(Added July 28, 2025)
Actually, both having the judge lose the judicial power when not satisfying this requirement and the inability to replace the judge when satisfying it follow from that this requirement was part of the paragraph that vests the judicial power. Had it been listed on its own the latter would have not applied either.
(First Posting)
Having a judge lose the judicial power because of not satisfying the good Behaviour clause follows from that this clause is not existing separately but instead it is there as part of the same paragraph that vests the judicial power.
The arrangement I talked about in the earlier post for the reappointment and reconfirmation to occur passively is wrong, and that is because the Senate and the president may differ and are not fixed. So what gives one representation the right to takeaway the right of the other to do the appointment or confirmation?
I now also think that this, depending on the case, may require the impeachment process just like anything where the facts or judging them is unclear. Were there for example a requirement in the writ on Congress to give the people a holiday if the weather is too cold and it was not clear if the current weather fits that or not then resolving that would also need the impeachment process. What hiders this understanding when one reads the definition of "impeach" and "convict" is taking "accuse" and "guilt" in the absolute sense while now I think they should be taken relative to the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment