VIEWPOINT: Impeachment clause meant to deter federal judges from misbehavior

Guest column by David Adler, The Alturas Institute

Is the threat of impeachment sufficient to deter Supreme Court Justices from abusing power or engaging in other acts of misbehavior that would warrant their removal from the nation’s High Bench? The Framers of the Constitution thought so, as Alexander Hamilton explained, but many Americans across our nation doubt the premise. Consequently, they have become advocates for Supreme Court reform. Some lobby for an enforceable ethics code, some seek term limits for the Justices, and some argue for an expansion of the size of the Court, primarily to temper its present direction. Others assert the need for all three reforms.

What was it about impeachment that instilled in the minds of delegates to the Constitutional Convention that suggested its availability would constrain the Justices’ behavior? In general, Hamilton explained, the eyes and judgment of the nation would be fixed on those subject to impeachment. Ambition, success and fame- –“one’s public reputation and existence”—were vitally important to the founders, and the moral opprobrium, embarrassment and indignity of impeachment proceedings, including possible removal from office, would impose discipline on the Justices if their own compass failed them.  Impeachment of judges, those in society, as George Washington observed, perceived by the American citizenry to be among the sturdiest and upright among us, carried a particularly harsh stigma, sufficient to ruin careers.

VIEWPOINT | Presidential assassinations can destroy democracy