Agreed - it's clear he's just trying to throw out something to take the heat off. I hope that this particular mangling of the Constitution will backfire on him, because even a first year law student would find the argument facetious and self-serving at best, and it gives his critics further fuel to not only attack his position as justice, but grounds to call for disbarment.

You're damn right he's not arguing in good faith! 100%!

Absolutely the case. The fact is that if no one enforces it, it doesn't matter if it's true. The first step to get people to not enforce it is to believe it wasn't that way to start with. So the argument then becomes moot unless people can be convinced of the opposite which the Republican base only believes the GQP. So essentially this is an attempt to weaken democracy and drive a soft-coup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_coup Essentially what the GQP has been trying to do all along is drive us to a soft coup and Trump was just the most vocal stepping stone in a long series of stepping stones. Essentially put people in places of power that will only represent the GQP's interests and start to erode any power the government has in correcting those people in power.

We are going to keep seeing autocracy rise in the world and the USA is going to likely be one the first major powers of the West to fall into it. It's more than inevitable since no one is talking about this future. No one is talking about democratic backsliding in the world. There are more autocracies in the world now than in the last 100 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding

Good behavior is generally used to justify lifetime tenure as a judge, unless impeached.

However, the Constitution does not guarantee lifetime tenure on the SCOTUS itself. Nothing prevents Congress from requiring a Justice to transfer to a lower court after, say, 18 years on the SCOTUS.

That's not true, it says the Supreme Court AND inferior courts

Except that it's never worked that way throughout the history of United States.

The Supreme Court itself is established by an act of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Congress has always had the power to not only set the number of justices (last paragraph on that link), but to impeach them as well.

A misplaced comma doesn't trump 240 years of legal precedent, no matter how much Alioto might wish it did.

And SCOTUS is allowed to pick whichever interpretation they like.

Yeah... this was my first thought when I read it. Very unfortunate and ambiguous phrasing.

No, they do not stand corrected because what they wrote was correct, not corrected by someone else

You stand corrected when you make a statement and someone says no, it’s xyz. You stand corrected, acknowledging your mistake

You joke but it is true. The justices on the court can be impeached, and their regulation is legislation, in that the court has to uphold the law unless it conflicts with the constitution, that's the mechanism, they can't be directly compelled.