“the Constitution makes clear that federal judges do not have an absolute or a boundless independence.”
Our reading of Article III’s grant of good behavior tenure may be hard for some to swallow, especially those with muscular conceptions of judicial independence. Others, however, may embrace a more historically grounded and nuanced account of judicial independence. For example, members of Congress recently proposed an independent Inspector General for the judicial branch. Some prominent judges, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have hinted that there is something seriously amiss with this proposal. After all, how can judges remain independent if they stand in constant fear of an Inspector General investigation?
There is nothing constitutionally suspect about government officials investigating allegations of judicial misconduct and then making reports to Congress and the executive branch. Under any reading of the Constitution, the political branches have the authority to investigate and sanction judges. The chambers of Congress can impeach, convict, and remove based on proper evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. And whatever Congress decides, the executive may prosecute any judges whom it believes has violated the law. The proposed Inspector General would merely make it easier to prosecute and convict miscreant judges. Moreover, under our reading of good behavior, information gathered by the Inspector General also could be used to prove in court that a judge had misbehaved and had thereby violated the terms of her tenure.
But what about the cherished independence of federal judges? Too much emphasis has been laid on the independence of judges and not enough on the Constitution’s provisions that promote judicial accountability, which include the grant of life tenure subject to termination for misbehavior. Judges do enjoy a certain type of independence–they cannot be punished for the judgments they issue. But the Constitution makes clear that federal judges do not have an absolute or a boundless independence. If an Inspector General would further judicial accountability, that fact counts in favor of the Inspector General proposal.
I think it’s a good idea to have an Inspector General — and [s]he should be African American or a person of color! Lmao!!
Source: Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith. Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment, 116 Yale L.J. Pocket Part 95, October 18, 2006.
Me Against Iniquity: Understanding the Complexities of Global White Supremacy (Racism) Through The Eyes of an Unapologetically BLACK Intellectual 
Thank you a lot for sharing this with all of us you really understand what you’re talking about! Bookmarked. Kindly additionally consult with my web site =). We could have a link change contract among us
You can definitely see your skills within the paintings you write. The world hopes for more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. All the time go after your heart.
Thank you for this blog. That’s all I can say. You most definitely have made this blog into something thats eye opening and important. You clearly know so much about the subject, youve covered so many bases. Great stuff from this part of the internet. Again, thank you for this blog.”