Federalist #78

Questions for Hamilton:

1. If there is a conflict between the executive and legislative branch, would the judicial branch be able to step in to help solve the problem?
2. Do justices have any other responsibilities besides interpreting the law and deciding court cases?
3. We often say the power resides with the people, so do people have the power to control justices as well (though they are appointed by the executive branch)?
4. Is there a process justices go through if they are removed from their position, or are they just stripped from their power and they leave?
5. Do their political beliefs affect their decisions in court cases (if they are conservative vs. liberal)?

"...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them." This seems to limit the judicial branch's power of their actions. Because he includes "always", does he imply that the judicial branch may never be as involved in the government, as the executive and legislative branch?

"...all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior." What would you consider "good behavior"? This may be difficult to judge, for there is no fine line to distinguish good from bad (though there are obvious good and bad actions one may have done).

"It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." Because Hamilton believes the judicial branch is weakest of the three, it sounds as if they must rely on the executive branch to protect themselves. Though I wonder if Hamilton says this literally or about a judges's decisions.

"It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people." Because members of the judicial branch are appointed by the president, do the people have any say or power over the judicial branch as well?

"To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Could a judge be chosen for a certain case because of the way they view/interpret the Constitution? What if there is a case a judge doesn't know how to deal with because there are no precedents to base their decision off of?