1148: The good Behaviour requirement

 What is this? How do you people accept for yourself such a baseless interpretation for this clause? And they talk about a debate on this issue while the best I can see for the other side is the high crime clause which does not limit the reason for impeachments but simply says that if you impeach for those reasons you no longer can keep the impeached in office. The good Behaviour means what it says which is very far from being limited to that. How could you people allow yourselves to flip what requires continuous and highly sensitive watching like this to its opposite saying the joke that judges are appointed for life and intending it to mean unconditionally? And how does your understanding fit the makers of and other things in the writ? So after all the arrangements they did for congress and the president to have democracy they said we took enough care of the people let us make the judges fixed for life no matter what they do as long as they do not commit those high crimes? Do you also think fish live in the desert? Yes, it is not necessary to remove a judge for Behaviour that is not good but whatever follow from that Behaviour would not count as being from the judicial authority and this is the top focus of the clause: justice and good treatment for the people. 

While misinterpreting the second amendment had much worse consequences, this is much worse in being taken with directly contradicting what it says. It is like directing someone to go east but that person follows that by going not even south east or north east but 180 degree to the west. And just like how we distinguish between stating opinion and being a witness, there is no reason to exclude the ruling judges make from this requirement if it can be applied.

And, again, regardless of their scope, what made this 

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.

understood as limiting the reasons for impeachment to the categories it mention? 

People! give me something to argue against. It is all empty here!

I have just compared above the level of diverting from what is required in interpreting the second amendment to that of the good Behaviour clause and this takes that to the worst possible level. I cannot take it but as simply lying, and that should not be done at least because it is intentional false accusation to those who made the writ.