During Good Behavior

The Judicial Branch

Regarding the Article III Branch of our Federal government, there are two very dangerous bad habits, based upon bad interpretations of constitutional text, and in order for the American people to live under a proper Constitutional Republic, these two errors must be corrected…

False Interpretation #1

Nothing in the Charters of Freedom, specifically, Article III of the U.S. Constitution, establishes or implies that the Judicial Branch is a superior branch to the Article I or Article II branches. Instead, the Article III branch is a “coequal” branch to the other two branches.

“Coequal” means that none of the three are superior to the others. The power of each branch is equal to the powers of the other two branches. While each branch holds sole power within their own designated spheres of influence, no branch is greater than the other.

Further, because the Judicial Branch is the only “unelected” branch of the Federal government and is instead a “political” branch wherein the Justices are chosen by a President and confirmed by Congress, it is intended to be the weakest of the three branches, not the most powerful.

Because Article I of the Constitution designates all lawmaking powers to Congress alone, neither the Judicial Branch or Executive Branch hold the power to “make law.”

In December 1990, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 replaced the phrase “according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution” with “under the Constitution.” The revised Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads:

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (judge or justice) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So, help me God.”

This means that every time the Court (or individual justice) issues a ruling on the basis of “the person or persons involved,” or on the basis of “poor vs. rich,” or to suit any particular biased political agenda other than upholding and enforcing “the Constitution and laws of the United States,” the Justice or Court is engaged in a direct violation of their Oath. They are “acting in bad behavior.”

False Interpretation #2

It has long been presumed that once a Federal Justice or Judge is seated on the Court, they are entitled to remain there for the balance of their life, or until such time they retire.

But nothing in Article III of the Constitution says or implies this.

Instead, Article III states that;

“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,”

The clear intent in Article III is that Judges in the Federal Courts may NOT continue to hold office, during BAD behavior. Of course! There is no minimum or maximum time limit on how long a Judge can remain on the bench once placed there. Instead, the limitation on how long a Judge can remain on the bench is tied to a “behavior,” not a time frame.

This raises two questions…

1. What constitutes “bad behavior” in this regard.

Certainly, engaging in any criminal activities, such as bribery or other criminal forms of misconduct, including participation in insurrection, subversion, or treason, would qualify as “bad behavior.” But the real qualifier is any “violation of their oath,” which would include these things and many other acts of “bad behavior,” such as partisan political favoritism, or working to undermine a duly elected President, or pretending to “make laws” when Article III does not grant the courts any lawmaking powers.

2. How should a Justice or Judge be removed upon “bad behavior?”

Again, it’s been presumed that the only way to remove a “bad judge” from the bench is via a Congressional Impeachment Process. But Article III of the Constitution says no such thing. Impeachment is not mentioned at all in Article III.

This assumption is based upon Article II text, and Article II pertains only to the Executive Branch, not the other two branches.

“Article II, Section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The assumption that this Article II language also pertains to Article III is based upon three words, “all civil Officers.” Judges are considered “civil Officers” under current legal interpretations.

However, the language says;

“shall be removed from Office on Impeachment”

First, it does not say that impeachment is the only way to remove a bad actor from office. It only says that someone “on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”… Shall be removed from office.

However, President Bill Clinton was Impeached and Convicted of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” but was not removed from office. Apparently, “shall be” doesn’t mean “shall be.”

No Federal Judge is elected by the people. Each is a partisan political appointee, making the courts the most highly politicized branch of government, further making members of the courts unaccountable to the voters.

There are three steps to seat a judge on any Federal Court bench.

1. They must be nominated by a sitting President

2. They must be declared eligible and qualified by the Department of Justice

3. They must then be confirmed by the Senate

This confirms that the President, Department of Justice and Congress have the power to seat any judge on any Federal Court. If any of the three steps is missing, the candidate cannot be confirmed to the bench.

This implies that when a judge fails to demonstrate “good behavior,” and instead demonstrates “bad behavior,” they have lost their right to remain on the court.

Because it is a three-step process to gaining a seat on the court, this implies that any of the three involved in the process may be able to remove a bad judge from the bench by simply providing proof that the judge is demonstrating bad behavior in violation of their Judicial Oath.

A President could call for the removal of a bad judge, the Department of Justice could declare a bad judge no longer eligible for the bench due to “bad behavior” on the bench, or the Senate could revoke their confirmation for the same reasons.

Nowhere in our Founding Documents is a judge guaranteed “lifetime appointment” despite their “bad behavior,” or is it stated that a bad judge can only be removed from the bench via the impeachment process.

If judges are limited in term to “during good behavior,” then judges demonstrating bad behavior have given up their right to remain on the bench.

So, why are so many blatantly bad judges allowed to remain on the bench, despite their bad behavior and overt violations of their Oath?

You tell me…