and he was acquitted. That was in 1805. While Gorsuch may have been the beneficiary of the Senate GOP's dirty dealings, he, personally, hasn't done anything that would warrant impeachment. He is likely to write very conservative opinions like Scalia's, and we'll hate them, but that isn't grounds for impeachment either.

Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes. If you can get a majority of the House and a 2/3 vote of the Senate, you can impeach. As to what is "high crimes and misdemeanors," you could argue that Gorsuch's complicity in the actions of Senate are far more consequential than Bill Clinton lying about infidelity.

so they could get a conservative justice (and then blow up the filibuster to do it), are the bad actions of the Senate and not those of Gorsuch. If somebody's going to be impeached, the impeachment has to be based on the misconduct of that person, not on an abuse of the process by which he was appointed. I'm not talking about criminal procedure, but the grounds for impeaching a justice are the same as for a president: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." I don't see how Gorsuch can be accused of any of those things. Impeachment and removal of any federal judge is extremely rare and usually involves very bad behavior. The most recent instance was in 1989, and it involved a federal judge in Mississippi who was impeached and convicted for lying under oath to investigators; he falsely denied helping the son of a business partner avoid being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

Gorsuch. I don't think blocking Garland from a hearing are grounds for impeachment.

However, if the investigation of trump reveals collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election, and trump is either impeached or forced to resign, maybe that might be grounds to remove Gorsuch

Just my two cents

Just as the public didn't get outraged enough at the blocking of Garland to compel any action on the part of the repubs , there isn't and won't be enough public outrage at the confirmation of Gorsuch to compel any action by Democrats to remove him, even assuming the Democrats could do so, which they most decidedly cannot and will not be able to do. Without 67 votes to convict, it would be a pointless exercise, even assuming the Democrats capture control of the House, which is still highly speculative at this point.

And that's all apart from the fact that Gorsuch didn't do anything to warrant impeachment and the republicans stall on Garland, while odious as hell, wasn't unconstitutional.

It looks they can't be removed except for bad behavior... in which case SCALIA should have been removed for his blatant bastardization of the Constitution.

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.

He was just confirmed. There's not going to be an impeachment by this Congress, for sure. Since Congress has to do any impeachment proceedings, I can't imagine that happening by the same Congress that just confirmed him.

But there might be a movement to teach people the difference between there and their.