Impeachment isn't just peach fuzz

It all makes sense to make sure we have an independent judiciary. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't have had rulings like Marbury v. Madison, or even Nixon v. US.

Yet I think that this must be an entirely separate issue from the "impeachment of civil officers" for a few reasons.

First, as we've seen discussed in the fed papers, the founders were definitely concerned about the separation of powers and the balance of powers. They were aware that if any one branch received all the powers, the result would be tyranny. Hence, the concept of checks and balances is adopted. Adopting a system of checks and balances in turn, means that each of the branches have a horizontal rather than vertical relationship with each other. In other words, no one branch is higher than another. [There is no "top" or "bottom" on a horizontal line.]

Second, the founders recognized the judiciary as the "weakest branch." The primary reasoning behind this view was the lack of legislative ability, or enforcement power, of the judiciary. At least, that's the way it was for the first hundred years or so.

Recently, we’ve studied cases in which the judiciary misinterprets (either deliberately or through misallocation of logical skills) past precedent and grants itself greater powers than its original purpose. This has been identified by general consensus as an abuse of office.

So the question is this: Did the founders consider or install any means whatsoever whereby the other branches could effectively check the abuse of office by the judiciary?

Coercion through money or jail are out of the question because it is completely unethical. Even though Congress sets the salary, they can't deliberately lower the salary of a justice to get him to cooperate with their demands.

Impeachment, then is the method by which a violations must be dealt with.

We also know that when a senator or congressman abuses his office by either not representing the people or conduct that compromises his office, he is voted out or is impeached.

When a president abuses his office, the legislative branch can call for an impeachment of his person. The executive branch’s check is both legislative (the power to over-ride a veto) and the judiciary (the power to rescind exec orders).

Simply because the justices were not specifically mentioned in the constitution as impeachable does not preclude the capability.

Even though the Supreme Court was originally supposed to try impeachment cases (and therefore could not try be charged with trying one of its own members) is also not a reason for denying a punishment for an over-active judiciary.

First, these arguments directly contradict the very methodical and logical set-up of checks and balances found within our constitution. Why institute checks and balances and then exclude one branch from the system of accountability by making them immune to impeachment?

A justice who is aware he could be impeached for an abuse of office would tread more carefully in areas that he (or the very rare “she”) would consider “gray.”

Second, the constitution directly provides for the impeachment of justices for an abuse of office.

Did the founders consider or install any means whatsoever whereby the other branches could effectively check the abuse of office by the judiciary?

The answer to my first question, I believe, is a resounding “yes.”

What, then, qualifies as "an abuse of office?"

According to the Constitution, an abuse of office would constitute: "Treason, high crimes and misdemeanors."

We all know what treason is, so I’ll start with crime. We normally think of it as a simple violation of law.

So if we catch a justice in black robes robbing Patrick Henry College professors of their red pens...It's just a bit ludicrous to assume men so qualified capable of committing such blatantly obvious crimes.

A misdemeanor, then, is where our attention must be focused.

Webster’s 1828 defines:

MISDEME'ANOR, n. Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.

1. In law, an offense of a less atrocious nature than a crime. Crimes and misdemeanors are mere synonymous terms; but in common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors.

Technically misdemeanor and crime are synonymous. But note Webster’s explanation of the usage; he lets us know that a misdemeanor is typically used to describe an action that is less offensive than an outright crime.

Also, under the definition of crime, Webster details the action committed in order for a misdemeanor to result:

“But in a more common and restricted sense, a crime denotes an offense, or violation of public law, of a deeper and more atrocious nature; a public wrong; or a violation of the commands of God, and the offenses against the laws made to preserve the public rights; as treason, murder, robbery, theft, arson, &c. The minor wrongs committed against individuals or private rights, are denominated trespasses, and the minor wrongs against public rights are called misdemeanors.

Crimes and misdemeanors are punishable by indictment, information or public prosecution; trespasses or private injuries, at the suit of the individuals injured. But in many cases an act is considered both as a public offense and a trespass, and is punishable both by the public and the individual injured.”

While a crime would entail a direct offense against "the laws made to preserve the public rights," references to a misdemeanor would be an indirect offense against the public rights.

Based upon the evidence, the conclusion is quite simple.
Justices can be impeached for abuse of office.

If this is truly the case, why is it that no one has the courage to do so?