Should Congress make it easier to remove federal judges for misconduct on the bench?
Until recently, that question was only academic because the problem didn't arise very often. So far, only seven federal judges have ever been removed from office.But three of those cases arose during the past decade. And now two more federal judges could soon find their heads on the chopping block - U.S. District Judge Robert Collins of Louisiana, who is serving a six-year sentence for bribery, and U.S. District Judge Robert Aguilar of California, who was sentenced to six months in prison in 1990 for obstructing justice through the unauthorized disclosure of a government wiretap.
Even after federal judges have been convicted of serious crimes, they can be removed only through impeachment, a costly and time-consuming process that requires indictment by the U.S. House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote by the U.S. Senate.
That's why Congress set up the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal three years ago and told it to find a more expeditious way of removing federal judges.
Now the commission has completed a draft of its report and, to the dismay of some members of Congress, the panel is recommending only minor changes in the current system.
Mainly, the commission calls for the House to open investigations immediately after a judge is convicted, instead of waiting until all court appeals are exhausted. In addition, the panel recommends that Congress obtain all relevant factual information from the investigation and criminal trial to avoid needlessly duplicating work.
Instead, some lawmakers want to give Congress a blank check and authorize the legislative branch to do as it sees fit by providing alternative methods for removing unfit judges.
Are the changes proposed by judicial discipline and removal panel too modest? Not really.
Keep in mind that the requirement for removing federal judges only through impeachment is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. Any major change in that process would require a constitutional amendment, itself a long and costly undertaking.
Keep in mind that the framers of the Constitution made it hard to remove federal judges not as a favor to the judges but as a means of making this nation's courts impartial by making them independent.
Keep in mind, too, that the purpose of keeping the federal courts independent is not for the benefit of the judges but for the benefit of the judged.
These principles ought to be readily apparent to all the men and women who make this nation's laws. But when even these top leaders start trying to bend the rules on impeachment, it should be clear that a refresher course is in order on the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution.