I've often thought there should be a lifetime three strikes rule for any judge overturned on constitutional grounds. If a judge doesn't follow the constitution in their rulings, three strikes and they're out! No impeachment needed.
Only problem with that approach is when lib supreme court justices start making up new interpretations for what is constitutional and what is not - - so is there a legal-eagle anon out there that can lib proof this concept into reasonable legislation that won't be turned back on conservatives? This has to apply only to decisions that violate strict constructionist view of constitutionality.
Understand the motivation behind a "one-strike and you are out" mentality, but some cases are just so complicated and tangled, and in order to balance all sides in a decision, multiple and conflicting constitutional grounds may need to be weighed and a decision made for the greater good, or the stronger argument. In such cases, a judge should not be in career jeopardy in the event a higher court does not weigh the options in the exact same ways. That is why I think a three strike rule needs to be put into place. That way, lib judges that try to legislate or be the chief executive from the bench will hit their third strike rather quickly or finally learn after strike two, not following the constitution again will be a FAFO moment. Since judges are human and subject to mistakes from time to time, even a good strict constructionist judge may make a mistake from time to time. Give them a chance to recover and keep doing good work.