Article III, “Good Behavior.” The 6 Republican “justices” have violated tenets of Article III, Section I: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior..”
In deciding the merits of this accusation, consider, for a beginning, all the MOUNTAIN of evidence already supplied in posts I-VI. Consider the personal conduct of the Republican “justices” off the bench. They are becoming increasingly suspect of highly partisan views because of that off-bench conduct. Consider many other factors.
Consider the following dictionary definitions of “good”: “upright, honorable, charitable, trustworthy, beneficial,, competent, qualified, suitable.” Are YOU comfortable with ANY of these definitions when discussing ANY of the 6 current Republican “justices”?
Consider their conduct during their “job applications” – the Senate hearings. Have ANY of them been accused of prevarication or perjury; of broken promises to Senators? Have there been accusations of parts of their records having been “kept under wraps”?
Have there been questions raised about why THEY were nominated for the Supreme Court? Have there been questions about their selection/nomination process having violated the Constitution? Which Article? Once on the Court, have their votes raised concerns about that Article, and their Senate testimony? Should they have accepted a Supreme Court position?
Consider the Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “court’s” track record, the 2005-2022 PATTERN. Is there a PATTERN of “winners” and “losers”? If so, is this PATTERN asymmetric from earlier Supreme Courts?
Consider their oath to do “equal justice to rich and poor,” to uphold the Constitution. Have they IN FACT done “equal justice” to rich and poor? Have they, in real life results, upheld the Constitution?
The Preamble has these REQUIREMENTS of American governmental bodies: form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare. Have Roberts ‘court” decisions done this?
Consider their conduct on the bench. HOW have they operated? Have they followed accepted norms of conduct, 1789-2005 precedents? What is the Quality and Honesty of their opinions? How have they treated evidence? What is the FACTUAL TRUTH of their opinions?
Consider the following evidence. YOU decide if the 6 Republican “supreme court” appointees have exhibited the “good Behavior” Article III REQUIRES they display; if they have honored their oaths of office, if they have followed judicial codes of ethical behavior REQUIRED of American judges.
1] Missouri Senator Josh Hawley: “The bargain has never been explicitly articulated, but religious conservatives know what it is. The bargain is that you go along with the party establishment, you support their policies and priorities – or at least keep your mouth shut about it – and in return, the establishment will put some judges on the bench who supposedly will protect your rights to freedom of worship, to freedom of exercise. That’s what we’ve told for years now..I question how judges who will hold to this philosophy end up on the bench. I question the bargain that people of faith have been asked to hold to for all these years.” [Greenhouse, “Justice on the Brink”]
2] “Christian nationalist preacher and Trump acolyte Robert Jeffress discussed the case [Roe] on Fox News, explaining “the deal”: “We’re gonna see now what the justices do and if they uphold their part of the deal.” Trump and McConnell put Barrett on the court, and the court and the court finally ends Roe. That was the deal.” [Seidel: “American Crusade”]
ANY questions so far? You understand “the deal”; understand “the script”?????????
3] Damn Linker: “The Theocons”: Richard J. Neuhaus, far more than evangelicals, “Catholics are uniquely posed”..to transform the late 20th century into ‘the Catholic Moment.’…time had come for the church to assume “its rightful role in the culture-forming task of constructing a religiously informed public philosophy for the American experiment in ordered liberty.” Neuhaus and colleagues felt the Church provided a unifying agenda to transform the U.S. into a homogeneously traditionalist Catholic-Christian nation. If necessary, BY. FORCE.
4] “As Federalist Society cofounder Steven Calabresi said..the Federalist Society has “absolutely helped kept Justices such as Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito in check: When one tries to think about what kinds of checks exist on officials as powerful as Supreme Court Justices I think the check of criticism by law schools, journalists, and conservative think tanks like the Federalist Society, criticism from those quarters is something they notice.” [Hollis-Brusky; “Ideas With Consequences”]
***”You seem..to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.” [Thomas Jefferson, 1820]
5] “Hobby Lobby”: “For the first time in American history, the Court held..a for-profit employer may cite its owner’s religious beliefs in order to diminish the rights of its employees. And it ddid so by ignoring the limited goals Congress intended to accomplish when it enacted RFRA.” [Millhiser: “Injustices”]
6] “What is striking about..recent decisions of the Roberts Court..is how they have interpreted statutes to protect business in a way that undermines Congress’s purpose..This Court’s pro-business orientation has been at the expense of consumers, employees, and patients..this is also evident in the Roberts Court’s recent decisions regarding arbitration and class action suits and its employment discrimination rulings.” [Chemerinsky: “The Case Against the Supreme Court”]
7] Wal-Mart v. Dukes: “The Court came to this conclusion despite the fact..the plaintiffs presented a great deal of evidence to show..Walmart had company-wide practices and policies that caused sex discrimination..statistical studies..expert witnesses..large number of affidavits..” [Chemerinsky: “Case Against the Supreme Court’}
8] “What is striking about..especially the Roberts Court, is that it has systematically made it more difficult for people to sue the government when it acts wrongly..for money damages..much harder for those facing injury from government unconstitutional actions to get an injunction to stop such conduct.” [Chemerinsky: “Case Against Supreme Court”]
9] “..two projects which Roberts..was making steady progress..One involved race, the other religion. Roberts’ long-term plan was to change how the Constitution understood both..the project involved..weaponizing the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause, turning it from its historic role as a shield that protected believers from government interference into a sword that vaulted believers into a position of privilege.” [Greenhouse: “Justice on the Brink”]
WHY does a “supreme court justice’ have ‘A PROJECT’????????????? Is “weaponizing” one part of the First Amendment against it companion clause. “good BEHAVIOR’???????????????/
10] “Since the Heller decision..reinterpreted the Second Amendment..the mounting frustration of Justices Thomas and Alito, who complained regularly..the court was turning the Second Amendment into a ‘second-class right’…..New York City repealed the ordinance, rendering the case moot..but..Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch did not want to let the case go. It was simply too inviting a vehicle..” [Greenhouse: Justice on the Brink”]
“..too inviting a vehicle..” for WHAT? WHY do “justices’ look for “a vehicle”???????????????????
11] “..the court has shown its intensions in both the cases it selects and the broad decisions it reaches. ‘This term has revealed the court to be in a hurry to tick off the Republican Party’s policy goals – especially the ones they’re unable to enact in the political process’, the justices “seem to be bending over backwards to address their pet issues.'” G. Epps; November/December, 2022 Washington Monthly: “The Court’s Third Great Crisis”]
“..in a hurry to tick off Republican Party goals” – does this fit under Article III’s REQUIREMENT for “good Behavior” for federal judges??? “addressing their pet issues”???????? Do judges operating under the REQUIREMENT of “good Behavior”. have “pet issues’ on the federal bench???????????????/
12] “..the picture as of June, 2018, was of a highly partisan majority eager to defer to even the most extravagant initiatives of the Trump Administration.” [Epps, “The Court’s Third Great Crisis”]
13] “The draft of Alito’s majority opinion overturning Roe..is right-wing Republican politics masquerading as law.” [Chemerinsky: “Brazenly political court shows it will..”; 5/8/22; Pioneer Press]
14]. Kagan said the court should not be “wandering around just inserting itself into every hot button issue in America” and it especially “shouldn’t be doing that in a way that reflects one ideology” or “one set of political values over another.”
[J.Gresko; “From left and right..”; 10/27/22; Assoc. Press]
“right-wing Republican politics masquerading as law” ????????????????????? [“good Behavior” ???]
15] in 4 years, the Trump Administration won 28 of 41 requests on the “shadow docket.” Only 8 such requests were filed in the previous 16 Bush and Obama years – won only 4. “By the end of Trump’s term, the “shadow docket” looked like collusion between Trump justices and the Trump Administration to advance the Crusade..Of all..entities that brought “shadow docket’ cases, only two groups won: the Trump Administration and churches.” [Seidel: “American Crusade”]
“shadow docket” PATTERN ‘looked like COLLUSION between Trump ‘justices’ and Trump Administration – does THIS sound like “good Behavior” on the part of Article III observing “supreme court justices” ??????????????????/
16] “The Missouri ministry decision weaponized religious freedom. Roberts ignored procedure to decide a collusive case: ignored..facts to pretend..a religious ministry was not a religious ministry, while still claiming religious freedom as the central rationale..focused only on the rights of these church going Christians to the exclusion of every other American.” [Seidel: “American Crusade”]
Wow!!! Did YOU have to read that twice [or more] to untangle the Roberts “logic’ [let alone “legal principles !!!]. Does this seem to follow “good Behavior”??? Is it “good Behavior” for a judge to give one group of Americans a privileged status over the rest of the innocent victims. – YOU ???
17]. “Bostock” [2020]: “Gorsuch left the gate open for the Crusaders. He even drew their attention to it; “employers in other cases may raise free exercise [of religion] arguments that merit careful consideration.” [Seidel: “American Crusade”]
!!!!!!!!!!!!! is dropping hints about cases that could be sent for favorable results – for privileged people/groups – “good Behavior” ???????????
18] The 2011-2017 Supreme Court “dismantled much..campaign finance, weakened voting rights, created new religious liberty doctrines.” [Millhiser: “The Agenda”]
19] Supreme Court shifting power to itself: “remaking American law” [“The Agenda”] See: “Amassing of Power By Supreme Court Alarms Scholars,” Adam Liptak; 12/20/22 New York Times: “..the current court..has been rapidly accumulating power at the expense of every other part of the government.” See: “A Court of First Resort? [Jamelle Boule; 12/11/22 New York Times]: “”The court. Lemley writes, ‘has taken significant, simultaneous steps to restrict the power of Congress, the administrative state, the states and lower federal courts..by undercutting the ability of any entity to do something the justices don’t like.'”
*****”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
[James Madison, Federalist #47]
“good Behavior” ???????????
With Justice For All 