Justice for life? Maybe not.

"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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." US Constitution, Article 3, Section 1. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec1.html


Now here is a good example of most citizens not knowing what the Constitution says. Justices are not appointed to the Supreme Court for life, nor for any lower court. It is simply not stated thus.

But it brings up a dilemma: because what in the world did our Founding Fathers mean by "good Behavior"? With so much discussion on what the 2nd Amendment means, shouldn't there be even more discussion on what constitutes "good behavior" in a judge?

So if a justice gets drunk and falls asleep during a State of the Union address, is that justice upholding a standard of good behavior befitting a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States?

Or does it mean that if a justice is ruling on how they wish the Constitution was written and not the actual language in the Constitution is that justice acting in "good behavior"? Is judicial activism unconstitutional behavior un-befitting a Supreme Court Justice?

And if the justice has used poor judgement and a President can use said behavior to hold a justice's decision hostage should the justice not be removed?