1167: The good Behaviour requirement-7

                                        (Added November 7, 2025)

 As mentioned in my book, the comma separation of a subject or object from its verb requires handling the separated from its mere thought and that implies that its existence beyond that should be limited to no more than what its concept requires.  Applying that to "the judicial Power" excludes empowerment of the specific identities of judges for it is not part of the concept but just a consequence to having the latter acquires beyond mere thought existence. And since the good Behaviour referred to at the end of the paragraph is about what the latter has started with, what count on Congress except for that stated prohibition on diminishing salaries is how cases get dealt with, not the affect on the Judges in itself. 

 The second correction related to that comma separation is about the degree to which Congress should be involved in building and maintaining the system. The target of "The judicial Power of the United States" existing according to its pure concept implies that it is complete to the maximum. The good Behaviour requirement should be accommodated toward that end.    

                                  (Added October 7, 2025)

Actually, because unlike "judges", the singleness of each instance of "Judges" does not allow targeting the persons as other than being Judges, the good-Behaviour requirement applies on Congress not with regard to the action of keeping or removing Judges itself but with regard to its consequences. Therefore, good decisions made by bad-fit Judges would also be valid and not null because those persons should not have been in that position to begin with. 

                                       (Added October 3, 2025)

I do not know if Congress can be satisfying its part of the good-Behaviour requirement while leaving in office judges who have done even just a fraction of what was done here, and even if they were not at the highest court and also have the power to refuse cases.

                          (Added September 29, 2025)

The benefits that come from applying this requirement to the individual case are not a substitute to keeping the good judges and removing the bad, especially for the final court with its capability to refuse cases.

                                           (First Posting)   

While we may point at the current time result and say that a ruling is valid-or-not based on the kind of behaviour that brought it, one should not miss how that remains rooted at the way the office handles the issue. That is why if for example a judge issues a ruling in good faith then later a clearly convincing argument contrary to that ruling gets presented, that ruling would not continue to be valid beyond the time needed to change it.