I think that because of not distinguishing between holding office and just being in office, I probably added unnecessary difficulty in applying this requirement.
What made me notice this is that I could neither see limiting the word "Behaviour" a valid thing to do nor find the difficulty of requiring reappointing and reconfirming at such frequency and how other decisions by the same judge in the mean time would not be supported by the judicial power regardless of how good they could be make sense.
Also, it should not be missed how Behaviour evaluation is relative to the applied scope. For example, if a judge insists on that a litigant submit something within a period of non-trivial difference in being shorter than what the litigant rightfully and clearly deserves then that order would not be supported by the judicial power of the United States, even though when evaluating general performance of that judge such a minor isolated incident may not imply not satisfying the good Behaviour requirement and therefore Congress may not be allowed to remove that judge even if it wants to do that.
Back to supporting the earlier point, the "chosen for the same Term" in A2S1 brings to attention that an official can be occupying a position but not having the powers of that position. There are no extra words in this document. Everything is applied only as needed like a jeweler weighing gold.
No comments:
Post a Comment