Conservative (and reactionaries as well), have long complained about judges legislating from the bench, being 'politicians in black robes', and engaging in social engineering. This election cycle though, some of them actually got the right idea and actually did something about it.
Normally conservatives have a huge disadvantage in contests---that being, they tend to try to obey a lot of meta-rules (sometimes they call it 'the spirit of the rule') that aren't actually binding or enforced, or enforceable for that matter. For instance, the notion that you shouldn't just remove judges because you don't like their decisions.
That is the BEST reason to remove a judge.
Let's face it, the notion of strict constructionism, and 'words meaning things' in a legal context is pretty much dead. Didn't Roe v Wade convince you guys of this? There's really only one question to ask in such cases and it's Who...Whom.
What's more, an impeachable offense is merely, what the requisite majority (usually 50%+1 or 2/3, depending on the statute) says it is. You can't bind the guys that actually make the decision to any sort of actual objective standard. You'd be foolish to try. Laws or constitutional provisions forbidding something only are meaningful when the set of people who will obey them when they'd rather not plus those who they protect constitute a majority. I implore you to cease being the last group of people that still play by the 'rules'. Existential matters such as demographic hegemony are on the table.
Writing about Literature Revisited (Coleridge)
13 hours ago