FOLLOWING ON THE POST TITLED "CORRECTION"

Here is what that part states:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Here are two points in support of my original taking from the above that those in the judiciary only hold their offices during good Behavior.

The first one comes from keeping focus on the intention of that section. The constitution was in the constructing mode while making that good Behaviour statement. Therefore one can assume that the reference to the holding of offices was about the whole holding of offices. It was not in the process of talking about reacting to a good or bad Behaviour of a judge.  

The second point is about how if the good Behaviour part allows continuous holding of offices while violating it then why a diminishing in compensation is not allowed? It does not make sense to allow both the keeping and removal from office when committing a violation to the good behaviour requirement but forbid a diminishing in compensation as a middle point in between. That means "Continuance in Office" at the end was used interchangeably with "good Behaviour" which imply that judges can hold offices only during good Behaviour which imply that removing them from office when they violate the  "good Behaviour" requirement is a constitutional obligation and not a matter of choice.