105

I DON'T KNOW WHY WOULD ONE READ "hold their Offices during good Behaviour" IN THE CONSTITUTION AND TAKE FROM IT MORE EMPHASIZE ON HOLDING THE OFFICE PART THAN THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR PART TO JUSTIFY THE LEVEL OF NOT GOOD BEHAVIOUR REQUIRED TO REMOVE A JUDGE FROM OFFICE WE SEE IN IMPLEMENTING THE QUOTE ABOVE? WHAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION SUGGESTS TO THE READER THIS LOVE  BY THE FRAMERS FOR A DICTATORSHIP LIKE SYSTEM IN THE JUDICIARY WHERE JUDGES CAN DO CLEARLY INTENTIONAL WRONGS WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES?

TO ME READING THE QUOTE ABOVE MAKES ME SEE THOSE TWO THINGS GO HAND IN HAND TOGETHER IN THE DEPTH OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR AND THE CONTINUITY IN OFFICE.

ACTUALLY, IF ANYTHING, THERE SEEMS TO BE MORE EMPHASIZE ON THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR PART. THINK ABOUT WHY THE QUOTE ABOVE WAS PRECEDED BY "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts," INSTEAD OF JUST "THE JUDGES"? WHAT DO YOU THINK WAS A MORE PROBABLE REASON TO EMPHASISE THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE ON BOTH? WAS IT A POTENTIAL DIFFERENT TREATMENT IN CONTINUITY IN OFFICE OR A DIFFERENT TREATMENT IF THEY DO LESS THAN GOOD BEHAVIOUR? IF CONGRESS WANTS TO CHANGE JUDGES AT THE SUPREME COURT TO GET SOME INTERPRETATION TO THE CONSTITUTION OR LAW THE WAY IT LIKES THE JUDGES OF THAT COURT CAN IMMEDIATELY SAY THAT IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION EVEN IF THE PART "THE JUDGES" WAS NOT FOLLOWED BY WHAT CAME BETWEEN THE TWO COMMAS. FURTHERMORE, CONGRESS COULD GET THOSE SAME INTERPRETATIONS IT LIKES  BY ADDING ENOUGH JUDGES OF THE TYPE WHO WOULD VOTE THE WAY IT LIKES. IF THAT WAS MORE THE CONCERN FOR THE FRAMERS BEHIND MAKING THE PART BETWEEN THE TWO COMMAS, WHY DIDN'T THEY SPECIFY A NUMBER FOR SUPREME COURT JUDGES PREVENTING ADDITION TO IT?