A real judiciary committee chair would hold hearings on Roberts' health. Clearly, the dude has some kind of brain issue. He's had seizures. And none of his logic makes sense, even if you're a leftist. The dude is either compromised or brain damaged. Obviously now is not the time to remove and replace a CJ of SCOTUS when you have another brain dead resident to appoint the replacement. But it warrants a serious look.
Given that the power to impeach a sitting SCOTUS justice is more or less implied in the Constitution (they serve "during good behavior") I don't know why an argument could not be made that having some medical issue precluding effectuating the job is not "good behavior." Only the president/vice-president and civil officers have a much more defined criteria in the Constitution for what they can be impeached and removed for. Judges have a way more open ended criteria.
A real judiciary committee chair would hold hearings on Roberts' health. Clearly, the dude has some kind of brain issue. He's had seizures. And none of his logic makes sense, even if you're a leftist. The dude is either compromised or brain damaged. Obviously now is not the time to remove and replace a CJ of SCOTUS when you have another brain dead resident to appoint the replacement. But it warrants a serious look.
Given that the power to impeach a sitting SCOTUS justice is more or less implied in the Constitution (they serve "during good behavior") I don't know why an argument could not be made that having some medical issue precluding effectuating the job is not "good behavior." Only the president/vice-president and civil officers have a much more defined criteria in the Constitution for what they can be impeached and removed for. Judges have a way more open ended criteria.