Public sentiment is predominantly negative regarding the judicial appointment process in India, with many expressing frustration over perceived corruption, nepotism, and political influence. While there is an appreciation for educational content explaining legal concepts, the overall sentiment leans toward a demand for significant reforms to ensure transparency, independence, and accountability in the judiciary.

Supreme Court of India

Indian Government

Political Parties

You could do the same with Alito and Roberts. You can treat the good behavior clause as treating the law in good faith and they have not

Aelia_M

What the hell does "good behavior" mean?!

Look at my country's Constitution dawg! How did we survive for this long!!?

1isOneshot1

What's weird is that there are no requirements of age or even any law experience (let alone even going to an accredited law school). So if Trump wanted to, he could nominate a kindergartener to the Supreme Court. Granted, the nominee's age and lack of law experience alone would be enough for him to not get confirmed, but still.

Some1inreallife

Justices can be impeached. I interpret "good behavior" as just an allusion to the Supreme Court impeachment process.

pavilionaire2022

with enough legalistic finesse you can do literally anything you want but thats never been the limiting factor for liberals

artboiii

You need 66 senators to impeach a SC Justice.

crystal_castles

While I agree with your sentiment, there are no dems currently in power that would have bravado and tenacity to do that.

DicipleofMedea

Nobody beyond crackpots thinks that "good behavior" means anything without Congressional impeachment/conviction. You can't just Michael Scott declare them in bad behavior.

JQuilty

"... in 1804 Jeffersonian Republicans attempted to remove Supreme Court Chief Justice Samuel Chase, who they viewed as openly partisan and biased against their party.[^(10)](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-10-2-3/ALDE_00000686/#ALDF_00014187) The allegations against Chief Justice Chase included that he acted in an arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust manner at trial, misapplied the law, and expressed partisan political views to a grand jury.[^(11)](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-10-2-3/ALDE_00000686/#ALDF_00014188) The attempt failed, and Congress has never removed a federal judge for disagreement with the law’s application or because of difference in political views. Based on this historical practice, the good behavior standard arguably guards against the removal of a federal judge for disagreement with the law’s interpretation or political disagreements."

source : [https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-10-2-3/ALDE\_00000686/](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-10-2-3/ALDE_00000686/)

Cancer85pl

We use a printing press for Supreme Court filings so we don’t waste paper and they ensure it’s done correctly. Might be worth looking into for the future!

Dwight_K_Snoot51

I had to do this with the state level Supreme Court in my state relatively recently. I was so irritated by the fact that they require it to be BOUND in literal books before being sent. It was like 800 pages of crap that had to be printed on paper of a higher weight (almost cardstock) and bound with literal plastic sheeting and color coordinated Covers.

Lonely_Safe4942

detabudash

Good for you! Another feather on your cap!

Local_gyal168

I would fix the mistake, follow the instructions on the filing, and resubmit. Also, call up there. They will tell you how to file if you ask, but nobody asks.

psychocat12

like others when we have done SCOTUS filings we use a vendor who prints, checks, and binds the briefs for us. It’s still an annoying process but so much easier than when we do Circuit briefs and I have to spend a whole day over a hot binding machine putting together excerpts of record

mayinherstep

I’m pretty sure you need to file a motion for permission of some sort to go over the page allotment.   If you didn’t get an order granting permission to go over the page limit it will just get rejected again

Any_Marketing_9746

Call the Clerk's office.  Always ask the Clerks.  They are there to help you do it correctly. It saves them and you a lot of time and anxiety.

Even-Froyo46

Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.

We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.

Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1egr45w/rsupremecourt_rules_resources_and_meta_discussion/).


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

The courts are not part of the executive branch, so even the most maximalist version of unitary executive theory does not permit the President to fire them.

Dave_A480

There really is no argument that the President can constitutionally remove a Supreme Court Justice, or any Art. III judge, from office. He cannot. Impeachment by Congress is the sole method of removal and this is clear from the plain text of the Constitution, and even Prakash and Smith, who are wildly off base IMO, don't say that the President can just inherently fire judges without an act of Congress.

The President claiming that he has unilaterally "fired" a Supreme Court Justice would itself be an impeachable offense - for the President - because there is no reason to claim such a power except to undermine the separation of powers and destroy the Constitution. And because of its indisputable unconstitutionality this is not much of a hypothetical without a discussion of the consequences, and that's not really a legal discussion but a political one. Discussions of its "legality" at that point would serve only to obfuscate an obviously unconstitutional power grab which if successful would end our system of government.

Duck_Potato

[deleted]

POTUS cannot be prosecuted nor investigated for official acts. As long as whatever he does to remove a Justice he doesn’t like can be classified as an “official act” then yes he could fire them and remove them himself. 

At least that is the practical reality that SCOTUS would have to deal with if they found themselves on the wrong end of an official act by a unitary executive that believes they can order whatever baseless investigation and order a prosecutor to bring even the most baseless indictment. Official acts are immune. 

(I don’t believe this to be true BUT if SCOTUS really wants to stand by their theories then what I said is accurate)

Informal_Distance

I have a third counter-argument (and I think it's better than the hand-wavey SOP one). Consider the example of Judge Harry Claiborne. He was convicted and went to prison, but planned to return to the bench once he'd served his time.

Congress impeached him before he could do this - but suppose impeachment had failed and he returned to service. Would he not then be "holding office in good behaviour" again?

If you accept that someone can return to "good behaviour", then the fact judges are guaranteed office **during** good behaviour means the president can't simply fire them for bad behaviour! "During" doesn't require or imply contiguity.

DooomCookie

We have a clear and present statute dictating the removal of judges, the “so difficult that it may as well be irrelevant” impeachment process

History and tradition doesn’t support a second hidden one

Also, any firing will have to be evaluated by the people you are firing unless you are willing to enforce it through force of arms

Which is only as enforceable as you remain in office

magistrate-of-truth

&gt;	The Supreme Court stated in Ex Parte Hennen
(1839) that the "sound and necessary rule, to consider the power of removal as incident to the power of appointment"

However, the President only has the sole power to *nominate* Supreme Court justices. The present only gets to *appoint* a Supreme Court justice with the advice and consent of Congress. 

So before we even get to the arguments about impeachment and good behavior, the President can’t claim a a sole power to remove as being incident to a sole power of appointment that he doesn’t have.

JohnLockeNJ

No. Of course not. The mechanism for determining whether a justice is not acting with "good behavior" has long and uniformly been understood to be the process of impeachment.

Or simply put, even if the president tries to argue otherwise, the final arbiter of the Constitution is SCOTUS, and you'd likely have the fastest 8-0 decision against the executive in history.

JustafanIV

No, President doesn’t oversee the judicial branch

soldiernerd

No, they are a separate branch. Congress could impeach them if you want to remove. 

Mannipx

Please remember to follow all of our rules. Use the report function to report any rule-breaking comments.

Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Anything “lifetime” in democracy is just wrong. Prove me otherwise.

Basic-Still-7441

Oh look, another one of President Musk's alt accounts.

She did her job in helping to overturn Roe v. Wade, in their 100 yard dash to confirm her they probably did not vet anything beyond that.

Ok_Primary_1075

So if they're using language like "compromised", I guess they're just openly admitting that they have a malicious agenda now, instead of the deflecting and denying they've done so far.

Leilanee

She’s compromised all right but not for the reasons that idiot thinks.

Behndo-Verbabe

I’m starting to think ACB played Trump and his minions.

badpuffthaikitty

They may as well be the kings and queens of "democracy"

BackkickyourFace

Funny how Archie DeBunker's objection is really "I thought she was 100% compromised, but she might actually be slightly less compromised than that."

brian_hogg

Yeah, of all the cons, *she's* the compromised one.

TelenorTheGNP

She obviously a compromised American....she has a vagina...

aussiechickadee65

If she's not a mindless person then she's not Maga?

timpatry

I thinks its more to do with having a sitting president to go round changing laws because it dosent suit them etc and having a more balanced bench

Additional_Lynx7597

kyuss242

The Constitution doesn’t say the Supreme  Court is a lifetime appointment. Trump should remove ACB as an embarrassingly bad pick made in error.

UtahBrian

TheLastMonarchist

Pretoriaboytjie

The Supreme Court of India is deliberating on the eligibility of judicial officers with prior bar experience for district judge positions.

Supreme Court Judicial Appointments

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want