, or the price of rice in China
They only care about themselves, their cartel, and their hatred.
Have you met any of them? I have.
They’re disgusting.
The only breathing entities lower than them would be Jihadis, cannibal serial killers, and pedophiles.
Maybe. Because these judges LOVE those monsters – and HATE us.
the waffle-house robe-chimps lost their right to any civil responses long ago. they might be safe if they admit their crimes publicly, start resigning & running for their lives.