Can a USSC Justice be impeached for legal incompetence?

[no_hypocrisy]

Let's say Brett Kavanaugh is just plain sloppy. His clerks can't compensate for what he should have prowess. Kavanaugh was requested to correct one error a day ago. There was more than one error.

Let's say that his decisions can't be used as authority due to them being riddled with inaccuracies in facts and legal authority. Or just bad writing.

Can those deficiencies expose you to potential impeachment? (OK, theoretically unless you have super majorities in the House and the Senate.)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. No. Same criteria as for a president: High crimes and misdemeanors.

[SlogginThroughIt]

4. Wrong.

As far as I know there need not be a crime for impeachment. It is a political process and not a criminallrocess.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. The meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution

was not limited to statutory crimes; there were no statutory crimes when the Constitution was written.

The phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” entered the American Constitution because George Mason of Virginia was unhappy that, as the Constitutional Convention was drawing to a close, the class of impeachable offenses had been limited to “treason or bribery.” Mason wanted a much broader definition. He illustrated his point by arguing that Hastings’s offenses would not be covered by the proposed skimpy language. Mason’s first suggested addition—“maladministration”—was thought too expansive, whereupon he offered, and the convention accepted, that sturdy old English term of art “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Thus, one point on which the founding generation would have been clear was that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was not restricted to indictable crimes. Their understanding has been ratified by two centuries of American practice.

The first American impeachment was of Senator William Blount in 1797. Blount concocted a scheme to give Great Britain control of Florida and the Louisiana territories. When it was exposed, the Senate found he had committed a “high misdemeanor, entirely inconsistent with his public trust and duty,” and promptly expelled him. The House then impeached him in five articles alleging betrayals of trust and the national interest, only one of which even arguably alleged a crime. Although there is some debate on the point arising from the phrasing of the Senate’s verdict, most authorities conclude that Blount escaped conviction only because the Senate decided that senators are not civil officers subject to impeachment.

...Multiple judges have been impeached, and some removed, for noncriminal abuses or dereliction of office. Judges John Pickering (1803) and Mark Delahay (1873) were impeached for drunkenness (both) or insanity (Pickering). Judges George English (1926) and Harold Louderback (1933) were impeached, wholly or in part, for abusive or biased behavior that brought their courts into disrepute.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/

The history does not suggest, however, that mere incompetence would qualify.

[Statistical]

2. You 'can' be impeached for anything.

You could impeach Kavanaugh because you believe people who's last name that begin with "K" are not fit to be judges.

Regardless of the reason conviction in the senate to remove anyone from office for any possible reason requires 67 votes. So for all intents and purposes the last 4 years has shown while impeachment exists on paper as a practical matter it doesn't.

Until the Democrats have 67 reliable votes in the Senate no conservative will be convicted by the senate of anything.

[Sherman A1]

6. Precisely

getting them removed is the issue.

[alwaysinasnit]

3. I don't think so, but...

https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s-supreme-court-justice-ever-been-impeached

Supreme Court justices serve for life, unless they resign, die or are impeached and removed from office. The reason for their lifetime tenure is to enable them to make decisions free from any pressure by the executive or legislative branches of government. Since the Supreme Court first convened in 1790, there have been 112 justices and only one ever has been impeached.

In 1804, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Associate Justice Samuel Chase. A signer of the Declaration of Independence, Chase was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George Washington in 1796. A Federalist, Chase irked Thomas Jefferson and his Republican allies in Congress, and was impeached on politically motivated charges of acting in a partisan manner during several trials. However, in 1805 Chase was acquitted by the Senate, a decision that helped safeguard the independence of the judiciary. He served on the court until his death in 1811.

In 1969, Abe Fortas became the first—and, to date, only—Supreme Court justice to resign under the threat of impeachment. Named to the court by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, Fortas was forced to step down due to financial improprieties that involved him agreeing to act as a paid consultant to the family foundation of a man under investigation for securities fraud.

In addition to Samuel Chase, 14 other federal judges (who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate) have been impeached over the course of American history, on charges ranging from drunkenness on the bench to accepting bribes. The first impeachment was in 1803 and the most recent was in 2010. Eight of the jurists were convicted by the Senate and removed from office, while three were acquitted and three resigned.

[MyOwnPeace]

5. HOW could one be incompetent?

Didn't our illustrious Senate fairly and fully evaluate their qualifications before granting them their life-time positions?

[Mike 03]

8. Sometimes pressure can come from within the court, IIRC

I think it's in Woodward's book The Brethren, co-authored with Scott Armstrong. It's been a long time since I read it, but Justice William O. Douglas, who was a very great liberal but eccentric justice, suffered a serious stroke (and maybe more than one, I can't remember) that rendered him barely able to do his work. It affected his motor and cognitive function and his ability to speak coherently and sensibly. Reporters who covered the court noticed it too. He did try to stay on, perhaps too long, but in the end wasn't he pressured to leave from within the court?

The reason I raise this is because if Justice Barrett turns out to be incompetent, Chief Justice Roberts isn't going to want to preside over the court that brings down the reputation of the SCOTUS. Same for if Kavanaugh is a raging alcoholic, or becomes unable to function. I still think there's an outside chance for something like that to happen, where the Chief Justice gets together with other justices and says, "We can't have the court be in this shape, we have to do something, for the sake of the institution."

Impeachment is hard because it takes two thirds of the Senate.

Now could Kavanaugh be indicted for perjury or sexual assault, and be brought down purely as a criminal matter? I don't know. We can always hope.

(It's pretty remarkable that we are having this conversation about the SCOTUS).

Please, DUers who know this story better please jump in and correct any mistakes re: Justice Douglas.