The United States federal judiciary was designed to be independent, impartial, and committed to upholding the Constitution. However, in recent decades, the judiciary—particularly certain circuits—has increasingly shown signs of political bias rather than adherence to the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit, for example, has long been notorious for having an overwhelming percentage of its rulings overturned by the Supreme Court. When judges are consistently overruled, it raises a fundamental question: Are they interpreting the law correctly, or are they legislating from the bench based on political ideology?
This article makes the case for a system of congressional oversight and impeachment for federal judges who demonstrate a pattern of political bias or constitutional disregard. It is time to reevaluate lifetime judicial appointments and implement mechanisms to remove judges who fail to uphold the Constitution impartially.
The Overturn Rate: A Symptom of Judicial Activism
One of the most glaring examples of judicial activism can be seen in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Historically, this court has had an extremely high reversal rate at the Supreme Court level, with estimates in certain years ranging between 70% and 90%. While some argue that reversal rates alone do not prove bias, the consistent trend over decades suggests a deeper issue. If a judge or a court consistently misinterprets the law in ways that require correction by a higher authority, it stands to reason that those judges are either incompetent or are deliberately ignoring legal precedent to advance a political agenda.
The Constitution provides Congress with a check on the judiciary—impeachment. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence of judicial bias, impeachment of federal judges remains exceedingly rare. This needs to change.
The Founders’ Intent: An Independent but Accountable Judiciary
The Founding Fathers were deeply concerned about the potential for judicial overreach. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, emphasized that the judiciary must be the “least dangerous” branch, holding “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” The judiciary’s power comes from its ability to interpret the law, not to create it. Yet, when judges allow personal ideology to dictate rulings rather than strict adherence to constitutional law, they effectively seize legislative power and undermine the separation of powers.
James Madison and other framers built in a mechanism to hold judges accountable: impeachment. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” The phrase “good Behaviour” has historically been interpreted to mean that judges can be removed for misconduct, corruption, or inability to perform their duties impartially.
Criteria for Impeachment: Defining Judicial Misconduct and Bias
While impeachment should not be wielded lightly, there must be clear criteria for determining when a judge has violated the public trust. Here are the key indicators that should warrant congressional review and potential impeachment:
- Consistently High Reversal Rates – If a judge’s rulings are overturned at a rate far exceeding the national average, it signals a failure to correctly interpret the law. A pattern of reversal suggests incompetence or intentional judicial activism.
- Repeated Overreach Beyond Constitutional Authority – When judges repeatedly legislate from the bench rather than interpret the law, they exceed their constitutional role.
- Demonstrated Political Bias in Rulings – A history of one-sided rulings favoring a particular political ideology over legal precedent should raise red flags.
- Publicly Expressed Political Views Contrary to Judicial Neutrality – Judges who openly express partisan opinions or engage in political activism should be subject to review.
- Failure to Adhere to Precedent – A judge who repeatedly disregards established legal precedent in favor of ideological rulings undermines the stability of the legal system.
A congressional oversight committee should be established to review the records of all federal judges and evaluate them based on these factors.
Restoring Trust: A System for Reviewing and Removing Biased Judges
To maintain the integrity of the judiciary, Congress must implement a systematic review process for federal judges. This process should include:
- Regular Performance Reviews by Congress – Judges should be required to undergo periodic reviews to assess their adherence to constitutional law and judicial precedent.
- Public Reporting of Reversal Rates and Bias Indicators – Transparency is key. The public should have access to statistical data on each judge’s reversal rates and trends in their rulings.
- Mandatory Congressional Hearings for Judges with High Overturn Rates – Any judge with an excessive number of Supreme Court reversals should be required to testify before Congress and justify their record.
- A Formalized Impeachment Process for Biased Judges – If a judge is found guilty of repeated bias or unconstitutional rulings, Congress must initiate impeachment proceedings. The process should be streamlined to ensure that unfit judges are removed efficiently.
Thoughts: A Judiciary That Serves the Constitution, Not Politics
The judiciary was never intended to be a political weapon. Judges who prioritize ideology over the Constitution betray their duty and should not be allowed to remain on the bench. The Supreme Court’s repeated reversals of lower court decisions—especially those from highly politicized circuits—demonstrate that judicial activism has run rampant.
Congress must act. Judicial oversight and impeachment should not be rare occurrences but a necessary check to ensure the judiciary remains faithful to the Constitution. Federal judges who routinely have their decisions overturned, who legislate from the bench, or who show clear political bias should be held accountable. The time for action is now. The integrity of the American legal system depends on it.
